* Let's replace the picture of the building of the collapsed bank with a picture of the new boss in Belgium, Yves Leterme ''(right)''. --[[Special:Contributions/199.71.174.100|199.71.174.100]] ([[User talk:199.71.174.100|talk]]) 21:46, 19 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.
As it currently stands there has been no major updates to the article beyond verb tense changes and one sentence being added to mention his death. Plus this falls into the fun grey area surrounding deaths on ITN. Evil Monkey - Hello22:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Forgive me for being perhaps too presumptuous, but it seems we had a consensus that the deaths criteria are too strict. Therefore, I suggest we proceed as if the deaths criteria has changed and OK the inclusion of the 2001 author. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clark had a singular impact on science fiction as a literary genre and an incomparable penetrative insights into the relationships between society and its technology. Orders of magnitude greater impact and notablity than Minghella. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as he is far more well known than Minghella, and was an integral part of his field, with still-lasting influence. Random8903:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hillary's absence from the ITN newsfeed was controversial at the time, and a number of editors, myself included, think that his death should have been reported. Clarke's death is equally notable, and I support its inclusion, in spite of past precedent. Lovelac703:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support correct orthography. If he's going to be on the Main Page, can we at least spell his name correctly? It's Clarke, with an "E". Koraki (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted (and the spelling was corrected) and it was removed. I'm not going to get into an edit war, so I'll add another support, noting too that there was large support for Hillary, but we are still left with the same old guidelines... --Stephen03:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I count 9 supports and 2 opposes. I don't see why PageantUpdater has the final word on this given the overwhelming consensus from several editors with long-standing activity and familiarity with the ITN rules to promote this news item. Pageant, please see WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Put it back up. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be conflicting reports whether or not he died in a hospital or at home, so let's eschew the detail and just say he died in Colombo. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I didn't vote in the Sir Edmund Hillary discussion, I don't see how a policy prohibiting the inclusion of natural deaths makes sense, and I would have voted to include that death as well. However, I realize this may not be the place to discuss the policy anyway. There seems to be a consensus here, so where is the item? Or have we been overruled by an admin? Newsboy85 (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admins shouldn't get into WP:WHEEL#WARs. However, given the consensus here, I'd say that it's defensible to put it back up. Sorry to call them out explicitly (even though their revision histories are right there!) some regular ITN/C admins include BorgQueen, PFHLai, Aecis, Stephen, and Tone. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't matter whether there is consensus to include him, the article on him still needs to be sufficiently updated for ITN Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He died of old age. If this goes up now, we should expect 20% of ITN items from now on to be obit pieces- certainly Minghella, a multi-Oscar winning director who actually did die suddenly and unexpectedly, should be up there if Clarke is. ITN is not a graveyard. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, that's what recent deaths is for. I fear a precedent will be created to include all dead guys with articles on Wikipedia, with arguments such as "he is equally famous to ______ and should be up there". Unless it's a death with political or social ramnifications (such as the Bhutto and the Iraq bishop assassinations), I'm against including them. - Mtmelendez(Talk)13:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a hard to think of anyone who has had a similar literary, cultural, and technological impact in any one of those fields much less all of them. But I imagine that ITN purists would have probably opposed Dickens, Cary Grant, and Einstein too. Shame. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There might be a consensus that ITN:Deaths should change: there is no consensus that is has changed, or even precisely how it should change. The distinction between expected and unexpected deaths is, I would venture, relevant, as a worthwhile line can be drawn between news (that which has happened which will have a future effect) and reportage(letting people know what has happened and is of general interest, but not consequence). The death of Anthony Minghella will affect some of the films that could expect to have been produced in the next few years: the death of ACC will not prevent him from writing further novels. Kevin McE (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The line between natural and unexpected deaths seems just as arbitrary to me as the line between Arthur C. Clarke and Anthony Minghella. It's just that the former is easier to enforce. That doesn't mean it's better. I will agree Minghella doesn't need to be in ITN. Does this mean there will need to be more discussion on deaths? Yes. Will it make ITN better? If it means the inclusion of people like Sir Edmund Hillary and Arthur C. Clarke, yes. Newsboy85 (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As above, if there needs to be more discussion and exceptions to a general "reasoning" for the death of an "important" person not being ITN-able simply because they didn't die unexpectedly, so be it. If the criteria as they currently stand were taken back a few thousand years to mean that the death of Plato was "non-newsworthy" there's something not quite right, IMHO.
