This is the talk page for discussing In the news and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Shortcut: WT:ITN
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

This talk page is for general discussions for In the news. To report errors that are currently on In the news, please post them on WP:ERRORS. To suggest a news item, please go to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (WP:ITN/C). To discuss changing the death criteria, please go to Wikipedia:In the news/Death criteria

In the news
Report an error (WP:ERRORS) Nominate (WP:ITN/C) Now · Tomorrow · Next year Discuss (WT:ITN)
Archives (WP:ITN2009)
General criteria (WP:ITN) Death criteria (WP:ITN/DC) Recurring items (WP:ITNR) Awards · Sports Current events portal (P:CE)

Contents 1 House of Lords 2 Rio de Janeiro photo 3 Irish referendum 4 Did I miss something? 5 Speed of update 6 Criteria 7 Nobel Peace Prize 8 Phoebe ring error 9 H1N1 pandemic 10 Canonizations 11 Father Damien ITN? 12 Do we really want to be using the word scheme 13 Future Events 14 Windows 7 15 Scientology 16 Car bomb 17 Gubernatorial elections are important! 18 War in Afghanistan 19 Scandinavia map 20 Assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman 21 Increased rotation 22 WP:FOUR Award - straw poll 23 Unclear term in Indian Parliament story 24 Link to Article or News Stories 25 Blurbs lacking adequate context 26 The LHC broke a world record. 27 Court orders wikipedia to disclose IP address 27.1 G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc (02 December 2009) 28 Archiving ITN/C 29 Equatorial Guinean presidential election, 2009 30 Romanian Presidential election results not validated 31 Abkhazian presidential election, 2009 32 Houston Mayoral Election 33 PKK flag 34 North American snowstorms 35 December 2009 European snowfall

[edit] House of Lords

Regarding the sentence

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (location pictured) is established, replacing the House of Lords.

It sounds from this as if the new Supreme Court is replacing the House of Lords as a whole. It isn't. It's merely taking its place as the highest court in the land. I suggest either removing the pipe from "judicial functions of the House of Lords", or adding "as the highest court in the UK" (or some such) to the end of the sentence. --RFBailey (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Already fixed by someone. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rio de Janeiro photo

New photo for Rio's victory: File:Anuncio Rio2016.jpg. Felipe Menegaz 16:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone change it, please. Felipe Menegaz 00:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, the image has been updated to that of Marek Edelman instead. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Irish referendum

Just to point out that while the referendum has been passed, the amendment hasn't been adopted yet. This will only happen when (assuming no legal challenges are made) the president signs the bill which can only happen on Tuesday 13 October at the soonest. The news item should really read:

"A referendum on the twenty-eighth amendment of the Constitution of Ireland is passed, enabling the country to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon."

Not hugely important but still. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Blue-Haired Lawyer, for pointing this out. I haven't thought of this significant difference. And thank you, BorgQueen, for fixing this mistake of mine so quickly. --PFHLai (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. To be honest I'd be the first to accuse myself of gross pedantry. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Did I miss something?

Before mid-2009, I don't recall ever seeing deaths listed on the main page ever, with the exception of major circumstances such as Michael Jackson and Ronald Reagan. Now suddenly, every update has a new death on it in the past month. It's getting kind of ridiculous, we have the deaths in 2009 page for a reason. There's no need to add in a huge number of dead, leave the main page for the very major deaths. Wizardman 15:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it depends where you are... what about Corazon Aquino for instance? And several people very seriously opposed Ted Kennedy and that didn't work out very well at all... so why have one rule for the United States and another for Poland or the Philippines? I wouldn't describe Ronald Reagan as "major" where I am (at least not much more than Aquino) but I respect that some people would. --candle•wicke 16:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the same could be said for the sudden increase in sports... it's just the way things are I suppose. --candle•wicke 16:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Even as an American who enjoys politics, I didn't think he was main page material (though if you were going to pick one US senator to put on the main page, it'd be him). Just seems to me that ITN's getting a little lenient in what they're putting up I guess. Wizardman 16:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer if we were more lenient and the content refreshed more often. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Speed of update

I'm really getting concerned about how quickly ITN gets updated lately - for example, we still don't have the Greek election results or the Medicine Nobel up, both of which would be updated nearly immediately in many cases in the past. Can someone please look into this? Radagast (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it comes down to a simple lack of admins. I am not disparaging the ones who do work on ITN, who do a great job, but there are just simply not enough people with the ability to update the template to ensure that ITN is updated as soon as an item has enough support and updates - Dumelow (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just posted the Nobel item but the Greek election item currently needs more citations. Please don't criticize admins for not posting articles that aren't even properly updated with citations... (Having said that, what Dumelow said is true) --BorgQueen (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Didn't check that section, just the results. Good catch BorgQueen - Dumelow (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it is a little unfair to critise either the admins or regular ITN contributors for the slow speed in getting items up. The simple fact is that all items that go on the main page require a referenced update. In many instances items are nomed and supported, but people are unwilling to make the required updates. It is this issue that causes the slow progress and not the contributors, who actually keep ITN ticking over the rest of the time. --Daviessimo (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have nominations before the article is updated? You would never get people nominating a DYK hook before they'd written it, that would be crazy! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is to encourage others to help write the article (or to hope someone else will as I am tempted to do in some cases recently). Maybe to get a sense of what the general feeling is about its worthiness. Sometimes people don't have time to write articles but see something which others may be interested in. Like right now I see this but have no time. I've decided I won't nominate it now as a result. :) And, having been criticised last week for daring to respond to a query by another into why an incomplete article was in a queue, I suspect that some people do submit DYKs before they are ready. Also, DYK nominations usually moves more slowly (and more quickly at 6-8 hours when posted) so there is more time to discuss and pinpoint any problems. If ITNs were all posted quickly (with less contributors) there might be more mistakes. --candle•wicke 20:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria

User:Physchim62 removed the criterion about update requirement without any discussion. Does anyone support? --BorgQueen (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've self-reverted after reflection, although I do think that the section is a classic example of instruction creep. Why three references? Why not two or four? Why is no consideration given to the need for references to be reliable and independent of one another?

