This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Template talk:In the news. Thanks.
Oppose as nominator It's not exactly something you accidentally grow, but it's been ruled out as bio-terrorism. Perhaps it develops into something more interesting and someone writes a nice article about it... Madcoverboy (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator So I'm sure a lot of people here aren't big fans of military largesse, much less American military contracts. However this is a major upset for Boeing and involves a European consortium, so it's sufficiently international. It's also tied into a major scandal from 2003 involving a pork-barrel leasing program. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright - I think I have it. The system was to be called the KC-45 regardless of the platform. The A330MRTT was recoded as the KC30 by Northrop.Madcoverboy (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most important political thinkers of the last half century died early Wednesday morning at his desk in his Stamford, Connecticut home. Buckley was the founder of the conservative magazine The National Review, and was instrumental in the emergence of modern conservatism in the United States.
I follow my comments on the talk page when this was first suggested. We should not add any deaths until we resolve the death criteria, unless it is of major importance. This man's death isn't, it shouldn't go up. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 04:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for 1 day I have no personal affinity for the man or his views, but per a thread we had on talk about increasing the churn on the template I think we should incorporate notable deaths like this for one day and then take them off. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have we ever done that? Have something up for a day? Not including the contested items that were taken off cause they shouldn't have been on there in the first place? --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer, no. But it was an idea that was brought upon on Talk as a compromise over what some people believe to be an unnecessarily high death criterion with others' concerns that the page isn't dynamic enough. Granted, there a many, many notable people die every day but a special few might warrant 24 hours in the ITN sun. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that he is notable enough to be mentioned; as George Will once noted, Buckley was instrumental in winning the Cold War, which was the defining conflict of the last half century, so his passing is quite significent. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been two months since he got there, but the fact he was there was only announced today, following a media blackout. SupportKaid100 (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if something happened to him such as being injured in the line of duty or being captured, it would be newsworthy. A soldier fulfilling his duties is not news. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It was notable news when he first enlisted, and later when it said he wasn't going. Now that it is revealed he is there, it is important, or at least interest, to the Commonwealth countries. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This isn't news, it's just idle infotainment - "look at what someone famous is doing!" Go to Entertainment Weekly or your preferred blog if you want this kind of tripe. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not infotainment, hes the first senior royal to fight on a battlefield since Queen Victoria’s grandson Prince Maurice in World War One Tgb25 (talk) 11:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the fact that it was kept secret for 10 weeks adds to the notarity. In a time when the NYT exposes every tactic of the war on terror, British (and commonwealth) media are going out of the way making deals with the gov't to maintain the security. Especially poinent as his mother may have been killed due to overzealous paparazzi. And its far more notable than the Euro hitting an all time high. (Why it just might hit another high next month too.)--Lemmey (talk) 05:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I remain neutral on the story, your comment seems to be missing the point. This wasn't a tactic, simply a person who was serving on the frontline. Revealing that he was would have put his life and the life of those around him at excesive risk but would have seemingly served no other purpose, there is no reason why the fact that he is serving needs to be scrutinised. This is quite different from the NYT revealing the use of controversial tactics such as waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, wiretaps not sanctioned by the juridiciary etc. A better example would be if Jenna and whatever Bush were serving on the front line. Also, the media blackout was from what I can tell, only ever intended to remain while he was there. Once he had left, it was always fair game. If I'm not mistaken, many media outlets in the US do agree to blackouts for their embedded reporters for example. P.S. This is I guess OR but perhaps most significantly, it seems likely that the media's decision to maintain a blackout was at least partially motivated by selfinterest. Any decision to report on the story, would have likely drawn a large amount of very negative flak (as we've already seen with New Idea). It may have generated a few days of hot sales, but beyond that it's unlikely it would have continued while the negativity would have remained. And it's unlikely a great amount of people would be congratulating them for their revelation since there was nothing significant or important about it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Tour has now come to an end, and he is the first senior royal to fight on a battlefield since Queen Victoria’s grandson Prince Maurice in World War One.[1]Tgb25 (talk) 11:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why haven't we covered John McCain's son's tour of duty in Iraq? Surely the presumptive Republican presidential candidate/world-famous Vietnam POW/big-name Senator is just as notable as the Queen? Wouldn't then his son too warrant coverage? It's a strawman argument, but it exposes the banality of the argument "someone famous is doing/did something!" Madcoverboy (talk) 12:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't appear to be true that Drudge broke the story or that it was kept secret for 2 months. It had been previously published in New Idea in early January and at least one German media source at some other time, a fact the Drudge report story apparently previously acknowledged [2]. However it does appear that the New Idea story didn't receive must attention and the Drudge report story was the one which forced it completely out into the open. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's been announced in the last few hours that Harry is being withdrawn from Afghanistan. Could this make the story more notable and in-the-present? How's this for the headline:
I can understand why nobody noticed when New Idea reported it; half of what they publish is made-up and nobody takes it seriously as a source of reputable information. - Mark14:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes, its a well sourced fact that children with all their fingers and toes are able to count to much higher numbers. Stupid land mines... --Lemmey (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it has been announced he will be leaving due to the leak, I definetely think that it should go up. Kaid100's proposed wording is good. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I agree with CWY2190. Unless he's injured it doesn't matter. Maybe if several hundred troops were removed, but it just appears to be a celebrity story as now. Also, his life was never really on the line, (an 6-sentence blurb in The Plain Dealer said he'd never been in the line of fire.), though he contributed to the British effort. And yes, I am an American...typical that I oppose ;-). But really. I think this is a milked-out media story. He's been there 2 months. SpencerT♦C22:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "the country's political crisis" or "the country's post-election political crisis". This shouldn't go up yet though, as its not on Wikinews, and the article hasn't been sufficiently updated. Full support from me though once those conditions are met. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews coverage has never been a pre-requisite for ITN. We just need an updated article, which I think this one has. --Stephen23:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support If after a month of Democrats/Republicans or Labor/Conservative hacking up each other's supporters, they finally announced a power-sharing compromise, you'd bet ITN would cover it. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb would have to make some assertion of notability like this being the largest EU antitrust fine ever or some such thing. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC) I haven't had my morning coffee yet, so my reading comprehension isn't up to snuff. I'll support pending a reword of the blurb and the article being updated. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. We seem to have a "support" consensus for this news item. It's a record-breaking fine against an internationally-significant corporation, and it seems to meet all of the criteria, so why has no one added it to the main page? Lovelac714:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft getting record fines is like reporting high gas prices as news. "And be sure to tune in next Tuesday for the highest prices ever, part II."--Lemmey (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what fluctuating gas prices have to do with a one-time fine. In any case, we seem to have a lot items on this page that garner a consensus of support, but never make it to the main page. Any thoughts on the matter? Lovelac716:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some kind of WP:Playdumb policy going on here when it comes to metaphors? Microsoft gets finned by the EU every couple of months. This is just the latest in the biggest fine ever list.--Lemmey (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterate support. Bad faith version: The price of the euro is up there, surely the price of oil, wheat, palladium, and Microsoft monopoly costs should as well, no? Good faith version: Maybe we've just been dulled to the extent of it and certainly I am unfamiliar with the finality/appeals process for such a fine, but a fine of over a billion dollars indicates there is still significant market exploitations being exacted by this monopoly. While M$ may have billions in cash on hand, I doubt they're OMGLOLBBQ happy about the taking a billion dollar hit. There are a number of very good wikipedia articles on aspects related to MS, EU, antitrust, etc. that I mentioned above that should be featured. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Euro reaches 1.5 USD. Or Dollar falls to 2/3 of Euro... Since we had the price of barrel surpassing 100$, this may be interesting as well. I just have no idea which article to use as the main one. --Tone12:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both of them strike me as psychological thresholds rather than actual news items. If the European or Federal Reserve announced they were shifting monetary policy from inflation targeting or some such thing... well I don't even know if that would make it either. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's useful enough to put this on ITN. We've covered the American economy before, with the housing bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis, and the way the dollar is slipping is mostly a result of these few storms colliding at once. While it's true it's only a psychological threshold, it's still quite a significant one. News agencies around the world are reporting this story. —msikma (user, talk)14:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support We covered major drops and/or highs on stock exchanges several times in the past, the exchange rate between the two major currencies of international importance is for sure relevant as well. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the exchange rate between the dollar and the Euro is certainly very important, the fact of the matter is that this is a highly impractical ITN item. What if the euro drops a bit tomorrow, and next week reaches 1.51 vs. the dollar? Should we include it then? If the exchange rate was adjusted only say 4 times per year then this would be fine, but the inherent nature of this item makes it highly flawed for ITN. Also i believe that some time ago after the Euro previously reached a record high it was proposed for ITN and rejected at the time. Thethinredline (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is changing all the time but this is the first time to cross a somehow rounded number. The same goes for oil barrels, we didn't report each record, just the one when it crossed 100$ for the first time. It is a psychological margin, nothing special otherwise. But being a margin makes it newsworthy, IMO. --Tone18:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well i was opposed to mentioning the crude oil price as well, and two wrongs (in my mind and opinion, of course) do not make a right. Should it ever come to it, will we mention if the Euro comes to $2, or if it drops back down $1? Perhaps i would accept mentioning this if it crossed a truly significant benchmark, like going from $0.99 to $1.01, however to me $1.50 is just five cents more than $1.45.