In terms of big-picture newsworthiness, the death of ACC is considerably more important/newsworthy on a global level than David Paterson being promoted just because his boss resigned. Having tracked the popularity of news stories on the BBC various times today, this has been in the top 2-3 in /every/ part of the world and #1 in many/most of their zones; being #1 over the whole BBC news site for 9 hours.
aside: From the way it seems to me, there is possibly a "formatting" issue on the English Wikipedia's front page underlying this. Compare with the German Wikipedia where ACC's death is still "front-page news" because they have a separate small section for recent "important" deaths, regardless of how people have died. This would appear to me to be a better long-term compromise and free-up the ITN section for "non-deaths". Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that this discussion is simply being ignored at this point. What, exactly, is the point of doing this if none of the admins are willing to add the item, no matter how much suppoort is expressed? Newsboy85 (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of counting "support" votes from people who are ignoring the purpose of ITN? I'm not even referring to the controversial death criteria; I'm referring to the requirement that existing articles be substantially updated to reflect the reported event. (This one hasn't been.) —David Levy19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Substantially updated" is not a requirement, just "updated". What more is there to add when someone dies other than date, age, cause and location? --Stephen20:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards Oppose. Was he in a high rank at time of death? No. Was he a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically? I don't think death of old age counts here. Does the death has a major international impact that affects current events? No. SpencerT♦C20:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sorry but that's rubbish. He won an Academy Award, BAFTA and awards from the Directors Guild of America, as well as numerous other nominations. His peers seemed to think that he was "key figure" even if some critics didn't. If he's not a key figure in his field then it's difficult to see how any other director would fit the criteria. Yorkshiresky (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spielberg, Scorcese, Coppola, Woody Allen....Clearly not in that league even remotely. I am ambiguous about this one. I would probably say no though, I think. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC article has more info. The Dalai Lama's reaction seems worth quoting, as well as the increased number of casualties and international criticism. 91.64.31.30 (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the kind of news item that makes ITN great - even though it doesn't receive widespread media coverage it easily meets all the criteria and WP already has excellent articles on it. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow Wall Street, this is mind-blowing: A company that had been profitable since the 1920s losing 96% of its market value over a couple of days. The US Federal Reserve has gone against precedent and taken an active role in the bailout because it fears a domino effect if Bear Stearns falls. This is scary. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this because it emphasizes how unusual the events are. Language that is too loaded with technical terms is indistinguishable to outsiders from business as usual. --Ryan Delaneytalk13:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I don't favor any particular wording. Needless to say, when 5th largest investment bank in America has its value depreciate 99% over a few weeks because of a run on the bank, the Fed takes unprecedented action to stop the fallout by removing any roadblocks for a rival to take it over - it's newsworthy encyclopedic information. Amazing turn events and likely a sign of things worse to come in both the American and world economy. There are some good articles on the related topics: subprime mortgage crisis, bank run, bail out (finance). Madcoverboy (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support any and all wordings. The fact that this isn't up yet is pretty silly. Schumer came out today and said the economy is as bad as before the Great Depression and repeatedly called Bush the next Herbert Hoover. The Fed insured the purchase, which is basically as significant as the nationalization of Northern Rock, which was up a few weeks ago. Any way you slice the pie this is the worst economic indicator since 9/11 or Black Monday in 1987. -- Grant.Alpaugh16:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the reactions to the film are remarkable enough to merit widespread news reports, then those responses might be worthy of inclusion. Promoting a deliberately provocative film upon its release is not the business of ITN. Kevin McE (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There are other films that could qualify in terms of its effects worldwide and this case is not unique. I also agree with Kevin, if there are widespread reactions than, and only then, it should be included.