The dispute arises from the annual round of Nobel Prizes. Yesterday (in Physiology/Medicine) and today (in Physics), the Swedish Academy of Sciences has honored scientists who have worked in mainstream fields for which we already have several pretty decent articles describing their acheivements. The only news value is the fact of the award, which can be adequately described in a single sentence and a single reference. The same could apply to many sporting triumphs, which are regularly featured on ITN. This section is too pedantic, and the question of updating should be left to the judgment of admins, noting that the articles will hopefully continue to be improved while they are linked from the Main Page. Physchim62 (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, look at my prediction for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry due to be announced midday Swedish time tomorrow. Two out of the three names are stil redlinks. There's another redlink (Bernd Giese) on the list of Thomson Reuters predictions (about as accurate as anything, until the announcement is made). The Physiol/Med and Physics prizes have gone to fields and people which were already covered: that is a plus for Wikipedia, but it doesn't mean that other articles aren't being improved (or even created) in the margins. Physchim62 (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The need for an article to be updated can obviously not be relaxed. I would be happy with a rewrite of the section, if Physchim thinks he could do better. (Although personally I saw the "3 references" as more of an example than a definite requirement, but perhaps this could be made clearer.) The question of whether an update is sufficient needs to be interpreted with common sense as usual, but there is no reason why more non-admin editors could not do the verifiying and checking as currently happens in DYK, especially given the serious shortage of admins here at ITN. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally always understood it as a minimum of 3 references for the update, meaning you could use as many as you wanted, but no less than 3. IMHO, removing it is going to be couterproductive to a large degree, because a lot of people already come to the candidates page, nom and support items, but then don't update them. --Daviessimo (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think credibility of reference should matter more. to me referencing single original source is better than referencing 3 news sites. if we put a minimum number on reference then a lot of useless references get added from news sites (in my experience atleast) so i think the article should be properly referenced rather than have 3 references. So minimum should be 1 (not minimum for article but for the updates made). -- Ashish-g55 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be a mixture of both. One original and two news. News sites tend to have the same content though, as most stuff comes through the wires.  Cargoking  talk  16:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair the criteria just says "a five sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) has generally been considered more than sufficient, while a one sentence update is considered extremely questionable" and doesn't specify that five sentences should be added or it won't go up. I think it is fine as it is with what counts as being an update being determined on a case-by-case basis by the reviewing admin. Its only really there to stop situations like a death article being posted with the only new info being "xxxx died on yyyy of zzz". Even when the only source is a single news article there is usually sufficient info to add at least five sentences - Dumelow (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel Peace Prize

Hi. I expected to see a photograph of Obama when I woke up today. So let me tell you it didn't surprise me that this most prestigous of awards isn't pictured and instead we have a NASA spacecraft. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He was there for 4 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was pictured but got replaced after new entry was added... and besides everyone knows what obama looks like by now. but they probably dont know what LCROSS looks like. -- Ashish-g55 16:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree.  Cargoking  talk  16:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, too. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Martin, guess I got up too late. That's a helpful sign. For all you explosion lovers I read Twitter crashed when the le prix le plus prestigieux au monde was announced. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Phoebe ring error

I noticed that the blurb on Saturn's Phoebe ring describes the ring as having a size of "300 times that of the planet", whereas the article notes a size of "128 to 207" the radius of Saturn. This is a pretty serious size discrepancy, so I figured I'd post in case any of the admins care to fix it. Thanks! --NoahElhardt (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] H1N1 pandemic

Important developments - GN search. 17 youth deaths in a week. May require a persistent link, as its going to be a bit unhappy. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Only 17 dead? There were two in Northern Ireland this week too. If only 17 have died in the world I would think that's not very abnormal globally but I'm worried for Northern Ireland... --candle•wicke 13:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Um. Google News sidebar, 76 U.S. kids dead since April. [1] CDC stopped counting new cases in June, after ~600.[2] Specializing in pathogenic microbes apparently doesn't help one's math skills. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Canonizations

So Father Damien was canonized today, but no mention of the other four. Nobody wanted to update the articles – it's not as if we lack hagiographers on Wikipedia – but why should this person be singled out on ITN? Better to leave the whole lot out until the encyclopedia is properly updated. Or is it just because "Father Damien" worked in Hawaii, whereas the others never set foot on the American continent? Physchim62 (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, ITN is being accused of having pro-America bias. Actually, Damien's international involvements are beyond question. He was a Belgian priest who worked and died in Hawaii, venerated in not only Roman Catholic Church, but Eastern Catholic Churches and some churches of Anglican Communion and some of Lutheran Churches. Our article says: "Several memorials have been made to Damien worldwide, from Belgium and the United States to Ireland and Ecuador." --BorgQueen (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Damien has never set foot on the American continent either. Hawaii is very far from the continent. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Father Damien is no more (and no less) relevant to the news story than the other four new Catholic saints. You don't give any reasons for suggesting that he is, apart from the fact that there's a statue of him in the US Congress. If that's your only reason, then yes, it's pro-US bias. We should either have a piece that covers them all, or none at all. How about:

• Pope Benedict XVI canonizes five new saints, including Father Damien (pictured).

We should, of course, wait until we have the basic details of all five new saints before adding the piece, rather than just rushing in with an update by the very person who proposed the story in the first place. Btw, you don't know that Damien never set foot on the American continent: he certainly didn't fly to Hawaii… Physchim62 (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Much better blurb, that's something I suggested from the very beginning. --Tone 20:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the new wording makes the whole sentence one giant block of wikilink text. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Delink "canonizes" in that case, if that's you're only objection. Physchim62 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The update on Father Damien isn't up to much either, seems very much like the sort of updates that BorgQueen was vociferously objecting to last week. Maybe we should just pull the whole thing. Physchim62 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That reference has been removed for being redundant anyway, because his canonization was planned long before and the article was already properly updated by other editors. The article appears to be constantly well maintained, due to the article's former FA status and the subject's fame. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So lets get this right: a piece will be posted to ITN (by BorgQueen, of course) if

• BorgQueen proposes it;
• BorgQueen does the update, no matter how short or incomplete; and
• BorgQueen writes the blurb.

A piece will be removed from ITN if BorgQueen doesn't like it (obviously, in such a case, none of the three prerequisites for inclusion would have been fulfilled).

I suggest we just redirect WP:ITN/C to User talk:BorgQueen, it would save everyone a whole lot of time and energy. Physchim62 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your rudeness is entirely uncalled-for, Physchim62. BorgQueen works very hard on a task that few editors are willing to do (in part because unfounded accusations frequently arise).

This appears to be a case in which it was appropriate to delay adding the ITN blurb until long after relevant article updates were made. The canonization itself is what placed this story prominently "in the news," but there is no penalty for expanding an article in advance.

You've acknowledged that the other articles have not been sufficiently updated, and you want us to remove the blurb until they have. That isn't how ITN works. Its purpose is to highlight articles that have been written or substantially updated to reflect events in the news, not to serve as a ticker that reports world news according to importance.

The only bias is systemic in nature; articles pertaining to events in countries where English predominates (and certain ones in particular) are the most likely to receive the appropriate updates. This is a very real problem, but it isn't one that can be solved by ignoring the articles that are suitably updated.

We've received similar allegations of U.S. favoritism on the basis that an American athletic championship game was included and a comparable event in another country was omitted. And I've responded by pointing out that numerous editors worked very hard to write a detailed account of the American event (e.g. this summary of Super Bowl XLIII before it received an ITN blurb) and the other event's article has barely been updated at all (typically one or two sentences mentioning the winner and final score).