Isn't it ironic how the three people in support of this item are from Eurozone countries and the two who aren't are from the US. Who'd have thought that???? Thethinredline (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, now we're geing accused of anti-Europeanism. It never ends. Support. It involves the two most important currencies in the world, and the Euro being worth $1.5 is certainly newsworthy. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm Canadian do I get the tiebreaker? I'd say its significant, because in essence the largest effect of currency exchange rates are psychological, so breaking a psychological barrier is newsworthy. Random89 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People never seem to recognize toungue-in-cheek humor when it's written online. I thought i insulated myself from people assuming i was being serious by also mentioning the that the people who wanted it censored were Americans, as well as my multiple question marks! If i was seriously alleging anti-American sentiment in the item i would only have used one. Thethinredline (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a news item, but an arbitrary threshold decided by no one that has little fiscal significance. It's no more notable than the Euro trading at 1.49 to the dollar, assuming that was the new record. - Chardish (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have rearranged this sentence, since its existing wording implied that the Euro was reaching stellar heights in the forex markets, when in fact the real news is the US dollar slumping very low. I'm not endorsing the inclusion of this in any way; just changing what is already there to be less misleading. - Mark09:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current text says "The euro reaches a record high closure exchange rate of US$1.5044." - I propose to change this sentence in a way to get rid of the arbitrary rate of 1.5044. The main point really is that the euro crossed for the first time the rate of $1.50. The exact exchange rate is volatile and not so much important. Therefore, my proposal is "The euro increased it's value against the US dollar and surpassed the exchange rate of US$1.50.". What's about it? Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't change the fact that $1.50 is an undefined psychological threshold that has no particular notability and is not more important than the fact that it passed $1.48, for example. - Chardish (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the difference is so severe is that it is to some extent, both, though mainly the dollar falling. The euro is near 52 week highs against the pound sterling (all time high hit in Jan) and some other currencies too. zoney ♣talk10:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Despite international implications, no mention of it on the network news in the US. Doesn't show up in top AP stories, world stories or business stories on Yahoo News. Only 327 "related articles" on Google News. I presume tax evasion through the use of offshore accounts is so common that this particular investigation is out of the ordinary only in that it involves so many countries simultaneously. Even then, it appears most people involved are German. The U.S. IRS says it is investigating "more than 100" taxpayers, according to The New York Times -- that's not that big of a deal. Will reconsider if the story gets more attention outside of Central Europe. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm trying to make is that it's primarily a regional news event rather than a global news event at the moment. The Google News article count is worldwide. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly I think a tax affair involving 13 countries is more of a "global news event" than say the Cypriot presidential election. --Bender235 (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not updated. Please, post news like this to the portal first. After it's upadted, it is potentially interesting, depends on how long there was no electricity. --Tone21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it was only 700,000 people affected. That's not millions. As it is now, I say it doesn't go up. This one will need loads of work before it is itn worthy. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was over 3 million without electicity at some point, there are muliple coverage of the outtage, including top story in CNN, FOX, and google news and it's world wide news like the BBC is currently covering it, it does need to be expanded, and split to a new subpage. [3]
Oppose Ok, it's international but it's not as though the pipeline was approved by all countries or has even opened. The article also hasn't been updated. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Madcoverboy. We didn't mention Bulgaria, we didn't mention Serbia. I don't see any reason why Hungary is particularly noteable. From what I can tell, it isn't the last country to need approval for the northern route (the article is a bit unclear but I think we need either Croatia or Austria at least). And the EU regulatory authorities also need to agree according to the article Nil Einne (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support If nothing newsworthy happens for a few days, put it up as backup. Not the greatest/most important news but the South Stream article is half-decent. Hobartimus (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good item that we would normally not support, but in the spirit of cycling through the list on ITN, I support this. grant.alpaugh07:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the updates are quite extensive already when compared to other ITN items, and especially when no new article would be created, just an section on the article. --HowardtheDuck17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "two short paragraphs" are actually not a bad sized update compared to other ITN updates. Support per Grant, to speed the rotation. Random89 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait until the concert occurs rather than the arrival, given the situation's sensitivity. And, for the record, we don't need a completely new article for ITN, just a significant update or new section somewhere. --Stephen20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the dangling phrase "to do so" at the end of the sentence. I think should read: "The New York Philharmonic (director Lorin Maazel pictured) becomes the first Western orchestra to play a concert in North Korea." Yah yah, I know you all don't like easter eggs but having it read "to play at that (theater) in North Korea" trivializes the event by privileging the venue over the occasion. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. In case of a multiple win, it should be: Movie ?? wins X (where X>3) awards, including Best Picture. --Tone21:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should it really be up right now? It's only being held. What's the difference between this and someone putting up "The Super Bowl is being played", something that no one would put up? It probably won't be taken down, but still, we should have waited till the end. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An issue that needs to be addressed when this is put up, is the name of the flight. I have moved the article to Flight 508 based on information in the article, but the Spanish Wikipedia calls it Flight 518. AecisBrievenbus16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support also. Can we take away the abbreviation in PKK and make it "Kurdistan Workers Party"? Or "Kurdish terrorists (or separatists)"? SpencerT♦C21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only reason I wrote massive was because reports indicated that it was, relatively speaking, massive, as in the biggest Turkish incursion in a decade. Other reports have now discounted that, so I'm completely in agreement with change. Joshdboz (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The recognition process is entering a critical phase. I'd suggest that the item is recycled and the governmental respons article be highlighted. The article seems to be one of the most edited articles in Wikipedia. --Camptown (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather make a post about the mass protests taking place in Serbia at the moment, media say it's going to be a million people joining. An event as such is notable automatically (we just need an article update). --Tone16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The largest gathering in the history of Serbia as reported, over million people. Minor group of hooligans attackes US consulate but 50 football hooligans vs. one million people is not headline worthy, just to go into the article. --Avala (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looted McDonald's? That's not really what we put up on main page. I would also add that rioters were only about 100 in numbers when opposed to 150.000 protesters. --Avala (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting the number of rioters? Anyway, I don't think the number of rioters is important; what's important is that the U.S. embassy, technically American territory, was invaded, ransacked and set ablaze. I mentioned the destruction of the McDonald's and the looting of shops to indicate the embassy was not the rioters' only target. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CNN report. I wouldn't go into details because some other restaurants were attacked not only McDonald's. Also only one office of the US embassy was burned where they thrown flares not the whole building. Anyway I would suggest "A peaceful rally of 150,000 people against Kosovo's declaration of independence took place in Belgrade. At the same time smaller group of hooligans went on a riot looting shops and setting consular office of the US embassy on fire where body of one rioter was found." --Avala (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the games are to take place for the first time only in two years time. We can make a post then but now it seems prematurely. (Of course, choosing a venue of Olympic games is another story, they have a long tradition already). --Tone17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully, the only games that should be put up are the Olympic and Commonwealth Games, in my opinion. These games will no doubt be overshadowed by the 2010 Olympics. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say doesn't match the death guidelines, and considering our article is not notable enough for inclusion on ITN anyway. --Golbez (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has not been updated enough yet as sources are just starting to come out, but within a few hours, or at least by morning (in the USA), the article should be updated enough. ---CWY2190TC04:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support once enough details are out. Now we can stop looking up in fear. I think it should be an SM-3 missile, by the way, although the term "SM-3" won't mean much to most people anyway. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The satellite going kablooey would've been significant enough, but there is very little notability to this as debris is still falling to Earth. Eventually it had to explode or disintegrate sooner or later.--WaltCip (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one. Lunar eclipses are not rare but this will be the only full one seen for next 3 years. When it happens, it would be nice to have a photo. --Tone23:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the penumbral phase has started. If we wait for the eclipse to totally end, it won't go up until after 0617 UTC. ---CWY2190TC01:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why we can't wait till the moon gets dark before we post a line saying that a total eclipse takes place. It's like announcing who wins in an election known to be rigged while the votes are still being counted..... --PFHLai (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posted without the commentary as we rarely mention that for other elections. BBC had the results as final, referenced in the article. --Stephen01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be "Former Prime Minister..." instead of just "Prime Minister"? because it gave me the impression at first that he was holding both positions at once. SpencerT♦C11:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose he'll have to step down as a prime minister and appoint a new one. The post could also be: ??? is appointed as the new Armenian PM after Serzh Sargsyan is elected president. But this would move the focus from the main event, the elections. --Tone15:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely wrong - HD-DVD is reasonably popular in Europe too, France and Britain especially. That blurb also doesn't explain what Blu-ray or HD-DVD is adequately (i.e. disc formats, not file formats). -137.222.107.59 (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the statistics I have seen suggest Blu Ray dominated overwhelimgly in Europe. Also, the sources seem to suggest Wal Mart was a major factor [5]Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well what do you mean HD DVD is reasonably popular in Europe and the UK? If HD DVD remains reasonably popular in Europe without any significant drops in support then this suggest even more strongly that it was the US that mattered, for whatever reason Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That you'll find both formats on the shelves in pretty much equal numbers. French Studio Canal, for example, was HD-DVD exclusive for a time and supported both formats. It was Warner Bros switching to Blu-ray only was the primary cause of the format keeling over, but overly simplifying the reasons behind it seems a little speculative crappy for an ITN item (i.e. Blockbuster and Netflix both have large market shares and withdrew their US support long before Wal-Mart did). -137.222.107.59 (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can only go with the sources and the sources suggest both Warner Bros and major US retailers especially Wal Mart was a significant factor. Also you seem to be missing the point. Undoutedly the loss of BB and