Oppose Unless countries start filing formal grievances, withdrawing ambassadors, engaging in large-scale protests or boycotts, or explicitly encouraging/condoning violence, then it's just a lot of hot air. Seems like a tempest in a teapot with both some conservatives and "Islamophobes" and the more radical elements of Islamic movements and governments baiting each other to do something stupid. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either way but maybe the wording can say the city of Atlanta. From what little I know that is unheard of inside the heat of a city. -Susanlesch (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 25 tornadoes, not deaths. Freak weather accident incident that would have been not been noted or considered had it not struck the headquarters of a major news network. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. 25 tornadoes in a day is not a big deal. We could have another day like that tomorrow and will have another 5-10 days this year with 25 or more tornadoes. ---CWY2190TC15:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we put up the super-featherweight title, does that mean we will be putting up the new champions of the other sixteen weight classes? On that reason I oppose. ----CWY2190TC17:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boxing is such a difficult sport to have on ITN, because there are as CWY says far too many different classes, added to the fact there are three other major organizations that award titles, which means we're looking at about 70 different titles for the men alone. It's too much of a slippery slope to have just this one out of the blue. Thethinredline (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replies: I don't think anyone really cares about the heavyweight division nowadays; the current talk of the town in boxing is Mayweather (did we put that?) and Pacquiao. As a proof that, the Yahoo homepage featured this on its main page. --HowardtheDuck02:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo featured the iditarod on its page and it still hasn't gone up. I've seen nobody here mention the match, and I don't think the The Plain Dealer has even mentioned it. If we support just because its a different sport, than why didn't the Iditarod go up? SpencerT♦C11:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu Jintao's re-election as President of the People's Republic of China
Of course this role as Paramount leader is one of the most powerful and influential positions in world politics, so the importance of the event is not disputed. Concerns over the length of the news article 11th_National_People's_Congress led to objections to placing it on the main page. As a newcomer I don't mean to overturn convention at In the news, but I'd like to suggest that added visibility on the main page will likely cause the article to be improved, and Hu Jintao serves as a boldface link for the news event itself. --Ryan Delaneytalk02:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until either 11th National People's Congress or Hu Jintao has been properly expanded to provide a reasonable amount of information regarding Hu Jintao's re-election (at which point I will support the item's inclusion). The main page is for readers, not editors. When a reader clicks on one of these links, he/she expects to find a substantial amount of additional information on the subject mentioned in the blurb. This is a worthy topic, but the listing is premature. —David Levy02:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this should go up as Hu Jintao as the bold link - same goes for the other political leaders e.g. Dmitri Medvedev a fortnight back which didn't need a separate news article. Hermant patel (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A separate article certainly isn't required, but the Hu Jintao article contains precisely two sentences about Hu Jintao's re-election (conveying nothing other than the fact that he was re-elected). —David Levy02:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for more certain info. The death toll is not clear and 160 may be far too high. After the article is expanded and more certain, I support. --Tone16:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recalling thirteen people died in Georgia, USA earlier this year in a sugar refinery explosion (sorry I don't recall that they were on the main page). -Susanlesch (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had an article been written on it, then I would certainly have supported it going on ITN (assuming the article itself met the standards) as a majorish disaster. So far as I know, there isn't an article on the sugar refinery explosion - you could start one. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)18:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These protests are definitely notable enough for ITN, I think they should definitely be mentioned, but is there an updated Wikipedia article about these protests? AecisBrievenbus19:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What should be made clear, both in the article and in the ITN blurb, is that these protests are not confined to Tibet/China. Protests have taken place in Nepal and India as well. AecisBrievenbus19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Two people are left dead after rioting in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa, amidst clashes between pro-Tibet protesters and police across South and East Asia." Needs work: something better than "pro-Tibet protesters" would be good, and perhaps a suitable link to the general anti-government movement could be found. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
China confirms the deaths of 10 people and 100 are arrested in Lhasa, the Tibetian capital, during violent demonstrations by Buddhist monks and civilians who are protesting China's rule of Tibet and the hosting of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. Which is too long, maybe: China confirms the deaths of 10 people and 100 are arrested in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, during protests by Buddhist monks and civilians.