Just as we won't bar the Super Bowl from ITN on the basis that we couldn't include this year's FIFA Confederations Cup Final, we mustn't exclude one saint on the basis that we can't include others. —David Levy 22:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that BorgQueen works very hard at ITN. However,

• the article was not substantially updated in response to the event that occurred; in fact it was less substantially updated than the physics Nobel Prize articles that BorgQueen pulled last week.
• the person who did the minimal and incomplete update was the same person who proposed the article, wrote the blurb (dispite there being a different suggestion at WP:ITN/C, which BorgQueen didn't even acknowledge) and posted the piece in record quick time.
• the piece was posted to T:ITN dispite a request to hold on, and the admin who posted it has refused to revert her actions

The speed at which the piece was posted also circumvented any discussion as to how we should treat canonizations – after all, this is the second one this year, with five saints each time. I've no problem with putting them on the main page, I think their more noteworthy than many of the Shuttle launches that go up, but there has to be some benefit for the encyclopedia. Otherwise, ITN just becomes the ticker for world news that everyone says it shouldn't be. Physchim62 (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Some corrections: a) You made your comments after I posted, not before. b) If my memory serves me correctly, the Nobel physics laureate articles lacked citations, and I did put them back on ITN after you added just one sentence with one citation each. c) ITN has been criticized for being stagnant in past, which is why we have a timer, and which is why I often hurry as long as I get supports from someone else. (In fact, when I waited for more supports on some occasions in past, the whole ITN was criticized for not being fast enough.) d) I didn't revert because I considered your rationale invalid, as David Levy tried to explain to you why we shouldn't omit articles that are updated, just for the sake of other related articles that aren't. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And again, Physchim62, the article was substantially updated between the canonization's announcement and its actual occurrence. Only the latter justified an ITN blurb, but the former is very much a part of same overall event, and there is no time limit or other technicality that would lead us to disregard the earlier updates. (If there were, that would discourage editors from contributing content until an ITN blurb was feasible.) You're essentially arguing that our sizable coverage of Father Damien's canonization shouldn't be considered because editors didn't wait until now to write it. —David Levy 23:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't noticed the timings until BorgQueen mentioned them, it seems that my comments at ITN/C came after the piece was posted and not before. But she was indeed in a hurry to get that piece up: proposed at 14:04, "posting soon" at 17:16, posted at 17:24! Less than three-and-a-half hours! The "update" left at least one sentence speaking of the future rather than the past, which would normally be enough to have someone come along and say "that needs fixing", if they had had a chance. But nobody had a chance, just like nobody had a chance to update the other articles, because the piece was already up there. ITN should not be about handing out little prizes, it should be about encouraging improvements to the encyclopedia: BorgQueen's actions here have gone against that essential reason for consacrating MainPage space to the template in the first place.
For the record, the physics pieces already had references when I got to them (I formatted refs and polished wording), although they may have been unreferenced when BorgQueen saw them. Her comment was "And in fact User:Physchim62 has added just one sentence with one citation each, which is normally considered insufficient, but if consensus approves that is fine with me." It is hard not to accuse her of hypocrisy when, four days later, she deletes one sentence, adds one reference and then posts on a topic she proposed. Physchim62 (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

1. As BorgQueen noted, we receive far more complaints when items are not promptly posted than when they are. There was nothing unusual or improper about the timing, and your argument that the article should be deemed ineligible because other articles haven't been updated is entirely contrary to our longstanding principles and practices.

2. I've repeatedly explained that the article qualifies for ITN inclusion because of the earlier relevant updates (which we don't disregard because editors didn't wait until now to write them), but you continue to cite BorgQueen's edits as the sole update qualification rationale. I can understand why you might have mistakenly believed that in the beginning, but you now know it to be false. You're making it difficult to assume good faith on your part. —David Levy 00:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Father Damien ITN?

I'm sorry but there are far too many more important and notable things happening in the world at the moment. In addition, if we start including such religious information for christianity, then why not for buddhism, islam, judaism, etc, etc, etc? Surely we can't discriminate. I recommend this item be removed from ITN as soon as practicable. Nick carson (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The canonization is very important not just to the Catholic Church but also to Belgium, Hawaii, the USA, those who combat leprosy and other diseases in the developing world and so on. He is a very famous symbol and a very notable figure in the world. Gavin (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and of course it would be ideal if we could include notable events for other religions as well. @Nick carson: You are welcome to contribute and nominate at WP:ITN/C. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See also above. This piece should never have gone in in as it did. I would say that that I consider being declared a saint by the Catholic Church as being equivalent to a Nobel Prize. I would also say that Wikipedia's Main Page coverage of the canonizations has been ridiculous, with one name out of five being mentioned, no trace of the other four, simply because this promoted by the resident admin. Don't count on me to provide any more properly written and properly updated ITN pieces. Physchim62 (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but have you ever provided "properly written and properly updated ITN pieces" before? That is something new to me, although I might have missed them. I thought you only nominate items and don't update frequently. (Not that there is something wrong with it.) --BorgQueen (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

BorgQueen, I believe you avoided answering Physchim62's main questions. I too am growing increasingly despondent from WP's ITN nomination process, it needs a major rethink to ensure that we get a balanced spread of the most important, significant and notable happenings in the world today. At present, that's not what's happening, it's not all bad, just a few bad eggs tend to sneak in, which is a few too many. Nick carson (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick carson, you didn't follow Physchim62's suggestion that you read "above", did you? David Levy has already excellently and eloquently answered Physchim62's questions, and I have no reason to repeat here. (Anyway Physchim62 thinks that "being declared a saint by the Catholic Church as being equivalent to a Nobel Prize", which is exactly opposite of your opinion about the item.) And I am not sure what makes you think you have a right to complain here since you don't even participate in the discussions at WP:ITN/C. If you have objections to many items getting featured on ITN, then you will need to check the nomination page often and debate with nominators and supporters of those "a few bad eggs". That is how ITN works. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really want to be using the word scheme

I wanted to point out that the current hook Under the One Laptop per Child scheme, Uruguay becomes the first country to deliver a free laptop to each child of primary school age. could be worded better for clarity and to keep from being misinterpreted. Scheme usually has a negative connotation attached to it (ie. corruption, scam). maybe a word like program or project would be more fitting for a truly nice event. I bring this up because we had this similar issue recently at DYK with one of the hooks. Thanks♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 04:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't infer any negative connotation to scheme, BUT if an editor has made a serious suggestion that a phrasing is not suitable, and an alternative is available that improves readability or clarity for some while preserving the meaning unambiguously, I hope that it will not be ignored again as it was recently in the lunar probe blurb. Kevin McE (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to "program", which is used generally in the OLPC article. Shimgray | talk | 16:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR would suggest that we try to find an alternative to program, as whichever spelling is used it will be wrong to a large proportion of English speakers. Kevin McE (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's "scheme" ;-). The article seems to use "programme" and "program" interchangeably but tends towards the latter, and we may as well reflect their usage. Shimgray | talk | 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, "scheme" having or not having negative connotations is itself an WP:ENGVAR issue: it's a neutral synonym for "plan" or "program(me)" in British English, but carries negative connotations in Canadian and American contexts. I've reached deep into my mental thesaurus and pulled out "initiative" as a word that ought to keep everybody's feathers unruffled on all sides of all oceans.  :) The Tom (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Tom brings up a valid point. It is widely used in Americian news outlets as a sensational way to show how someone has planned a negitive scam to gain something in the expense of someone or something else. ie. Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme. Wasn't sure about other parts of the world. thanks for taking the time to discuss this. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 06:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Future Events