Netflix was a big thing but Wal Mart was seemingly the final straw. Just the same as the loss of all other major studios other then WB was a big thing but WB was the final straw. Nil Einne (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no major studios were "lost" before WB pulled the plug - they just never released anything on HD-DVD in the first place. Hell, Paramount actually changed from dual-format to HD-DVD-exclusive, for example. Warner Bros was undoubtedly what killed HD-DVD, but I don't think it's the blurb's place to say so. -137.222.107.59 (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but your comment there is frankly dumb. It doesn't matter whether the studios pulled out of HD DVD or never went for it in the first place. All that matters is that the fact that they didn't support was a major problem for HD DVD and therefore the loss of the only one who did support it was a major blow. Also I'm pretty sure other studios did pull out like Paramount (sorry wrong studio, New Line is what I meant Nil Einne (talk)) Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Line is a part of Warner Brothers. If we're resorting to personal attacks, then at least get your facts right before you call someone an idiot. -10:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, here is an example of the statistics I've heard which suggest your impression may be wrong, for whatever reason [6] & [7]. I admit, I don't live in Europe or the US nor have I followed the format war that closely but it's my understanding it was only in the US that HD DVD had any chance in recent times and this has collapsed with nearly all major retailers pulling out. HD DVD had already collapsed in Europe, for whatever reason before it collapsed in the US Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that includes the PS3. Blu-ray has an even larger lead in the US if you take into account PS3 sales. I just don't think it's right for a blurb to simplify and speculate in such a way - it should largely be fact-orientated. -137.222.107.59 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm really confused. What does the PS3 have to do with the number of Blu Ray movies sold versus the number of HD DVD movies sold? Ultimately the fact that Blu Ray majorly outsold HD DVD movies in Europe was a big thing and indicated that Blu Ray had already won in Europe for whatever reason. This may of may not have to do with the PS3, but that seems irrelevant to me Nil Einne (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blu-ray discs have been included with PS3 bundles, pack-ins etc. The PS3 is a Blu-ray player. Blu-ray had not already 'won' in Europe, please stop saying things like that when you don't even live in the same continent as me to judge. And besides, it's WP:OR saying so, so your point is completely moot. -137.222.107.59 (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I am a better judge then you. I am judging these matters on sources. You seem to be judging these matters on your personal experience which is by definition OR. On wikipedia, sources always wins over personal experience and whether you like it or not, people who don't live in Europe are perfectly entilted to form an opinion Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate then that a long term contributor thinks that they are able to dismiss another editor because they don't live in Europe. Perhaps you may want to re-read WP:NPA? I have already shown your multiple sources BTW. All you have shown me is OR Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm dismissing you because _you're wrong_ and have shown no sources that actually disagree with what I've said yet continued to argue about it because "you know better" despite not living anywhere near Europe. Hell, a source from mere months ago claims that HD-DVD is beating Blu-ray in Europe![8]. "AFAIK, HD DVD only really took off somewhat in the US" - See, 'AFAIK' - blatant WP:NOR -137.222.107.59 (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You explicitly stated that 'please stop saying things like that when you don't even live in the same continent as me to judge'. This comes awfully close to a personal attack but I don't intend to make a complaint. I've already shown some sources prior to this which IMHO support what I say. As I have stated from the beginning, I am basing my view on sources, you were always welcome to show sources which prove me wrong but have refused to show me anything other then to insist you were right. Or to put it a different way, you have shown absolutely NO sources and have insisted that I believe you because you live in the UK, which sorry I'm not willing to do. In any case you appear to have proven my original point. For whatever reason, Europe was NOT a major factor in the HD war. Things in Europe have not changed recently and it is only in the US where major retailers like Wal Mart and studios like WB have pulled out that things have changed and this was enough for Toshiba to end their support for HD DVD. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether HD DVD or Blu Ray were more popular in Europe, the only question is, was Wal Mart a major factor in Toshiba's decision? Most sources say yes Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because calling someones comment "dumb" is much further away from being a personal attack. Please stop wikilawyering. You're wrong, and have shown no sources that actually agree with you (simply that "Blu-ray was beating HD-DVD" which is true /worldwide/, not that "HD DVD only really took off somewhat in the US" or that it wasn't popular in Europe). You've shown one source and that has turned into "most sources" and you've never adequately proven your original point. I think your remarks have already shown you to be ignorant in this matter, so I'm not even going to bother replying. -137.222.107.59 (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a comment dumb is not a personal attack. It may be a violation of civility but it is implicilty not a personal attack since it is a comment on what has been said, not a comment on the person. If I had called you dumb, that would be a personal attack but I did not call you dumb Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is saying you don't live on the same continent for you to make assertations on whether a format is popular in Europe a personal attack? "Person does not live in Europe" is now apparently a personal attack, I'll remember that in future. -137.222.107.59 (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the WalMart/WB wording doesn't have support I propose either of these as alternatives:
I don't think there needs to be discussion about this since I doubt anyone disagrees with including it, provided the articles receive the appropriate updates Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This and the current previous headline are inaccurate. Although his party may have lost, Musharraf was not up for election, thus he could not concede. There was already a consensus headline discussed below that a drive-by admin ignored. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to the wording we agreed on. Next time, remind the drive-by admins to check this page first. What I don't like about the present formulation is that it says Pakistan twice. But it is still correct. --Tone17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue "opposition" is an imprecise and POV term. There were many parties who opposed Musharaff, but each of these parties may have platforms in opposition to each other. Good thing we've provided a convenient link to the article describing the party's positions if readers want to learn more! Madcoverboy (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus headline is problematic which is one of the reasons people need to be careful about developing headlines before the event. The PPP gained a plurality but it's questionable whether they 'won' the election. They are still very far from a majority Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last time, it was intra-day, by a trader who did it just to set the record. This is the first close over $100, a major psychological barrier. I know, it's kind of irritating to see oil's price mentioned once a month, but then, it's also irritating to have running tallies of medals in the Olympics on the front page. I'd hate to see trivial crap on the main ... MrVoluntarist (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While you're right, as it turned out, the trader succeeded in taking all the attention away from what is arguably the more significant change. I heard about the $100 outside wikipedia a lot. I didn't even know it had hit $100 again. Perhaps this speaks more about me then anything else but even so, it seems the big pscyhological barrier was $100 and once it hit that, even though it turned out to be a false start it still passed the barrier, so no one really cared when it really passed the barrier. The current article doesn't even mention this second psychological barrier (closing) it only mentions the first. Indeed it only mentions February 2008 at all because of the all time high. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a noteworthy news event that deals primarily with issues of censorship from the United States and the status of a highly controversial website that has been censored in China, Thailand and Russia. The case (as detailed in the article) stems from the unauthorized release of documents from Bank Julius Baer's anti-money laundering operations in the Cayman Islands, which proved them to be woefully inadequate. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A slightly non-traditional ITN-subject, but i support posting because wikileaks seems to be central to the whole concept of whistleblowers in the internet age. Thue | talk22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support in strongest possible terms This is a non-traditional ITN-subject but I think it warrants mention for several reasons. Obviously it meets the ITN criteria, I don't believe that is at issue. What is likely to be more controversial and should be determined by members of this forum, is do we eschew the informal "notability/impact/international international impact/balance" criteria to stand in solidarity with another notable and essential wikiproject? While it is clearly not the job of Wikipedia to report on news or take a POV on a news item - I am not advocating that this article be promoted on such a basis - I would argue that we all share a common interest and value in not only using but protecting this open and collaborative medium from neer-do-wells like vandals, spammers, and speech-chilling litigators. We now have a chance to leverage our medium to bring light on a topic that will likely be ignored by the mainstream press. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with your reasoning. The domain loss does have international significance, as Wikileaks has published leaked documents from the Kingdom of Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Russian government, which has led to greater international media attention and, in the case of Daniel arap Moi and the elections in Kenya, actually changed the opinions of the voters. None of this can be included in the news link, of course, since it's far too long, but the signficance is there. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strongly, this event is nowhere near the noteworthiness of the kind of stories that generally appear on the frontpage. It will likely receive little to no media coverage and the only people that will know or care about it will be you and I that are on the internet often. I don't think the news of a website being shut down should be covered just above a nation declaring its independence.Charles05:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that a very obscure story is sharing space with groundbreaking news, but the independence of a country is a hard act to follow. I share your concerns about the noteworthiness of this article, in fact I hadn't even heard about Wikileaks until I came across a forum post about the lawsuit. I feel that this is exactly why we should use the ITN template to involve editors in this story. The concerns presented by the shutdown of Wikileaks are important and, specifically, are important to us as users of a wiki. That a foreign corporation was successful in shuttering a domestic website established primarily as a wiki has very obvious overtones about the chilling effect on contributions to this encyclopedia. I've briefly gone over it's real world significance (this story was also covered by the BBC), so it does concern many people both in the United States and abroad in various countries whose information was leaked. I'm hoping it's placement here will encourage others to read the story, read about what the website is and maybe look into what's on it. Anyway, I appreciate it's promotion, even if it somewhat brief, since the article at Wikileaks is already being improved substantially so thanks. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Remove I couldn't find this on the websites for the NY Times, WSJ, or Times of London. Madcoverboy, we're not a newspaper who pushes what we find important. Charles Stewart (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Sure I think it is a disturbing violation of the first amendment, but it is still available on dozens of mirror sites and doesn't seem that important. But a site that is banned in China and other countries is not that rare, but a website being removed in the US is something I've never heard. Another thing this brings up, is that when SCOTUS decides the D.C. Gun Case, will that be notable to be on ITN? ---CWY2190TC05:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a non-sequitur: If the criteria for ITN inclusion is coverage in the NYT, WSK, ToL, etc., then (for all intents and purposes) we are a newspaper. Because it is not in those sources, then it cannot be included in ITN. Obviously this condition and the contrapositive (it is covered extensive in the news, but not in ITN) are both not true. Earlier, I was arguing that because this news item concerns bedrock principles of wikipedia (openness, transparency, freedom), we as wikipedians have a stake in using our bully pulpit (of sorts) to highlight it. I'm not saying that we should have a special exemption for every wiki-related press release that comes down the pike, nor that we should assert a POV regarding the actions of either side. Rather, the mere occurrence of the event is of profound and specific import for this project and everyone who contributes, uses, even depends upon Wikipedia because of the issues at stake. In the end, the Streisand effect will prevail - this injunction is inevitably going to backfire and attract even more attention which means we're going to end up covering it in the end (Google News has 22 articles related to it posted in the last 12 hours). Madcoverboy (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for 24-hour inclusion. I was just saying on the talk page that we should increase the number of stories we feature on the main page, but update the page more often. This is an interesting story that deserves to be on the main page for a day or so, but it shouldn't stay on the main page until it's "bumped off" the bottom of the list. Lovelac706:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with time limit. Anything that deserves to be on ITN should be on until it gets bumped off. This recent time frame thing on ITN is ridiculous. If you want things to be turned over faster then support more items on ITN, but artificially increasing the turn over is just going to lead to unnoteworthy items being on ITN. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is either fundamentally different with regards to "unnoteworthy" items being promoted? Different mechanisms for the same result: replacing old items with new items. Just a matter of definitions about what "old" is. Perhaps a discussion better had on talk than here.... Madcoverboy (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Put it back in. This is the type of news story we've seen again and again, that swirls out of control. In 24-72 hours CNN will have it. Lawrence § t/e07:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Arguments like 'standing in solidarity' etc are frankly dumb. This is ITN, not the village pump or wikipedia signpost. And ITN is always for our readers not our editors. It's also worth pointing out that this is hardly the first website to be shut down by the US, although most previous ones have been for copyright violation reasons. Also, I don't think we should be crystal balling 'this is going to swirl out of control'. There's no harm in leaving this out for now and including it if it 'swirls out of control'. The only justification for including this would be on its on merits as it stands now. It may very well have them, but I'm far from convinced from the arguments I've seen so far. Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Edit: After reading the article, the website seems to be fairly noteable so I'll change to NeutralNil Einne (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Totally trivial wiki-incest news. More relevant and important news includes Toshiba killing off HD-DVD, Pakistan elections, another round of bank write downs. Wikileaks is nothing. - hahnchen09:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as not having any international significance or at least correct the factual error of stating that wikileaks is forced offline. As our wikileaks article clearly states it can be accessed via [11] as well as the IP so at most it's a bit harder to find (have to use google or wikipedia) but not offline at all. In addition too many items at once will clutter ITN. Hobartimus (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove After reading what actually happened, this story is not noteable. Bank Julius Bär sued DynaDot. DynaDot chickened out and decided to negoiate with Bank Julius Bär and reached an agreement acceptable to both. Wikileaks for whatever reason didn't take part in the negotiations, I guess because they had decided to ignore the lawsuit. The judge signed off on the agreement. This isn't so much 'censorship by US courts' but the US courts approving an agreement between 2 parties. While technically, it would be within the court's pervue to void the agreement, in reality it was never going to happen particularly when there was no one there representing wikileaks. Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Remove How is this notable at all? Some low level judge (not the US Federal government as a whole, not the executive branch) issues an injunction against a website and then changes his mind? This isn't even censorship; it's just a judge being dumb. 128.208.6.193 (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serbia recalls ambassador to Washington over U.S. recognition of Kosovo - «The government has ordered the immediate withdrawal of the ambassador from Washington. [12][13][14] --Avala (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is important because US recognition of Kosovo led to breaking of diplomatic relations between Serbia and USA.
Oppose Well, we already have a Kosovo thing, and its only affecting the US and Serbians in the US, and Serbia still has an office in the US (United Nations in New York). Maybe if Serbia breaks relations with many more countries, but otherwise, it's a no. SpencerT♦C21:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UN office is not related to the US. All UN members have offices there. Government has announced that this will be done with all countries that recognize Kosovo. And yes we already have Kosovo, this is just the addition. --Avala (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would the US care even if Serbia completely broke off relations? I think this is completely insignificant on the other hand if the US was the one that broke off relations or recalled it's ambassador than it would be significant, the other way around, not so much. Hobartimus (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to support since it seems to be a rather drastic move and indicative of the extent of the credit/mortgage crises. However, I don't know if these Brits nationalise private entities often enough to diminish the impact of this instance. I would also be wary of reporting on the announcement versus the actual action - or are they, in effect, the same? Madcoverboy (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalising private entities almost never happens in the UK, the BBC says its the first of its kind since the 70s and it's made national headlines. This is the announcement - the actual action requires several laws to be written and passed but I'd say now would be the best time to add it. -Halo (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How major is Northern Rock? I mean, is it a very substantial bank in the UK? If it is major, then yes, but if it's only in a certain area and only serves a minor percentage population, then no. Also use United Kingdom instead of UK. SpencerT♦C18:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is of international significance! One of the UK's largest borrowers has been taken into public ownership! A milestone in British political, and global economic history. Petepetepetepete (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Support Per my comment above, the failure of private entities to support a failing bank is highly indicative of the weakness of the markets internationally. There are few stories to point to regarding the stunning avarice of these companies investments in shaky credit instruments and the on-going weakness/looming recession. Furthermore, nationalization seems to be a rare and drastic step. And a preemptive response to a predictable reply: no, promoting this does not mean we now "have to" cover every instance of government nationalizations worldwide. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator Given the violence preceding the election, there will be likely be even more surrounding the election. Thus, we should develop a consensus now on how to cover this.Madcoverboy (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just a question, do we put this on at the beginning of the day or only when there are some results known? --Tone22:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without results There is defacto consensus to include elections when the results are known so there is no need to discuss that part. However I would oppose including this until and unless the results are known Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support wording There is no need to discuss including this since there is defacto consensus for including election results. The only issue to discuss is the wording Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to remove the part about President Musharref because a) you really should be saying who is winning the election and b) Even if his party does leave, President Musharraf is still going to be there. It's basically comparable to saying that President George W. Bush's party is losing a house election. He doesn't own the party, and is not the parliamentary leader.
Support as nominator Linked from Current events. There will likely be an announcement on Monday about Toshiba, the major consumer electronics manufacturer backing HD DVD, ceasing promotion and development of the technology — effectively granting BluRay the win in this multibillion dollar industry. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's worth noting in the blurb - but since 11 Feb, NetFlix, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart all decidied to drop HDDVD/carry Bluray exclusively. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well, iff the announcement is made. This is definitely notable, encyclopedic and relevant. I do think the easter egg links should be avoided though. AecisBrievenbus22:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The story might be noteable, IF it happens. As it stands now, from what I can tell Toshiba haven't officially withdrawn support, it's just been widely speculated with the support of anonymous sources. Wide speculations should NOT get on ITN. If and when Toshiba announces they are withdrawing support then maybe we can reconsider but until then, no! Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe anyone believes this should go up now -- which is exactly why the article was nominated for 2 days from now. I think it is a good practice to develop a consensus on the appropriateness of an imminent event (like Kosovo independence, US primaries, etc.) beforehand so that we don't have to deal with drive-by POV warriors after it becomes official. Madcoverboy (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Madcoverboy, this practice is one of the best things to happen to ITN in a while. I think waiting til the last minute generally, rather than sports or primaries specifically, is what has created the most problems on ITN because everyone gets so heated in the moment that they can't think NPOV about these things. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even after the annoucement the articles will need the appropriate updates. Also, as it stands not this is still simply speculation unlike Kosovo and primaries which basically a guaranteed case. N.B. This practice isn't exactly new, we've been doing it for ages albeit primarily in the talk page and without generally discussing the wording. P.S. Perhaps I was a little unfair to editors here, I didn't really notice people had already agreed to wait for an annoucement. This is good, unfortunately editors of the HD-DVD and other appropriate articles don't seem to be following this line. Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Nil Einne pointed out on talk, I think the real problem isn't always drive-by editors, but many times drive-by admins who sometimes put up whatever suits their fancy despite the consensus we "mortal editors" have developed. Add to that confusion, the bifurcated debate between ITN talk and WP:ERRORS about correcting content and there are bound to be problems. In this respect, developing consensus ahead of time should mitigate some of more egregious errors implemented by drive-by admins. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support when announcement is made. Also, regarding the deciding in advance thing, I believ it's a great idea. There's a proposal (yeah, i started it, blatant advertising) to have a list of inclusion-worthy sports. Stop by WP:ITNSPORTS to let us know what you think. Random89 (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments it's now official but the articles still need a bit of work before being ITN worthy. For example the HD format war article has a section 'will Toshiba pull out of HD-DVD?' Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems, Kosovo is going to declare independence on Sunday. Several things are likely to happen afterwards. How shall we put thin on ITN? Update as things evolve or put a more stable post with a link to Kosovo status process? I suppose we better discuss this now than later. --Tone12:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main link should be to Kosovo and update as things evolve it might be even worth more than 1 slot on ITN. It's a good idea to decide what to do now even if the event will not happen on the 17th it won't hurt to be prepared. Hobartimus (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iff Kosovo declares independence, this should definitely be posted on ITN. So many organisations have been involved in this discussion, up to the EU and the UN Security Council, that the declaration of independence alone is newsworthy enough. AecisBrievenbus14:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Kosovo declares independence from Serbia and is recognised by ... and ..." The thing is that it's quite likely Russia will not recognise them, and saying who recognises them and who doesn't will be messy. - Shuddetalk00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider Serbia a successor to Yugoslavia, then it's the sixth state to separate. Shall we mention it's unilaterally? In any case, the post needs to reflect that the opinion of the international community is divided. --Tone08:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The parlaiment of Kosovo votes for the declaration of independence and this new state is recognized by 28* countries."