How about: "At least ten people are killed in protests by civilians and Buddhist monks in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet." The number of people arrested is too much detail for ITN imo, while "at least" takes the various claims of the number of casualties into consideration. AecisBrievenbus13:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one avoids the confusion, though it's not very informative. It needs to be up on the Main Page, the event has already important international repercussions. It's possible to modify the wording thereafter anyway. Cenarium (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant. First of all, I agree with Joowwww that this is not all that newsworthy from an ITN point of view. Secondly, this new terminal is nothing compared to the terminal that was opened at Beijing airport recently. That terminal alone is bigger than all of Heathrow. On a sidenote, Heathrow is not "arguably the largest airport in the world". Its very big, one of the biggest in the world, but not the biggest. AecisBrievenbus19:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I said arguably because it handles more international traffic then any other airport. It is the largest airport in Europe, as well. It is an international hub. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The article is in good shape and I'd say its sufficiently important and notable given the importance of Heathrow in international travel. Then again, we'd be opening ourselves to the criticism everytime we didn't promote another terminal openening (e.g., Beijing or JFK). However, I do remember some new train station in the UK getting promoted before, but I guess we've all become stingy with the promotions now. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, my nomination was as much for it's architectural notability as it's importance as a transport hub, in that it's scale surpasses any other covered building in the UK. If it was just another terminal than I wouldn't have bothered. Yorkshiresky (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much of a niche sport i think. Just because this might be the world championship/most prestigious race doesn't mean it should automatically deserve to be on ITN. Secondly i think its a travesty that we credit only the human when its the dogs that did all the work. Thethinredline (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree it is a niche sport, but it is well-publicized and has international participation. The Iditarod article is likewise in very good shape—I think it's a great item to feature. In any case, humans in the Iditarod do more work than the "athletes" in NASCAR, F1, GT, and the like which are featured often enough.Madcoverboy (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic slightly, but I think you underestimate the amount of stress an F1 driver's body goes under during a race, not to mention things like fluid loss. Anywho, I'm completely ignorant about dog sledding, so neutral. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A storied sporting event. Coverboy, there has never been a NASCAR story on ITN that I can remember. The only F1 story I remember what the McLarren scandal. ---CWY2190TC01:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm pretty sure we had the F1 champions both 2007 and 2006 (there was no way we were going to miss Schumacher retiring anyway), probably before that as well, and well we should have. This one, I dunno, I remain neutral Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely this is not one of the ~6 most important headlines in the world right now. I know this event is well-known, but I doubt it is well-followed by the world and the Iditarod article says only about 50 mushers participate in the event. If this were something like the Olympics or World Cup I would support inclusion, but this race seems too "regional" with not enough notability. Dwr12 (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have to agree with the above. Yes, the event is notable and popular. Notable and popular enough for a Wikipedia article, but not notable and popular enough for ITN, imo. Nil Einne is right about F1, btw. We've covered the world champions of 2006 (with a reference to Schumi's retirement) and 2007 (with a reference to Stepneygate). AecisBrievenbus13:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Wide-spread coverage" is not a criteria for inclusion or exclusion. The current template includes news items almost a week old, items that never made it to any front page but are of definite encyclopedic interest (space and science stories), and still other items that appeared nowhere on the front page of your favorite newspaper (national elections in Malta). What then, exactly is "ITN notability and popularity"? While it's an imperfect science what we do here, don't make any appeals to non-existent criteria to justify a decision—judge the nomination on its merits and the ITN criteria, not in relation to previous precedent or informal rules.Madcoverboy (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according to [9] "Mackey also would make history with a second Iditarod win. Last year he became the first musher to record back-to-back wins in the Yukon Quest International Sled Dog Race and the Iditarod. Mackey also won his fourth consecutive Yukon Quest last month and is trying to repeat last year's double win." SpencerT♦C16:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The subject was in a high ranking office of power at the time of death and appears to have died tragically. His disappearance has been widely publicized, and the conflict in Iraq is about as notable as it gets. All in all, a significant development in a notable conflict. AecisBrievenbus23:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one, the article sucks. It would need alot more expanding to go up. Second, I could be wrong about this since religion is not my thing, but it does not look like he was in charge of his church. I'm pretty sure hundreds of people go missing every month in Iraq, but I see no reason to put this up, considering the only reason anyone knows about it was that he was an archbishop. I don't think it is important enough to anyone outside of the catholics, and even then... meh. Of course, I'm not a catholic, so I don't know. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the article and added a photo as well. He is in charge of up to 20,000 worshippers, so I think he was pretty notable. Chaldean (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as his death was unexpected, widely covered, and he was in a position of power at the time. Also, a link to the ongoing situation in Iraq is a good thing. Random8906:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I support he inclusion, I agree with you. 3-2 )or even 4-2 if you count the adding admin is hardly grounds for adding it to the template. Random8919:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there clearly wasn't consensus for this. The Archbishop was an important figure for the Chaldean community, but many people are killed in Iraq and I'm not sure that is quite notable enough for the main page. More importantly, there was no sense here that it had been agreed that this story was notable enough, and it should not have been posted without that consensus. NoIdeaNick (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put a blurb on Mark's talk page asking him to remove it and post his comments.