I support BorgQueen's move. But could we transcluse the 2009 page and the 2010 into the original?  Cargoking  talk  15:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Y Done.  Cargoking  talk  18:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 7

The release of a consumer product is worthy of ITN? Really? I know it's a fairly important consumer product, but still. Not only does it not at all seem notable, but it almost reads like advertising. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 06:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine, it's the next generation of a product that 90% of all Internet users operate. Covered by an enormous number of media outlets. It's very notable. RxS (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the current criteria, it seems to fit, however I am of the opinion that product releases should not be in ITN. Much of the media generated is a function of the marketing department, more than the actual underlying importance of the event itself. I think it is a discrepency in the interpretation of "importance" that is at hand. One forgets that many news outlets simply pull aticles in from a single source, such as AP or Thomson-Reuters, so "international importance" can be readily achieved for events that are not that important in a historical context. Same-sex marriage in a church, the discovery of a new dinosaur, a constitutional crisis and a suicide bombing are more actually important events (I did leave out the grand prix, but lets not open that can of worms ;) ) User A1 (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The prorogation of a monopoly certainly is not fine. Nick carson (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology

A blurb about the Church of Scientology being convicted of fraud in France has gone up on the main page and I can't seem to find any discussion on the candidates page for it. Has it been bypassed? - Dumelow (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume the editor who added it is not familiar with how ITN works, but I see no reason to argue with it. Scientology is a (somewhat) major religion, and a religion being commited of fraud seems to be rather important. --PlasmaTwa2 23:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any discussion either, so I've removed it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be some sort of warning (hidden message or editnotice) on the template (i.e. Before posting a news item, please gain consensus at WP:ITN/C).  Cargoking  talk  09:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean, something like this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Does that appear to admins? I only see an annoying notice telling me I am not worthy.  Cargoking  talk  09:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks normal to me when I log out. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Which looks normal... the ITN editnotice? I don't get that in either Safari or Firefox. Are you using IE?  Cargoking  talk  15:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding Plasma? Scientology is not even a recognized religion in most countries - it's a business. And describing it as 'major' is a bit of a push. Its members are mostly celebrities looking for more fame and with money to waste. Thankfully, because of its history of abuse and secrecy it is banned in some places and should be everywhere.--217.203.156.244 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Nick carson (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Car bomb

Why are you giving this attention I'm sure it already has enough. This sort of thing happens for attention, who ever put that on the main page should be locked up and castrated. AJUK ^Talk!! 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

wow -- Ashish-g55 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer your comment to the suitable admin, who can be seen here.  Cargoking  talk  21:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The President of Tunisia can be seen there... --candle•wicke 22:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it agreed with General criteria , also we had a discussion about it at [3]. No items goes on main page without a discussion. So I think you should had discuss it there.--yousaf465' 01:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gubernatorial elections are important!

I don't know why I keep butting my head against the wall, but it really bothers me that somehow we've developed this standard whereby a dispute involving Fiji gets approval to go up, on the grounds that it's "international," but important gubernatorial elections in the United States are laughed at on the grounds that they're "local." This despite the fact that the Fiji thing has 618 Google News hits and the U.S. elections more than 7,000. This is another example of ITN's ridiculous attempt to try to make the news fit mathematics-style logic rather than to try to judge news value the way any publication does anywhere.

We have an article on news value, but it really comes down to two elements. One is How many people in our audience care, and how much do they care? The other is Is this important -- that is, how widespread and how intense are its effects?

Whether a news event is "international," "national" or "local" (governor elections are really "state," not "local," but whatever) doesn't, in and of itself, have any impact on news value. Or rather, the fact that an event is "international" doesn't automatically give it more news value than a non-international event. If Togo and Benin have a dispute over harmonization of underwater-basketweaving regulations, it isn't a bigger news event than the assassination of the premier of Quebec. Why? Because more people care in our audience care about the latter, and because it will have more of an impact on their world. Period. News events must be judged on a case-by-case basis, using the news-value criteria explained above. No publication in the world uses fixed "rules" of the sort that "All events of type X are bigger than all events of type Y." If one did, it would be out of business quickly, replaced by a publication that looks at news on a case-by-case basis to print prints what its audience actually wants to read.

Note that I'm not particularly against the inclusion of the Fiji thing. I kind of like how ITN sometimes has quirky, obscure items that the major media miss. But it should also include the major items in the news in major media in the countries that provide most users of the English Wikipedia.

Now let's look at the reasons why the U.S. election news should have been included:

1) States are important. This is no mere "local" election. States in the U.S. are very powerful. Most of the laws that affect Americans' lives are made at the state or local level, and the vast majority of Americans' interactions with government take place at the state or local level. (And local governments are just creatures of the states.) It's not a perfect comparison, but in many ways states are the U.S. equivalent to individual EU countries, where the EU is similar to the U.S. federal government. In fact, in some areas states have even more power vis-a-vis the U.S. federal government than EU members have vis-a-vis the EU. Should we therefore declare national elections in, say, the UK to be "local" and therefore unsuitable for ITN?

2) A lot of people live in Virginia and New Jersey. The population of New Jersey is 8.7 million, and that of Virginia 7.8 million. The population of Fiji is 849,000. True, a lot of people live in Australia, but I can't imagine the Fiji thing is as much on the minds of Australians as the elections are on the minds of Virginians and whatever you call people from New Jersey.

3) This is a national news story. Had any of the naysayers bothered to see how the story was being played in the media, they would have seen that the three races mentioned -- the two governor elections and the New York State Congressional race -- were considered bellwethers for the national political pulse. A lot of effort was put into the races by both parties, and President Obama invested some of his personal capital in the losing governor candidates. Republican victories in the two major statewide races has "energized" the party, according to the New York Times, and threatens the Democratic agenda on health-care reform and other major policy priorities. Thus, this isn't just a story for 16 million people -- it's a story for 300 million people.