number then would have to be updated every few hours. It could also link to a list of the countries that recognized the act. Something should be agreed upon already the date is coming up fast. Also if we need new articles (list of countries, maybe one on the act of declaration itself) should be created now. Hobartimus (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the seventh to do so: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Monetenegro, Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and now Kosovo. SpencerT♦C18:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to be the phrase "to separate from": Serbia has been successively separated from (excuse what may be an over simplistic reading of recent history): "Kosovo unilaterally declares independence, becoming the seventh country to emerge from the former Yugoslavia (Socialist republic of seems redundant: everyday usage omitted it), and is recognised by n United Member nation states." I would prefer UN members only, to avoid any debate about what is to be considered a country. Kevin McE (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose removal of the "with the support of many Western governments but opposed by Serbia and Russia." Kosovo did not receive recognition from anyone (yet) and the second part is grossly misleading, insinuating as if only Russia supports Serbia's territorial integrity. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I like this one...I'll fix and wikilink the above for you...Note: Kosovo has an assembly, not a parliament. The word emerges fits the best. I'm going to say nation, not state, because the situation with Vojvodina may not work with the word "state". SpencerT♦C23:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly advise against including any statement about "being recognized by x countries" because the concept of recognition is such a complicated one. I'd rather we not say anything at all than give such a dubious claim about recognition. This isn't something just out of the whim, it's premeditated from the look of their leader's statments and this issue has been the subject of a UN-organized negotiation that has lasted almost a decade. I think it's reasonable to believe they wouldn't have done this if the international community was going to abandon them if they declared independence. From what I'm reading, the international community wants to see Kosovo remain in Serbia if possible, but after almost a decade of talks this has, in the eyes of the Kosovars, been proven unsatisfactory or unworkable, so they're declaring independence (probably encouraged by the success of montenegro's independence). Also, it's wordy. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two points: you omitted unilaterally, any reason for that? And second, you're right that the international recognition will take time so better not update the post with every new country recognizing. But the short formulation is too short since it does not reflect the complexity of the situation. Brainstorming: "The assembly of Kosovo unilaterally declares independence, becoming the seventh nation to emerge from the the former Yugoslavia. The move is criticized by Serbia and some other countries and greeted by some other countries." The international reaction needs to be reflected in the post. We have a couple of hours before this post goes on ITN, let's find a good formulation. --Tone13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a move opposed by Serbia and Russia but supported by many western governments. from CNN, I guess we can put this on for starters and improve it when an article about recognition is created. --Tone14:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little wary of the second phrase wording since CNN is reporting: "Kosovo's parliament officially declared the province's independence from Serbia today, a move opposed by Serbia and Russia but supported by many western governments." I think we are reflecting media biases by priveliging some countries' responses - indeed, what of the other 5 post-Yugoslavia states? I always thought that a declaration of independence would necessarily be unilateral. Perhaps my understanding of history is too narrow, but I understand that many post-colonial countries achieved their independence via negotiated treaties with the colonial power and most post-Soviet countries were allegedly sovereign under byzantine Soviet rules. I still support Grant's wording over this: "The assembly of Kosovodeclares independence from Serbia, becoming the seventh nation to emerge from the former Yugoslavia." Madcoverboy (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm being nitpicky, but I'm not sure about including the word unilaterally. First of all, isn't a declaration issued by a single party anyways, so it is by definition unilateral? Also it's not present in the linked article's lead and it's not mentioned in BBC's headline. Furthermore, this has been encouraged in semi-veiled manner by many EU countries and the US. Random89 (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I removed unilaterally is because it is redundant. I don't really know of any declarations of independence that weren't unilaterally made. Secondly, oversimplifying a complicated situation by lumping "Western nations" together is worse than simply omitting it. It is a fact that this is the 7th nation to emerge from Yugoslavia, if indeed this shakes out that way. The question of international recognition is more difficult to quantify. I just think that it interjects unnecessary bias into the blurb. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Similar to what Grant.alpaugh says, it is more biased to add "with the support of many Western governments but opposed by Serbia and Russia." and less to put: "becoming the seventh nation to emerge from the the former Yugoslavia." It removes bias and is also informative at the same time. SpencerT♦C19:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the "unilateral" issue... "unilateral declaration of independence" is the widely-accepted and wholly uncontroversial academic term for the concept in international legal circles. The word "unilateral" does not in any way connote illegitimacy or unpopularity in those contexts. While declarations of independence that aren't unilateral aren't particularly common, they can and do occur--for two examples, see the Velvet Divorce for one, or Montenegro's recent departure from the State Union framework it had with Serbia. The Tom (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's been suggested before, but I'm putting it in again because it's actually happening today. Since events may start unfolding now, I thought it would be better to start a new section here. ætərnalðrAعon11:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a unilateral self declaration. I don't think it should be classified as the seventh state until the UN recognizes it as such.--Avala (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but adding that it is a seventh independent state from Yugoslavia is wrong as Kosovo is not recognized by international organizations. --Avala (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did my best to make the post as neutral as possible. If you can improve it, please help. No mentioning of seventh state here. --Tone14:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be discussed under the 17th section, on the 18th we could put up something more if more stuff happens (number of recognitions etc.)Hobartimus (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I had interpreted the blurb and the article to mean that the painting is believed to have been a forgery rather than a definitive conclusion that it actually is. AP/CNN is reporting that it is. I'm still not sure about the broader significance - perhaps if an several paintings within a collection were forgeries, it might merit mention, but this strikes me more as a novelty story. Moreover, there isn't an article about the painting itself. I'm still inclined to oppose. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given the intrinsic and monetary value of a Monet, I thought it rather newsworthy that a museum would make such an announcement. Rather than being a novelty, it's really more of very, very rare occurence. J. Van Meter (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting this for the notable death, per se, rather the end of the media attention, google maps searching, amateur spotters, etc, etc. --Stephen08:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While his disappearance was notable and unexpected, he has been missing and presumed dead for months - this is just a legal formality. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the only circumstance under which this should be added is if they are in fact found to be in contempt of Congress. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which article would be bolded? I don't think you can but both Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers in bold. The word "votes" would have to be...if there's an article. I don't think this is actually notable enough to go on the main page. SpencerT♦C14:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The United States Navy will use an SM-3 missile (pictured) to destroy the broken USA 193 spy satellite (pictured) which contains unused toxic hydrazine fuel.
Change "shoot down" to "destroy" or "engage" (the latter is the word used by the military). Shoot down implies it will fall from the sky the moment the missile hits it. Evil Monkey - Hello02:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to leave this until it actually happens. Also the emboldened article is a little unclear as to whether it is the satellite in question. --Stephen03:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it would be a mistake to make a mistake. In case you need it, here is a safer statement maybe (Reuters says another name, which Wikipedia says is the same satellite, but I don't know). Up to you all. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The United States will use an SM-3 missile to destroy its own malfunctioning National Reconnaissance Office spy satellite which is falling to Earth containing toxic hydrazine fuel.