I apologise for not posting a comment here upon me adding it; I usually do. Half of the only oppose on it at the time was based on the quality of the article, which appeared to have subsequently been expanded and improved. The other half of the only oppose was based on an impression about the importance of the office of the man, which I felt was answered by Chaldean. The article hence satisfied the death criteria, and so I added it. Subsequent supports (below) have confirmed that this article satisfies the criteria. There's no point having a news section on the main page if by the time each blurb reaches it, the story is many days old due to waiting for a full consensus here. In this case, the arguments of the supporters were more persuasive to me than the argument of the single opposer. - Mark01:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. While in this case I agree with you, and since apparently several of the objections were negated by articel updates, this was fine, but ideally a bit more consensus is better (get it right, not get it fast). Either way, I suppose some of us would like to see a note of that posted here. But being a bit hasty is sometimes better than not attracting an admin at all, so thanks. Random8905:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I struck my oppose because the archbishop's death was tragic and per Random89. But I don't think much of admins bopping in to make updates. Second time in a couple weeks where that action was out of sync with whatever consensus at the time was plain as day on this page. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain if it is, but it very well could be. However, this would not be a significant threshold as it would not be a round number like 1000 USD. Also, most gold trade internationally is conducted in USD. Weak Support. Random8920:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prices of things fluctuate all the time, so this doesn't seem particularly groundbreaking. Perhaps if this is the highest price gold has ever been at when adjusted for inflation, i will consider supporting this. Thethinredline (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The real price is high, but not at record levels if I understand. The price of 1000 is only in US currency. Dwr12 (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I supported the oil barrel and Euro/US story. Not so sure about this one. It doesn't really seem that significant to me. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We already had a listing when the PM resigned. The call of an election follows naturally. We'll have another entry for the results. Do we really want three entries about the same (relatively obscure to most of the world) topic in a period of 2 months? Let's wait for the results of the election. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone help expanding this article...the election's in two days, and I hope we can have an ITN-worthy article so we can have a point about this. See [10]. SpencerT♦C00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IDC, a subsidiary of IDG, made the estimate. Updated the data and data storage articles. Good questions, thanks. I don't know if this item is worth pursuing. -Susanlesch (talk)
Oppose It is an interesting finding, but it's not clear what impact this has as either a news item or an encyclopedic item. I can't think of who this impacts beyond futurists ensconced in ivory towers pondering the technological singularity. What article would be used? Finally, it seems that the finding would invite all sorts of criticism regarding methodology or potential advertising as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boy I read this wrong, and to boot, there are some new sources. IDC's "universe" is "information that is either created, captured, or replicated in digital form". To answer my question, TV, radio, surveillance and other video and telephone call data is sometimes not saved. I think they do mean the sum of all data but will have to read their white paper to find out because I am confused by and skimming the press. (So not good for the main page and sorry for the noise.) -Susanlesch (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think it might be a tough sell to other editors given the preponderance of space-related items recently—however, it is of definite encyclopedic interest. I don't find it entirely appropriate from a newsworthy perspective, since it is the result of one study using one model only confirming the the age with increased certainty—although I'm not sure that a divergent finding (eg, the universe is 5 or 50 billion, something unexpected like that) wouldn't be immune from the criticism that it is "just one study." Madcoverboy (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The age of the universe has always been one of the fundamental questions. And I have never cared for the "but we already have N space/US/sport/etc items". If it is a good item on its own then we should put it up. Thue | talk21:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of clarification, I agree with Thue: the existence of other items of a similar topic on the template should never factor into a decision. I was just anticipating a common complaint about "balance" - whatever that is. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beyond the above arguments, it is a good article that many readers/editors may not stumble across, so it is worthwhile to be featured. (Not that I'm trying to set a precedent with that) Random8906:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 4th space-related news in a week, this is getting popular :-) But this is fundamental research, so it is noteworthy. Just try to find some news from other topics for balance. --Tone11:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the 2006 image (added above) agrees with this estimate. In any case, reworded to say "estimates" and simplified below. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Striking that last oppose, and reinstating support. Now I see what you were saying, the plus or minus of certainty dropped by 80,000,000 years. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Certianly the last French veteran of the Great War is newsworthy. I don't know if we agreed on the last national veterans, or the final overall, but nevertheless, I support. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not clear to me that he is notable for anything beyond living a long time. As a result, I think it's just a novelty news item. The proposed article is short and I think we've rejected better candidates before. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was he the last surviving veteran or just the last surviving French veteran? Support on the former, oppose on the latter. Random8906:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last surviving (who is still surviving AFAIK) American WWI vet had a photo op with Bush last week, so he's the last French vet, but not the last vet. Either way, oppose, respectfully. -- Grant.Alpaugh08:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed on Template talk:In the news, but I want to bring it here for wider discussion. IffEliot Spitzer, governor of the state of New York were to resign, should we post it on ITN or not? I think we should, given that this is an important position in an important state, is widely considered to have some effect on the presidential campaign, and has been widely publicized. Having said that, obviously Spitzer's personal life should obviously be respected. AecisBrievenbus12:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so... it's not that international. It will still be business as usual for New York if he were to resign, it's not as if the whole state were to crumble. --HowardtheDuck13:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That can be said for every resignation. The United States survived Nixon's resignation, but I'm sure we would have mentioned it on ITN if Wikipedia had existed back then. (Note: I'm obviously not comparing Spitzer's possible resignation to Nixon's resignation). AecisBrievenbus14:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think it should go up, but mostly in the context of there being a blind, black governor (both notable) after Spitzer. Also, no mention of the Presidential election should be made. Also, the governor of New York in general oversees one of the largest cities and one of the main financial centers in the world, but Spitzer specifically made news prosecuting (some would say persecuting) several notable business leaders. The governor of New York ≠ the governor or Maine. -- Grant.Alpaugh14:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in parliamentary governments, technically no one will be in charge if a government falls (that's why they'd always call an election immediately); in presidential-type of governments, there's always a spare tire (the "vice/lieutenant-president/governor/mayor") to replace the person that resigned. A good comparison would've been Gray Davis' recall election some years ago, it had significant international coverage maybe due to the reason that issue was a political rather than a "personal" one. --HowardtheDuck14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, you're comment is so POV I don't know what to say, and second, let's remember that if New York was a country it would have a larger population, economy, and government than all but a handful of countries in Europe. New York is part of the Tri-State Area that would be larger than the Benelux region. -- Grant.Alpaugh14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do think a government falling in Belgium would be more widely reported than a governor resigning in New York or any state in the U.S., no matter what the political party (Dunno about Luxembourg though). If he was assassinated I would've reconsidered. --HowardtheDuck14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me on all counts—notable case, prominent and notable office, prominent and notable person, wide coverage, good articles, notable successor. I'm always hesitant to use an "impact" metric, but his resignation likely affects more people in gross and in impact than many national elections covered here. Certainly if the PM or Premier of a country with similar GDP, population, or size were to resign it would be covered. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is worthy of being on here, however my only issue is that we did not put the resignation of the Serbian PM up a few days ago. Wow, I missed that one...Random8915:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I understand the concerns that this isn't an international story, since it involves the governor of a subnational entity. However, it is the leading story at the international version of http://news.bbc.co.uk/ and even one of the top stories on the UK version. It is the top story at http://www.elmundo.es/ and http://www.elpais.com/ which are major Spanish papers. The Globe and Mail in Canada has it as the top story [11]. In France, Le Monde has it as the top story [12]. It is the second story at Der Spiegel [13]. The particular facts of this case, combined with the fact that New York State contains New York City, which is a major global financial center and one of the world's largest and most important cities, help make a strong case for inclusion. NoIdeaNick (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That entry is way too long. You need to cut it down. The replacement part doesn't matter, that is only of interest and not actual important international news. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten. I agree with Plasma Twa 2: I can see the argument for putting Spitzer's resignation up (though I fear this will create a precedent), but the blurb is way too long. All the international newspapers listed by NoIdeaNick focus on Spitzer and barely mention Paterson. Pruneautalk19:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten. Not sure if accusation is the right word but here is a try at a shorter version. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC). Amended to say reports rather than accusations or charges. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From my reading of it, his resignation was not demanded by the Bush administration nor was it offered in protest so his resignation amounts to the proverbial changing of deck chairs on the Titanic that is the Iraqi fiasco. Even though this officer's command was prominent, changes of command happen all the time and I don't think ITN should be in the business of reporting every change in the composition of the JCOS. Plus we wouldn't want to ruffle the feathers of all the American/Euro bias crowd who would want the Maltese military covered too. (Sorry to pick on Malta, I actually got to learn a lot about the country with the two recent nominations actually) Madcoverboy (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I'm not sure. It's not that notable, but it is the election of the leader of a sovereign entity so an argument could be made based on our precedent for ITN... Random8919:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'd confuse readers with explaining how there's two leaders of Malta, until they read both articles. I don't think two points regarding Malta would be good, especially if the ITN looked liked this: Space, Space, Space, Malta, Malta, other... It just seems crowded with a lot of the "same" information. SpencerT♦C22:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is. I'm not necessarily arguing for including it, but choosing the leader of the Knights of Malta is more akin to choosing a new Pope than say, a new leader of the baptist church. Random8904:15, 12 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]
[14]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
Done --Ryan Delaney talk 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