4) This is the English-language Wikipedia. With the U.S. accounting for two-thirds of native English speakers, and, being a wealthy country, having a high percentage of Internet users, it is probably safe to assume that roughly half or more of Wikipedia users are American. While American news should not dominate ITN, there should be a healthy amount of American news on ITN to attract the interest of that half of our audience. An event of interest to up to half of Wikipedia's audience makes a better ITN item than an equivalent event in, say, China, which has four times the population of the U.S. but comparatively few English speakers and hardly any Wikipedia users. Therefore, a China news item should only be included if it is of interest to a lot of people outside China.

5) That it's not big news in your country is irrelevant. No news item is of interest to everyone. Sports news is of interest to sports fans, celebrity news is of interest to celebrity fans, politics news is of interest to politics fans, etc. If a publication were to avoid any news that much of its audience didn't care about, it would have to print nothing but blank pages! It works the same way with geography. Few news items are going to be major stories in the entire world. What all international media do is report some items of interest to country A, and some of interest to country B, some of interest to country C, etc. The Economist, for example, has a "United States" section, an "Americas" section, an "Asia" section, and so on. Think of it this way -- the Fiji news is of virtually no interest in my part of the world. Should I demand its removal on those grounds?

6) New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009 is a decent article. Have we forgotten what ITN is for? It's to feature Wikipedia content about current events. The article on the New Jersey election is a good example of recently updated Wikipedia content. The Virginia article could use a little work, but it's not bad. On the other hand, there is no article about the Fiji thing, just three paragraphs in the Foreign relations of Fiji article.

I've read that open-source projects are often user-unfriendly because, without an economic incentive to listen to their audience, their creators write for themselves rather than their users. ITN has become a shining example of that phenomenon. It's sad, really, because ITN could really be an asset to Wikipedia if the people running it tried to follow the lead of the real media instead of creating their own rules for news value out of thin air. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"creators write for themselves rather than their users", well a lot of creators write to stuff their naive readers full of ethnic/religious propaganda. Yes a lot of people are interested in the US because of its power, but most of this relates to foreign policy and trade etc. Do these state elections change much to do with the world? Will state governments nationalise other countries' holdings or let their forces loose on the rest of the world. Maybe because CA/NY are so big, if they do a unilateral ban on fossil fuels or something that would make a big difference, but the rest? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, this is the reason why they put off the British local elections several months back to avoid a similar U.S. story. –Howard the Duck 01:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fort Hood shooting was posted though so the United States has an ITN. :) --candle•wicke 13:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, if that didn't happen, the U.S. would have no ITN entries, unless you blame the Japanese for winning the World Series for an American team.

I'll try to answer the points:

1. U.S. is a federation and the EU is something else by itself. Although a few "local" political news (and by "local" I mean news below the first-level subdivision of a country) are posted, such as assassinations of local politicians, elections aren't one of them.
2. A lot of people live in <insert densely populated area here>. If this gets in, more than likely (more like 100% likely), a European event of the same magnitude would get in while an event say in Asia or Africa won't, either due to bad sourcing or nobody just cares about it.
3. Want an example of national news story? Same-sex marriages being approved by national legislatures. I don't think they'll allow state legislatures, though. (When you think about it, countries with federal governments are quite few in number, so perhaps we can make an exception, but that includes the U.S. so that's an uphill battle full of snow.)
4. The people at ITN want cosmopolitan outlook. And that means supressing enough Anglo-related news in favor of non-Anglo once.
5. Miley deleting her Twitter was big news, it even made it to the late night newscast. Even if Emma Watson and the guy who is Harry Potter had a goodbye to Twitter sex video we wouldn't have that.
6. Decent article. Yeah, this is the most compelling argument. We should be like WP:DYK and WP:FA(!!!) and base "promotion" solely by basis of quality, not by international standards which is impossible to quantify. If FAs can do that, I don't see why ITN won't. In fact, since ITN blurbs stay for at least a week we should drop the international shit and judge nominations solely by quality.

As for ITN writers writing for themselves, I don't. Now, I don't even list my ITN contributions at my userpage, but I do list by DYK, FL and GA ones. See #6 for the reason. –Howard the Duck 14:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

by above points ALL US items should be posted on ITN no matter what they are. ive said it many times, why dont we just replace ITN with some CNN ticker and be done with it. -- Ashish-g55 14:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Mwalcoff makes some valid points, but I don't agree that the items in question should have been included. While these elections are of nationwide interest, they aren't of international interest. Basically, they're one step removed from that. (They stand to affect the United States political landscape, and the resultant events might have an international impact, but it's a stretch to trace it back that far.)

It's true that the "U.S. is just one nation" argument (which, if taken to its extreme, implies that an event pertaining to Tuvalu and Nauru automatically is of greater significance than one pertaining to the United States alone) sometimes is unfairly (though not usually maliciously) applied. But I don't regard this as such a situation. Barring extraordinary circumstances (e.g. a political party establishing a majority or a country's first election of a female/minority to a particular level of office), I'm uncomfortable including sub-national election results in ITN.

For the record, I'm a lifelong New Jerseyan who voted in the 2009 New Jersey gubernatorial election. —David Levy 15:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This "international ramifications" argument was also used in the Connecticut Senatorial elections a few years back (when Lieberman lost the Democratic primary but won under the "Connecticut for Lieberman" "party". Check out the archives there was a nice discussion back then. –Howard the Duck 15:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If the Fort Hood shooting didn't happen, the U.S. would have no ITN entries... why should the U.S. (or any country, region, etc.) be guaranteed an entry at ITN 100% of the time? Another shooting happened in the U.S. today proving again that shootings are regular occurrences there (Category:2009 in the United States is full of shooting incidents). However, today a shooting also happened in Japan where these events are rare. As someone watching on it does appear as though shootings in the U.S. are no different than suicide bombs in Iraq in that they are reported on such a regular basis that I don't feel very much more shocked than usual to hear of them anymore. --candle•wicke 22:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In my defense, it wasn't me who brought out the "U.S. now has an entry in the ITN" card. –Howard the Duck 14:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, I think the whole "internationalness" criterion is misguided, for the reasons I set out above. No real-world publication has only news that is of interest to everyone. They have a variety of news items that are each of interest to different people. As I've said a bunch of times before, ITN as a whole should be international, but not individual items. This is how "On This Day" does it, and I think OTD does a heck of a job. But even if we are to accept the "international interest" criterion, how should we interpret it? I think that it should mean that when we assess an item's level of interest, we should use the entire world as a gauge, not that items should simply be of interest to more than one country. If we are to interpret as simply "more than one country," than, as David points out above, a moderate flood affecting Estonia and Latvia would have precedence over Hurricane Katrina! If we accept my interpretation of "international," the prioritization of the Fiji thing or the Cambodia-Thailand dispute and exclusion of the U.S. elections doesn't seem to fly. Although there's probably not a whole lot of interest in either, I'd be willing to bet there is more interest in London and Cape Town in the U.S. elections than in the Cambodia-Thailand dispute. Just do a Google News search on /New Jersey elections site:*.uk/ and you'll see stories in every major U.K. news source on the U.S. elections and their ramifications. The Southeast Asian dispute doesn't get nearly as much attention in the British press. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You speak the truth about the lack of attention in the British press but I find it quite interesting to learn about these disputes (probably because they don't feature very much in European or, it seems, North American media). I think that Cambodia-Thailand and Australia-Fiji-New Zealand are relevant. They certainly aren't Estonia and Latvia in either their size or location. So ITN should just follow what the US or UK press is doing? --candle•wicke 06:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not necessarily against having some of these obscure items in ITN, provided that we also have the things that most Wikipedia readers actually care about. And yes, I think the best way to judge that is to follow the lead of the major media in the English-speaking world, especially in the U.S. and the U.K. That way we would be using "reliable sources" to determine what is "in the news" rather than making up our own determinants of news value. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] War in Afghanistan