Oppose. It's a proposed event involving secretive military operations and a classified satellite - are any of those topics actually going to have anything resembling encyclopedic coverage? Madcoverboy (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until event takes place. When China did a similar thing, it was ITN if memory severs me right, and so should this (when it occurs). ~ UBeR (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's so many shootings now. I think there needs to be an ITN rule about this. I have to say no because there isn't anything any more notable with this than other shootings. However, the Vtech ITN was appropriate because there were more deaths... SpencerT♦C02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Would nuclear wars suddenly become non-notable if a bunch started breaking out? It's unfortunately that so many shootings have happened lately, but they're still very much notable, and fit the ITN criteria as well as anything else. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, based on the above comments, it's good. However, I must make a comment. How many similar shootings/suicide bombings like this occur in Iraq, Israel, Africa and other places, but don't recieve ITN coveage? We give shootings in the US undue weight. I suppose the lack of media coverage and a wikipedia article is the answer. I only wish other places had the same media coverage as the US. SpencerT♦C03:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tragic event, but one of many and of only passing interest outside of the US. A recent council shooting was rejected (see February 8, below) for just that reason; these are all too common, unfortunately. --Stephen03:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say this but this is not internationally significant enough to be on the Main Page - it can be in the Portal:Current events though. So I have to say Oppose--JForget03:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that the Missouri shooting incident in which it happened at a council meeting did not make it to ITN and appeared to be more notable as this case, so I don't see how this event makes it in the Main Page. Agree on an article on it, although my concern is that it would open the door for many many articles on other and not notable deadly shootings in the US This happens something like once every 2-3 days on average lately. --JForget17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC, Guardian, El Mundo and other mainstream sources have this on their front pages because that is what maximizes their revenue. If Wikipedia was in the same game, and I was a shareholder, I would expect nothing less. However, we are not in the same business and editorial decisions made here need not (arguably, should not) follow their business logic. mdf (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWikipedia is not a news feed. It does not matter how many outlets are covering a story - this is not cause for ITN to cover it as well. This forum is primarily intended to showcase articles whose topics are in the news, not to cover every breaking news event. We did not cover the Tinley Park shootings (5 dead), the Kirkwood shootings (5+1), or Louisiana Tech (2+1 dead). While it is easy to become emotional given the randomness and similarities to Virginia tech, and there will certainly be media saturation over this tragic event for the next few days, it is just "another" school shooting. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT does not say anything about Wikipedia not being a news feed. Maybe it should, but it doesn't right now. I agree that we shouldn't parrot every story coming down the wire, but I do think that a widely covered event should be on ITN. After all, the more media sources that cover an event, the more reliable sources we have to write an encyclopedia. Lovelac705:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support! If shootings like Dawson College Shooting (Canada) & Erfurt Massacre (Germany) can make ITN, then the NIU shooting should too. -Rayne 07:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
CommentOther stuff exists is never a sufficient argument. I would not be surprised that the shootings you mentioned were promoted owing to the unfortunate tendency here to overemphasize non-American events and diminish American events. Virginia Tech was notable with regard to both the scale of the massacre and breathtaking failure of its administration to lock-down the campus after the first shooting. Nevertheless, there have been several shootings of similar mortal magnitude that have not made it to ITN - for good reason. The NIU shooting has is (1) not important, insofar as the the shooting happened and will have no impact beyond media saturation and talking heads debating gun policy, (2 & 3) has no immediate, potential, or lasting international significance or importance, (4) involves an article undergoing rapid changes owing to the breaking nature of the event, and (5) involved the deaths of no notable people. I still continue to oppose its inclusion. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This will be tedious, unless someone has a magic bullet. The Westroads Mall clusterfuck was on ITN, but the Kirkwood City Council business wasn't (or I have missed it). If it wasn't, I speculate it was probably usurped by the tornado story, not only here but elsewhere. mdf (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Edit conflict) I'm not opposing or supporting but shootings involving 5 deaths are AFAIK a lot more rare in Canada and Germany which is why they are much more likely to be seen as noteable events and make ITN. Shootings in the US involving 5 deaths sadly don't seem to be that rare which is one of the reasons why these don't tend to get as much attention on ITN. There may be additional factors to make this noteable but I don't think the inclusion of Dawson College and Erfurt should be taken as automatically suggesting we should include a US shooting of similar size on ITN. This is not to say we should never include US shootings, we did include Virginia Tech for example. Also before anyone accuses me of anti-American bias, a shooting in Iraq involving 10 deaths is sadly probably common enough that it may not even get an article let alone mention on ITN Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "If it bleeds, it leads" is the credo of CNN, the NTY and other mainstream sources. Wikipedia should be better than this. mdf (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where the opposition is coming from. I wasn't aiming at anyone for being bias against American shootings. I suppose I'm more than less supporting it since I live close to Dekalb (where NIU is). My bad. :/ -Rayne
Strong Support: 21 people were shot, that's alot for any mass murder, especially at a college. NIU has almost 1000 international students from 88 countries, so it has the international appeal required here.208.82.225.232 (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetical
I realize this is a bit premature, but with Mitt Romney endorsing John McCain today and giving him his delegates McCain is now less than 100 delegates away from the nomination. Additionally, even if Mike Huckabee won all of the delegates for the rest of the race (an incredibly unlikely occurance) he would not be able to secure the nomination, so the best he can hope for is a brokered convention. Chances are good that by March 4th (Ohio and Texas primaries) McCain will have mathematically clinched the nomination or Huckabee will have seen the writing on the wall and dropped out. That said I want to build consensus ahead of time toward the following blurb:
I realize it could be shortened a bit, but I think the POW inclusion is important because that is one of the major things McCain has built his career on. Thoughts? Grant.alpaugh (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's not specifically relevant to this piece of news, and, to me at least, really seems more like "touting his qualifications" than anything else. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, consensus is that that would be missing the story by several months, because barring a brokered convention we will have known who the nominee is for quite some time by the time the conventions roll around. See the discussion on the template talk page. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. There have been similar discussions on the ITN talk page. I believe the consensus was to wait until nominations. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. See the discussion here to read about the consensus. As soon as the candidates clinch the nomination through victory, endorsement, or drop-out, we're putting this up. Waiting until the convention will miss the story by months. Unless there is a brokered convention on the Democratic side the conventions have become nothing more than glorified coronations. A lot has changed and the days of smoke filled rooms are long since gone.
OK, we wait until it's clinched then. A majority has not yet been won yet. (One needs 1,191 for GOP and 2,025 for Dems.) ~ UBeR (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the header, "hypothetical" or read the preamble to my blurb? I'm just trying to get the language together because it is only going to be March 4 at the latest when McCain gets the nomination. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since the dissolution was predicated on forcing an election, I think this could be covered when the results of the election are know. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the proposal of "Yahoo rejects Microsoft's offer" Another rejected offer/application/etc. I don't think that it matters if its rejected, but only if its accepted. SpencerT♦C01:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I read the article and the significance of the project (had it passed and been built) seems to be predicated on concerns that Russia could cease to deliver petroleum products to eastern european states. It just seems like a bunch of handwringing rather than a newsworthy event. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, thanks. I'd be more supportive if Yahoo! had said 'yes' to the proposal, forming a very, very large tech company. A 'no' means nothing notable has taken place. Just another rejected idea. --PFHLai (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not wanting to get too off-topic but I would argue a yes wouldn't be notable either. There would still be a lot to go through including shareholder approval from both sides, regulatory approval from the US etc which could have derailed the merger. Ultimately it would still have been a proposal with a long way to go. (Obviously looking a lot more likely to succeed then as things stand now) Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article can't go on main until it expands from a stub, but the article won't expand from a stub quickly enough to be relevant for ITN. Or the contrapositive, the only way to expand it from a stub is to feature it on a prominent page, but no stubs can appear on prominent pages. However, wikipedia isn't a news feed, so we shouldn't be writing articles for every article news item. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of articles are able to achieve the necessary quality before being featured on ITN so clearly ITN isn't the only way an article can get the necessary attention. Also, while ITN must help, from my experience it doesn't help as much as people think particularly when the article is not related to the major developed anglophone nations (which doesn't apply in this case). For example I worked on getting the Korean oil spill article up to a resonable quality and it was featured on ITN but didn't really improve that much over the next few days beyond what me and another editor who was already editing the article before it came onto ITN did. In any case, ITN is only intended for readers not editors so if editors want to look for something to work on they should look are portal:current events or similar Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, high profile art thefts may be ITN material. Please first expand the collection's wiki article, and perhaps turn those redlinks blue, too. Right now I can't tell how notable the missing pieces of art are. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above posters. The update about the theft is currently one sentence. This would need to be expanded. I would also recommend creating articles about the four paintings, so that they can be included in the ITN blurb. But this is definitely notable enough for ITN, so I support putting this up when the issues are met. AecisBrievenbus01:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should go up if the article is expanded and there are less redlinks. Maybe as more information comes out on the theft then something could go up... SpencerT♦C01:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can already hear the "but we didn't do it for X!" arguments. This is a harder to decide on given the age/notability and possible intentionality of the event. However, the extent and intent of the damage is unknown. If it was clear that it was irrecoverably destroyed by some criminal/terrorist group it might make a better case than being partially burned by an anonymous arsonist. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not news but a controversy that became newsworthy. He has no power to enact policy. I'd say if he gets sacked over it or Parliament enacted legislation to the same effect, it would warrant mention, however. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are large scale protests and demonstrations, and there's a wikiarticle about the controversy, then may be we have sth for ITN. Just someone saying sth some people don't agree with isn't news material, IMO. --PFHLai (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
February 10