I was wondering if a page had been created for the shootings in Helmand Province, where a police officer killed six British troops. If not, is it notable and what should the page be called? It would certainly be a candidate for ITN if it is deemed notable. 03md 01:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean this? Perhaps Helmand province campaign may help? --candle•wicke 01:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scandinavia map

The map on today's In the News continues a tradition of misunderstanding regarding the term "Scandinavia". Scandinavia includes just three countries (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden), not Finland, as the map portrays. While many people mistakenly believe that Finland is Scandinavian, it's simply not correct, and this image makes us look unencylopedic. Can someone replace it? Unschool 18:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that usage of the term Scandinavia is not always strictly defined. Please see Scandinavia#Finland. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite cognizant of the loose usage of the term. But since those who are well-educated on the matter recognize that this is a loose construct; our completely unnecessary display of the term makes it appear that we know no better. Absolutely nothing would be lost by using a map that left the term "Scandinvia" out altogether, and nothing is gained by using the map that we have now. Why would it be a big deal to use a different map that left out the term and thereby satisfied both the erudite and the vulgar? (My hyperbole is intentional; no offense is intended.) Anyway, as I said in my original post on this matter, this is not the end of the world, it was just an observation. I'm not going to burn any more energy on the matter. Cheers. Unschool 19:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It'd probably be best to exclude Finland from the definition. Nick carson (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

I've removed the article Assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from the ITN template, as it has three clean up tags. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Increased rotation

Is it feasible and desirable to impose a limit on the amount of time individual items can stay up on ITN?

Any particular item, once it appears on the Main Page, can remain on ITN for no longer than 48 hours. Why 48 hours, you may ask? Well, because 24 hours seems too be too little time, especially when we consider the fact that not everyone checks for news the same day it happens.

If a major development occurs, then the item can remain on ITN longer than approximately 48 hours, but the hook should be updated. While the determination of what constitutes a "major" development would be subjective, I think that editors would be able to agree in most cases. For example, an increase in the death toll due to rioting from 100 to 120 would not be significant enough to necessitate an extension of the hook, though it definitely calls for an update. The resignation of a head of governemnt as a result of said rioting could be significant enough, depending on the circumstances.

This approach has several positive outcomes rooted in the fact that faster rotation of items would mean that more articles are featured on ITN. As a result:

1. Readers would be exposed to more items and articles;
2. Editors would be encouraged to update or create more articles;
3. We would be able to make our standards for what is and is not ITN-worthy slightly more inclusive, which would encourage editors to update or create more articles.

The biggest challenge that comes to my mind is that this approach would require more maintenance of ITN. The template would have to be updated more frequently, more items and hooks would need to be checked, and so on.

Is this desirable? Is this feasible (especially considering the discussion here)? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This idea is nice and all but there is a problem. Simply, we don't have enough people working on ITN articles to enable such a fast rotation. Besides, sometimes we don't even have enough stories that meet the guidelines. We would need to modify the guidelines first and this has proved tricky in every recent attempt. If you have a good plan how to attract more people, it would be great ;-) --Tone 09:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that neither bribery nor blackmail are viable options? :-)

I knew that there was a shortage of editors working ITN, but not much more in terms of details, and I can't think of a way to attract more capable editors to ITN and guarantee that they will stay around for any significant length of time. A post at the Administrators' noticeboard (and some other talk pages or noticeboards) could help, but I've no idea whether it would have a lasting effect. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suppose it can be argued that it is desirable, but I am reasonably certain that it is not feasible. First of all, we simply do not have enough people to work on that many articles on a daily basis—we already have enough difficulty in updating a small group of selections. As you see, the articles have to be updated first and featured, not the other way around. Second, I tend to be an inclusionist like you, but whenever I nominate borderline items it is usually met with fierce oppositions, in fact even you objected to featuring the recent death of Samak Sundaravej, who was a former head of government, yourself. Not that I am trying to imply your objection was wrong, but your proposal makes me wonder what kind of current events items you have in mind, if we can manage to update so frequently. I don't think we have that many notable items that can pass our current criteria. Even if somehow we can agree on more relaxed criteria, Main Page is not the property of ITN regulars—there are other people watching over our shoulders, and I don't think many of us want to live with constant noxious complaints on Talk:Main Page or WP:ERRORS. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My objection to featuring the death of Samak Sundaravej was based on my interpretation of the current standards. I'm not saying that Sundaravej's death would or should necessarily be featured under a different system, but if the rotation of ITN items increased, then I think it's likely that our standards would becomes less demanding, even if for no reason other than that we could be faced with a shortage of otherwise-decent articles.

I must admit that I had not fully considered the oversight/criticism/complaint component that you mention. Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 09:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(echo) Not enough proposals get consensus for this to be even possible. There needs to be a complete reform of the imo totally infeasible and subjective inclusion criteria first. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are referring primarily to the "significance" criterion... My hope was that imposing a need for a higher quantity of articles to be accepted would result in a slight loosening of inclusion standards, but I suppose that there is no guarantee it would actually happen. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 09:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for answering my questions and giving me quite a bit to think about. For the time being, I think I'll just casually observe how ITN works in order to get a better understanding myself. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 09:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FOUR Award - straw poll

Editors are invivted to vote in this straw poll about whether the FOUR award should recognise qualifying ITN contributors or not. MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear term in Indian Parliament story

That story currently reads "Leaked contents of a report on the destruction of the Babri Mosque cause a row in the Indian parliament." My question is, simply, what is a row? I've never heard of the term before, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. In addition, Row doesn't tell me anything relevant. I personally an appropriate article telling what this row is should be linked to.  AcroX  23:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not the purpose of wikilinks to tell people the meanings of basic English words. If it was, every word on the main page would be linked to Wiktionary. Algebraist 00:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

After looking through Wikitonary, I discovered that row used in this way is considered unclear, and I've personally never encountered row used in such a way (and I bet I'm not the only one). Surely a higher-frequency word could have been used, like argument or controversy?  AcroX  00:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Article or News Stories

Many excerpts in ITN don't include links to a longer article about the actual event. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumelfmage (talk • contribs) 03:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you refer to a specific item? An example would help me understand your question better. Thanks, Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blurbs lacking adequate context

In two recent items the blurb has been put up with what in my judgment is an inadequate contextual description,[4] or the blurb was altered after it was first put up to remove such needed context.[5]

The first case is the so-called Climategate. That blurb read: "Unidentified hackers steal and publish more than 1,000 private e-mails and 2,000 documents on climate change research, from a server at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. "

The second case was the Dubai World liquidity crisis (currently up). It originally read: "The investment company Dubai World, owned by the Dubai government, asks creditors for a six-month moratorium on its US$59 billion debt, giving indication of problems with the state's finances. " This, however, was changed to: "The investment company Dubai World, owned by the Dubai government, asks creditors for a six-month moratorium on its US$59-billion debt. " The edit summary given by Tariqabjotu was "last part of sentence (sounds like editorializing, redundant, avoids the state/emirate/country confusion), grammar)". I would like to point out that the editorializing issue had already been evaluated by BorgQueen in the nomination discussion where she wrote "...I wondered for a moment if "giving indication of problems with the state's finances" would be POV, but the fear it has caused on the market says otherwise. Your blurb does not show (to a layperson) why the moratorium is particularly significant."

I'm conflating these two cases and presenting them here in order to raise our attention about the problem we see here. On the one hand we don't want to get entangled in presenting one side of a potential POV issue, but being overly cautious we divest our news item of meaning to the reader who is not already familiar with the principles involved and rendering them bewildered as to why this is considered important news. __meco (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"I would like to point out that the editorializing issue had already been evaluated by BorgQueen..." Okay. And? I disagreed with her. Obviously, this comes down to a matter of opinion, but I don't think the current blurb for the Dubai issue is any less informative than the original blurb. The blurb already says the company is owned by the government of Dubai, and it already says the amount of the debt is $59 billion, also known as a lot of money. That a government is requesting a moratorium on a debt that large should be significant as it is. But, if it's not clear enough, I think one of two components could improve the clarity: (a) state that it was the government of Dubai who made the request, making the connection to the government clearer or (b) state that Dubai World accounts for three quarters of the emirate's entire debt. However, I don't think the line "giving indication of problems with the [emirate]'s finances" adds anything to what is there now. Further, we should always let the facts speak for themselves. I understand the conclusion is not particularly far-fetched, and I doubt anyone will shout POV, but I think the message could come across in a more objective manner. -- tariqabjotu 12:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the alternatives you exemplify are good and that the original wording was not the best possible. Although the present minimal blurb does not leave much unsaid, I still think it would be preferrable to spell out the issue simply because the ability to conjecture is unevenly endowed upon our readership. And in the climategate case I still think omitting context is regrettable. __meco (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You guys should've look first at P:CE since it is... right there. –Howard the Duck 16:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? -- tariqabjotu 17:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Those green boxes at WP:ITN/C... –Howard the Duck 18:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Are you intentionally being stubborn, or do you think it's funny? I know what Portal:Current events is; it's just that "You guys should've look[ed] first at P:CE" is hardly a complete thought. If you're suggesting that we should have taken cues on what the portal said about this event -- namely "Dubai World, the state-owned real-estate and ports giant, asks for a moratorium on its 59 billion US dollars' in debt until at least May 30, 2010." -- then what you're suggesting is clearly a step back in informativeness. If what you're suggesting is something else entirely, then, forgive me, I can't read your mind. So, let's try again: what are you talking about? -- tariqabjotu 22:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Do you have to be that retaliatory? The P:CE blurb I used for the SVG item came as perfectly fine. If you have an issue with the Dubai blurb, you should focus on that issue alone. –Howard the Duck 05:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You're still not making any sense. What is SVG, and who mentioned it other than you? I did talk about the Dubai blurb, so what's the problem? Really... forget about it; I see this is heading nowhere. I already made my points, and I don't think the P:CE item on Dubai World is concise or more informative than what is currently there. -- tariqabjotu 18:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Howard the Duck is talking about the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines item. Obviously, his communication skills are not that good... --BorgQueen (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was a WP:Pointy post to explain why he thinks blurbs with inadequeate context is problematic? Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The LHC broke a world record.

Hope to see it on the front page soon. 66.65.141.221 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C is the place to make suggestions. --Tone 23:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Court orders wikipedia to disclose IP address

[edit] G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc (02 December 2009)

G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc [2009] EWHC 3148 (QB) (02 December 2009) The Applicants applied to the court for an order requiring the Respondent to disclose the IP address of a registered user of the website http://www.wikipedia.org/ ("Wikipedia"). The user in question had made an amendment to an article available on Wikipedia. At the end of the hearing the court made the order that the Respondent disclose the IP information. Ron Barker (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like something for Wikipedia Signpost rather than ITN. Especially as it was a default judgment where the Wikimedia Foundation were not formally represented. We have to treat Foundation issues with NPOV as well! Physchim62 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well put. Nick carson (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving ITN/C

Hi, I see you have taken on the archiving duties at ITN recently. I wanted to run an idea past you before suggesting it elsewhere. What if each day's candidates were on a separate page (e.g. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/5 Dec 2009) and the last 7 days were automatically transcluded, using parser functions, on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. That would avoid the need for archiving and it would also leave the history of the page intact. It might also make it easier to create new days because we can use preload templates, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth the effort as that would definitely simplify things. I'm not sure if there are any guidelines to archive management, but if having an individual page for each day does not affect current functionality, I don't see why not. I'm a bit new to ITN, so you may also want to get the opinion of Cargoking who was doing it for a bit longer before me. He may be able to raise some points I'm not thinking about. Arsonal (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have pinged him - hopefully he'll give his opinion. The only difference in functionality would be that each new comment would not show up on people's watchlists as they would be on separate pages. Indeed there would rarely be a need to edit the main candidates page. I don't think this would be a problem though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking of doing this myself a few days ago. I have moved this conversation to Wikipedia talk:In the news. I would very much approve of this idea.  Cargoking  talk  17:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't thought of a reaction to this yet but it is almost a new year so 1 January seems like a good time to begin something new (if it is approved). --candle•wicke 17:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've put some possible code on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/sandbox. It uses Template:ITN candidates which was started by Pharos in May 2008 but not currently used. I've modified it so that the appearance matches what we are familiar with today. The beauty is that all the daily headings and translusions of Portal:Current events is done automagically. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(I was directed here by a message left on my talk page by User:Cargoking) This sounds like a sensible suggestion to me, though slightly confusing for newcomers who hit the edit button (a similar problem exists with the current WP:ERRORS setup). The new pages could even be generated automatically with a bot. Sounds like we should go ahead and give it a go - the worst that happens is we revert WP:ITN/C to before the changes and carry on as before. Modest Genius ^talk 18:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I like Martin's sandbox. One question though, where's the archive?  Cargoking  talk  18:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about the ptoposal, I'm leaning towards oppose. First, I'm not sure if anything is broken and if the change is merited. I'm not saying changes are bad, I'm open to them, but I'm not sure if it's necessary in this case. Second, I have ITN watchlisted and use this to see when new items are nominated, or when items are commented on, supported, or opposed. The multiple pages would interfere with this. Third, sometimes the same item is nominated under different dates twice, and the multiple pages would only increase confusion and make fixing of this a little more difficult. Fourth, sometimes items remain on ITN for longer than 7 days and still require an active candidates page so possible late wording changes can be made. If a page was archived, then comments and suggestions about existing items would be difficult if not possible if an arbitrary time was set for archival. And sometimes, with the different length of the Main Page, some items that have aged off are sometimes returned. Thanks, Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Spencer. If it's not broke, why fix it? --PlasmaTwa2 21:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the idea is good since it makes things more organized. On the other hand, several subpages make it impossible to follow the development of the debate on the watchlist (what I do mostly and think would be a pity to lose). The problem with arhiving old debates could be easily solved using a bot that archives debates that have been inactive for a certain period of time. Maybe we should try that first. --Tone 22:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Can the bot move subpages? Can we have Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/Today created daily at midnight UTC, and moved to [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/<Insert yesterday's date>]] 24 hours later? Would this help keep discussions on watchlists? --PFHLai (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't advise on any of the technical aspects but I have to say that having the last seven days on one page seems to be far more convenient for ITN contributers than having separate pages. Normally, items are being discussed at least a day later anyway.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems like if this is imposed, ITN/C will be like Portal:Current events.  Cargoking  talk  12:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I do prefer the way P:CE is set up though. When I first came on board ITN, I thought clicking the button that creates a new day would do the same in ITN/C. I realized later that is not the case. I've also noticed during archiving that oftentimes people don't add the new day to ITN/C when it has already been added for several hours to P:CE. Arsonal (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on the proposed changes to the archive system but I would definitely prefer to be able to keep the candidates page watchlisted - Dumelow (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There would be no need for bot archiving -- just leave the subpages in place, and there's your archive; just like POTD and TFA. If there's support for having more than 7 days worth transcluded on ITN/C, that can very easily be extended to 10 or 14 or whatever. Is the watchlist really that useful for such a frequently-edited page? Modest Genius ^talk 03:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I find it helpful in seeing if there has been a new item nominated, or if a nominated item has been commented on. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm leaning towards support, the issue of debate spanning more than one day can be solved by linking to the previous day. This proposal will make it easy to search for a particular debate. Well this proposal is still under discussion so it should be implemented after a consensus is reached, or else we can run a beta version parallel to the current arrangement. --yousaf465' 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we have enough support for a trial at least. Say two weeks? I don't have much time currently, so perhaps the new year would be a good idea as Candlewicke suggested. A few points:

• Unfortunately it is not possible to run the two systems "in parallel" because that would need everyone to make their comments twice! However I am confident that the transition can be done smoothly.
• I need to sort out something before any trail: currently the [edit] links do not work properly as they link to the template not the actual discussion page. I think I know how to fix this though. Y Sorted this out now, I think.
• Regarding the concern about comments not appearing on the watchlist: this can probably be achieved using Special:RecentChangesLinked. I will look into it. Would Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/watchlist be useful?

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Equatorial Guinean presidential election, 2009

Could we change the in the news blurb for this article to "Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo (pictured) is re-elected President of Equatorial Guinea in a contested election." See recent changes to said page and discussion as Talk:Equatorial Guinean presidential election, 2009. Thank You SADADS (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there are many reliable sources giving doubts over the election. We had something similar for the 2009 Iranian elections where we added amid protests and allegations of electoral fraud to the end. I have no problems with adding "amid allegations of electoral fraud" to the end of our current blurb. To me "a contested election" could easily mean an election in which candidates contested (for) a position as opposed to one in which the result is contested. I will wait to see if anyone supports this solution before updating - Dumelow (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"amid allegations of electoral fraud" is great. Thank you SADADS (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I am going to change the main page wording as this is a fairly basic statement of fact and there has been support for this at the article talk page - Dumelow (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian Presidential election results not validated

Attention! The results of the 2009 Romanian Presidential election were not validated yet by the Romanian Constitutional Court (as according to law) and are subject to massive fraud allegations. The opposition currently contests the result so I suggest removing the news until the result of the vote is validated. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the blurb on the main page so that it mentions the allegations of electoral fraud and the constitutional court. I have left it up as we have done so before in cases where electoral fraud has been alleged. Someone else can feel free to remove or change the wording if they like (I feel it could be improved from my effort) - Dumelow (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ITN doesn't usually wait for all possible complaints to have been dealt with, but goes on official results (not exit polls) from reliable sources. Let's not forget that it isn't Wikipedia that decides who will be the next Romanian President, but at the same time we can use reliable sources as for any other article. The margin is very close (according to the Spanish press, it was decided on overseas votes, which is unusual for a national election). Perhaps the blurb could be modified to say that he won by only just over 70,000 votes (0.67%). Physchim62 (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest: Traian Băsescu (pictured) is re-elected President of Romania by a margin of less than 0.67%: opponent Mircea Geoană contests the results. Physchim62 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The current form posted now on the main page seems ok to me until further news appear. I promise to keep you in touch with any updates. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Abkhazian presidential election, 2009

Is coming up ah later today. Country is not widely recognised though. Should we mention it when we get results in?©Geni 02:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please nominate items on WP:ITN/C. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Houston Mayoral Election

If Annise Parker wins the Houston mayoral election, it should be included because it would be the first Openly Gay person elected mayor of a major U.S. city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.203.128 (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable surely, but there have been openly gay people elected to mayoral positions in other countries, even other western countries. Nick carson (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PKK flag

I'd strongly advise to remove the PKK flag from the DTP ban entry. the PKK-relations issue is an ongoing POV conflict, and including the PKK banner is indirectly a quite strong statement. Either we have a symbol of the DTP there, or leave the picture out altogether. --Soman (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] North American snowstorms

Hi, I have recently created a stub for the snowstorms in America entitled December 2009 North American snowstorms. Can some people expand the article to a reasonable standard? 03md 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, try asking some fellow users in your local area. There was really mainly 1-3 of us who did the bulk of the work for the Black Saturday bushfires article. You'd think people would be more interested but sometimes you just have to do it yourself :] Nick carson (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 2009 European snowfall

Someone please update? at least 80 deaths now [6] IJA (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. There are multiple sources listed at WP:ERRORS. HJMitchell You rang? 23:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(I'm forum shopping; it's been several hours since leaving my comment at WP:ERRORS, yet the Main Page hasn't been updated.) On a related note, the death toll for North American blizzard of 2009 is reportedly 7, according to the Associated Press via The Guardian and The New York Times. APK whisper in my ear 03:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)