East Timor President and Nobel Peace Prize winner José Ramos Horta was wounded in a pre-dawn attack on his home Monday morning, an army spokesman said. [18] EAST Timorese President Jose Ramos-Horta has been reportedly shot in the stomach at his home in an attack that left a guard and a notorious rebel leader dead. [19] --Avala (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should definitely go up. The president of an independent country being shot and injured by rebels, amidst political tensions that have appeared on ITN before, is definitely notable, newsworthy and relevant. AecisBrievenbus23:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending more information. I'd wait a few hours for some more details on whether this was an assassination attempt or a coup or something else entirely. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the proposed blurb: I think it should be made clear that Reinhado is currently believed to have been shot dead by Ramos Horta's security guards. Although it may be a bit too early to tell, he didn't simply appear to have been at the wrong spot at the wrong time. AecisBrievenbus00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should definitely mention him but we need to take great care in how we mention him. From what I understand, he was involved in talks with Ramos Horta at the time so him being located at the scene wasn't surprising. It appears Ramos Horta's body guards shot him although why remains unclear. The timing may seem a bit odd but whether he was actually involved remains even more unclear. It's possible for example it may have been by someone else in the rebel group who didn't agree with Reinhado's attempts to make peace and wanted to kill all three people leaving a major power vacuum. Or maybe whoever it was didn't necessarily want to kill Reinhado but it was only while Reinhado was away that they were able to carry out their plans. Or it could even be a false flag attack to kill Reinhado. Whatever the case Reinhado's involvement remains completely unproven. The media in NZ which is hardly supportive of the rebels in general made this clear in most reports. The headline as is seems fine but anyone thinking of modifying it should bear this in mind Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. The most significant event in African sport since the last Cup of Nations in 2006, and the second highest profile international football competition this year, after the upcoming Euro 2008. Football being the worlds most popular sport. Willy turner (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least this needs to be reworded to indicate at least what sport this applies to for those who were unaware of the tournament --T-rex21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the nominations for the previous ones - I'd hardly say there was a consensus to exclude the other cups. In retrospect, they should have been included given importance and attendence. It also seems silly to oppose on the basis of a previous, possibly erroneous action rather than on a principle or rule. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However if we made the correct decision last time then clearly we should be consistent. Clearly if you want this to go up and you don't think there is anything which makes this distinct from the other cases mentioned then you have to argue that the previous cases were a mistake Nil Einne (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess it is staying up? I look forward to adding the 2009 CONCACAF Gold Cup, which the US or Mexico will have likely won to little disagreement then. ---CWY2190TC06:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it depends from where you're from, but this has been fairly big news in the UK - probably because there are a lot of players from the Premier League involved. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two points, first of all I'm opposed to this addition, but secondly, and hopefully more important going forward, I'd encourage everyone to contribute to the Sports on ITN list at WP:ITNSPORTS to try and avoid this in the future. Random89 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. Still tentative and we won't know until the vote on Sunday. However, the strike has had a major impact on American media industries and popular culture (putting network shows on hiatus, sending late night comedians into reruns, and curtailing award ceremonies like the Golden Globes). Madcoverboy (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. Unfortunately another high-profile (American) media event on the same day. Obviously notable on its own and with regards to artists being recognized. I think it is enough to state the event occurred, and not emphasize any one artist. See related ITN'07 discussion. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's safe to remove the Super Bowl, Somalian earthquake, and Serbian election as these are all over a week old. I'd say the Turkish headscarf ban or Pakistani suicide bombing (from the current events portal) should certainly replace these, but I haven't found any wikipedia articles describing these, so there's nothing to nominate. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We did this with the Dixie Chicks last time, if I recall... Makes sense to mention Winehouse, otherwise it'd ust be "The 50th Grammys were held." --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be nitpicky, but I just realized the wording of the blurb is problematic since Winehouse wasn't actually in LA for the awards show due to visa troubles. Ideas? Or leave it be? Madcoverboy (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely wrong. No one calls it Los Angeles, USA - that absolutist line of thinking the worst kind of fundamentalist wikilaywering. It's Los Angeles, California. Is there some other Los Angeles in the US we'd be confusing this with? The world? Oh right, the residents of a town in Chile and another in Nicaragua might be offended. And the unilaterally-added BAFTA blurb doesn't even need a country for London? It's not that it doesn't warrant inclusion, but I'm glad to see that some editors are more equal than others and don't need to bother with silly things like consensus. Madcoverboy (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really absolutely wrong... TIME Magazine (at least the edition I read) on their letters to the editor omits the state name, ergo it's routine to see "Palo Alto, U.S.". Of course the big cities have exceptions, like Karachi and Los Angeles{!} where the letters only have the city name. --HowardtheDuck07:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly nothing wrong with Palo Alto, U.S. or even Los Angeles, U.S. Both are in the U.S. For most international readers, what U.S. state these happen to be in are mostly irrelevant details. Whether it's necessary to specify the U.S. part for LA I don't know. But if we are going to specify California then I see no reason not to specify the U.S. Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems silly to specify that level of detail for a Global city. I understand the need for consistency, however, it is not tenable in all cases (New York City, USA or Edinburgh, Scotland, UK?). The current template shows a glaring discrepancy between London mentioned alone and Los Angeles being fully categorized even though they are both Global cities of similar magnitude. Per Naming conventions on cities, I think it should be sufficient to say Los Angeles, California and London, England. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
London is easily one of the best known and important cities in the world, moreso then LA, so I doubt you'll find anyone who will argue agaisnt just putting London. The only other London I know of is in Ontario. that said, Los Angeles probably doesn't need anything either, but I'm pretty sure we usually have California or USA behind it anyway. It's not that big of a deal, though. I don't see every resident of LA looking at this and getting offended. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Naming conventions on cities primary applies to article title names, which is quite different from what we are discussion here. As I've said, I personally have no problem with leaving out California or even the US. However if we are going to specify California then we should specify US. It makes no sense IMHO to put LA, California. Either LA, California, US; or LA, US or simply LA. Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Bafta since there was no discussion. It's tricky to compare when we have Grammys and Bafta on the same day which one to put if put... --Tone11:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good... and before anyone even thinks of crying "US CENTRISMZ" the Grammys don't make distinction on nationalities, the BAFTAs and the Brit Awards do segregate British and non-British awards. --HowardtheDuck12:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this doesn't have much direct international significance, but this is an important historic structure in London, comparable to the Cutty Sark, whose fire was mentioned on ITN. AecisBrievenbus00:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. Still a stub, but it's significant with regard to the death toll and its proximity to the upcoming elections. (Plus it's not the US, since that seems to be a criteria.) Madcoverboy (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of comical that editors at once decry the Anglophone bias but also oppose articles/news events of international importance because they're not well-developed. While I understand a stub shouldn't go up on the main page, the justifications strike me as a catch-22. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a pretty big news here, affecting 3 countries in the surroundings. The oil spill in Korea was in the ITN, luckily there was no catastrophe here but it came close to that. I think it fits the criteria. --Tone23:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On first glance, I think this is a case of something that could have been itn worthy, but was avoided and isn't. However, I think that with the large problems that come with an oil spill, averting one is big news. They avoided a disaster. Support. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what tenses and whatnot ITN posts are supposed to be written in, but the blurb feels a little off. I think "The fire" should at least be changed to "A fire", and the "is under control" be changed to something else, but I'm not sure what. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I know this opposition comes after the fact, but this seems highly non-notable - nothing happened. Obviously a different matter is there was an oil spill. One might as well report President Bush was also not assassinated today, a meteorite likewise did not wipe out a city, nor was there a terrorist attack in New York. It just seems to me that this doesn't even come remotely close to the high bar of notability we set for news items simply because nothing happened besides a fire on a ship near a coastline. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that it seems that this is a case of undue weight: "Look we're reporting on something that doesn't just affect the US or Commonwealth!" Madcoverboy (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to read: "The fire on the Turkish freighter UND Adriyatik (pictured) is brought under control, dispelling fears of an oil spill and environmental damage." or something like that. SpencerT♦C19:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Spencer, although I'd prefer "is extinguished" instead of "is brought under control" since there doesn't seem to be any left of the fire by now. The current text misses what I think is most interesting about the incident: that they managed to douse such a great fire. Narayanese (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notable event that killed council members and police officers, and injured the mayor of Kirkwood, in addition to a press reporter. Hello32020 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There was a shooting in southern Chicago over the weekend that left 5 people dead, that wasn't ITNed. While tragic, it's not notable enough to boost. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. International interest might be a stretch. The deciding factor is if a mayor in serious condition and two council members and two police officers being killed because if we put up every 5+ death shooting in the US, there would be one up all the time. ---CWY2190TC15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, per above, this is not internationally significant enough to merit its a place on ITN although it can be at the Portal:Current Events depending on the condition of the mayor. And also there are already three US-related items on ITN at the moment. That would be too much US content if we add it there.--JForget15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there even a article on that one? I'm on the fence about this one... Chances are if there was a school shooting that killed/injured as many it would go up, but a school shooting does have a bit more newsworthy feel to it, in my opinion. I'll support this, I guess. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that we have two (unrelated) "multiple-victim" shootings within a 24 hour period (3 if you count the Tinley Park shootings in Chicago). All are "notable" but neither are substantially newsworthy-enough to warrant ITN coverage. They're just "regular" or "routine" shootings/gun-violence deaths. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you put it that way, your right. Aside from the fact it took place in a government building, there isn't anything notable about this one.--Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This is a question of a shooting inside an elected assembly; that's very different from "ordinary" shooting suggested by the opponents of this nomination. The article is also substantially updated. It should be posted. Bondkaka (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- clearly who got shot matters, whether people like it or not (e.g. if Bush or Gordon Brown had been shot we wouldn't even be debating this). But while the mayor and elected officials of a city are important, I don't think the mayor and officials of Kirkwood has anywhere near sufficient influence or effect on world affairs for this to qualify. If it were Michael Bloomberg or Ken Livingstone then perhaps, but Mike Swoboda who we don't even have an article for just doesn't cut it Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No updates on ITN until the candidates are confirmed. Also, I would prefer adding it in one notice together, not one for each party when they have their final candidates (if they are chosen on different days). --Tone18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a globally-focussed enyclopedia that happens to be expressed in the English language. It is not an American news service. The Tom (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would confirmed be interpreted as presumptive as in all other (serious) competitors drop out, the candidate crosses the delegate threshold, all primaries are over, or waiting until the convention? Madcoverboy (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How bout no? The Tom said it best. This is world news. This isn't English news. It isn't American, Canadian, or British. It's world. A candidate dropping out of the race in a country does not matter. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But wait a minute, refusing to acknowledge that this encyclopedia is designed more for English speakers than, say, Swahili speakers is just as ridiculous. I don't think this should be an "American news service," but to give preference to Anglophone stories isn't out of the question. That doesn't change the POV of the encyclopedia, just what we choose to highlight in the encyclopedia. It's a minute difference, but an important difference, I think. Also, can we work on consensus for what constitutes "nomination?" Waiting until the conventions will be silly since its likely to have been decided (at least on one side) well before that. At the very least, when one candidate secures enough pledged delegates to get the nomination that should be when the blurb goes up. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it wasn't for English speakers, but if there was preference for English speakers, or, in what is being argued, Americans since there's alot of them is absurd. I'm not against an English bias when it comes to the news, but that's just it: It's English. Most of the things that come up here that are debated are American; news taht is big there was isn't elsewhere. In this case, this mioght be big news in America, but is it big in Canada? New Zealand? Australia? The UK? No, it isn't. I'm not even sure if the nominations are that important outside of America. They announce the nominees, but not the winner. If we did what you were asking, due to the large amount of Americans opposed to Australians or Britains, there would be alot more American things going up simply because "Most people who speak English live in America". The way I see it, there are five major English speaking countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. If something isn't important in at least three of them, it shouldn;t go up. And the nominations are when the parties officially announce the nominations. We don't put up sports stories early if a team is winning by 5. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the five countries you just named are so different politically, culturally, and economically that it is almost impossible for a story to effect three of those five countries you named without it having something to do with the UK and/or the Commonwealth. So, the argument you're making about removing US bias is a little faulty. Second, here on ITN, elections have been treated as something of a sacred cow, so I don't think its outrageous for the most important, hotly-contested election in half a century in the most important military, dimplomatic, economic, political, and cultural force in the world to be given some extra (or even just rational) coverage on ITN. Waiting for the conventions to put a blurb up about the nominees would be missing this story by months in most cases. John McCain has the Republican nomination all but sewn up, so within a few weeks it should be announced that he's won the nomination because he will have mathematically clinched it, or all the other major candidates will have dropped out. Even on the Democratic side, the last primary or caucus is a full 3 months before their convention in Denver, so by then we will know either that one candidate has won the nomination, or there will be a brokered convention for the first time in several decades, either of which are news. The US Presidential elections are longer, more expensive, and frankly more important than those in any other country in the world, and for us to apply the same rules we do to those elections in Georgia, Serbia, Kenya, New Zealand, Bolivia, or anywhere else is absurd. It's not biased to recognise the objective fact of something's importance. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with the sentiment of Grant's statement as much as it might sound like American exceptionalism. I would propose that once a candidate crosses the delegate threshold for his/her party (either by direct endorsement or by election), that it should appear in ITN rather than waiting for the convention. When the conventions happen, perhaps they might mention an ITN notice or now... Certainly any scandal at the convention in which the candidate with the most delegates does not become the nominee would be immensely newsworthy if only because it is so improbable and controversial. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The differences between the countries means that something that effects the majority of them is really international news. Alot of things effect Canada and the US together, but they won't effect the UK. In reverse, something that effects Australia and New Zealand won't matter in Canada unless it's really important. But, anyway... The nominees is waht matters, and the winner is waht matters. Simple as that. It doesn't matter if America is so important, frankly, to put something from an election that only effects America - and don't tell me this doesn't, because no non-Americans were involved in this - is bias, plain and simple. I really can't put it any other way. By doing something like that for America, we have to do it for China, since it has the most people, or Asia, since it has over half the world's population. The only strictly Canadian thing I ahve ever seen on itn was about an election in Quebec, and taht was becuase something historic happened, and I think due to the overall difference between Quebec and the rest of North America makes that quite notable. Does anyone else in the world care that a man who apparently had no chance to win the nomination dropped out? No. Does it effect anyone? If McCain has it clinched like you say, then it only effects the people who voted for him. And, like it's been said countless upon countless of times when it comes to elections: We only say who wins when it is officially declared by the party or government. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, honestly, why are we even arguing about this? I don't think it's going to go up, anyway - I think if it would have it would have gone up already. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) It shouldn't have gone up before now because there was nothing to report before. My point by bringing up American exceptionalism was that if Canada, UK, Australia, or New Zealand had a similarly large economy, population, or military, their elections might warrant mention as well. They don't and other countries, for better or worse, look to the US for leadership, thus its leader, on issues because its actions inevitably affect them. So we can split hairs about whether American football matches or baseball games should be covered if football matches and cricket tourneys aren't, but to delay reporting of the outcome out of some overformalized notion of geopolitical equality is incredibly naive. Nevertheless, discussing the matter of how INT will cover the nomination matters because we're going to have to address this issue as the nomination will be mathematically determined within the next few weeks and will saturate global media. The conventions when the nominees are "selected" won't be until August or September, months after the final primaries/caucuses in May. Again, I emphasize that when a candidate has passed the mathematical threshold for the nomination, it should be mentioned here with subsequent mention of the conventions themselves.Madcoverboy (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Huckabee? Did he drop out already? Although this is one piece of national news, it's a pretty important country, in fact several nations may have already started studying these elections and how they'll go along with the new administration. --HowardtheDuck07:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think from you're arguments Plasma, it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Saying that the US presidential election only effects Americans is one of the dumbest things I've heard on here in a long time. As to you're other point, I'm trying to develop a consensus ahead of time as to what constitutes someone "clinching" the nomination. I don't think it should wait until the conventions because it will have missed the relevence of the story by months most likely. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the election didn't effect only Americans, don't twist my words. The actual election, between the Democrat and the Republican matters a hell of a lot, but deciding the candidates, I don't think so. I said Romney dropping out is not notable, just as Edwards dropping out was - try to read the whole thing next time instead of seeing what you jsut want to see.
(unindent)"If McCain has it clinched like you say, then it only effects the people who voted for him. And, like it's been said countless upon countless of times when it comes to elections: We only say who wins when it is officially declared by the party or government. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC) " I'm not just seeing what I want to see. Acknowledging only the general election results is treating this like every other election in the world, which it clearly isn't. There is a consensus that the US Presidential election is more important than any other election. As a result, as I've said before, we should cover the nominations of both major parties as well as any significant third party announcements (i.e. Bloomburg, Gore, etc.). What I'm trying to build consensus on is when someone "clinches" the nomination. The consensus on this is that when someone either reaches the mathematical threshold with pledged delegates, or someone is the only remaining serious candidate, or someone is endorsed by another candidate giving them a mathematical victory, then we announce. The only other alternative is to do a blurb during the conventions, which will miss the story by several months in all likelihood. I don't care if we skip the conventions, as long as there is not an event of significance (i.e. brokered convention, scandal, etc.). That's all I'm saying, and I apologize if I came off rudely before. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by quoting me up there. I was just saying that, if McCain is almost guarenteed to be the Republican winner, then I don't think someone who apparently isn't going to win anyway dropping out is that big of news. I just felt like I needed to clarify that in case you missinterpreted it. I'm going to stop commenting on American politics till McCain gets the clincher - they give me a headache. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that as soon as the nomination is clinched (by either primary, sole candidacy, endorsement, etc.) it should be reported. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because when Edwards dropped out, there were still 2 contenders in the Democratic party. When Mitt left, McCain virtually clinched the nomination. --HowardtheDuck08:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to develop a consensus ahead of time, then the talk page is probably a better place to do it. You might be interested in these discussions ([20] and [21]) where people seemed to agree that the announcement of the nominees and the eventuall winner of the election would be put up, but nothing else. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I think each party's nominee could probably be announced once they pass the minimum number of delegates required to win, and the national convention becomes a mere formality. In that case, there would then be no need to mention the actual convention if it is just confirming what is already known. But in the case of the Democrats, isn't there a chance it will come down to the wire and be decided at the Democratic convention itself? Anyway, someone dropping out of the race shouldn't go up unless it means the frontrunner is as a result automatically past the minimum number of delegates to secure the nomination, if that makes sense. That's my 5 cents. - Mark10:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that, but if we're going to know that the Democrats will have a brokered convention by the time the primaries are over (beginning of June), that is also big news because it hasn't happened in more than 50 years. In that case that deserves a mention and then another mention when the nominee is eventually decided. Treating this like any other race in any other country is ridiculous. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I know I've been in that page mostly for the tornado outbreak, but I support this nomination for ITN since I have lots of occasions where space mission launches have been on ITN in the past.--JForget20:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree about a new picture to be placed, but the problem is that unless there is a new element related to the Chad situation, this is the oldest item (or less recent) on ITN at the moment and will be the next to be removed. The most likely candidate item that would have a picture on the ITN would be the tornado outbreak since there will likely be several possible pictures.--JForget01:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently added in the article a picture of a home ripped off its foundation in Arkansas. The image is from the NWS Office in Little Rock during their survey.--JForget13:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay probably a photo with a wider shot would be needed for ITN then. The problem with that one is it the picture taken by the NWS team may have been too far to the left which means it didn't show the entire foundation of the home and it may have been too close to it. Although here some of the pictures with heavy damage may be more clear and discernible. Probably not the mall but the overhead shot of a business or the residential district may be good (unless someone found a NOAA picture from the Union University.--JForget18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is also this overhead view on top of a warehouse/business in Memphis, possibly the one that killed three workers. But again maybe the Union University shot may be more dramatic, Unfortunetly it seems very difficult to have a perfect image of damage to be placed - either too far or too close. You can see the damage of the roof but for some it may be difficult to see--JForget20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly support the above, I had stopped for 9 hours editing and during those hours the toll rose from 13 to 47 deaths. Although since I'm among those who started it, I will let another admin promote it on ITN if it merits to be there.--JForget14:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The number continues to rise and it is still ongoing (at least 45, report compilation suggests 52), so I give my strong support. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking on the the 2008 Chinese winter storms page, it seems that those had alot more impact then these tornadoes. Even if the fatalities aren't that much higher, it seems like there is more damage. So, yes. I'd say the winter storms in China were more notable. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the only reason the African earthquake is on because it happened near a border and effected multiple countries? This was the deadliest tornado outbreak since 1985 in the US. I find it hard to believe that it is not notable. ---CWY2190TC00:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an American and as someone who participated yesterday, this was very big. But, 3 of the top 4 stories being strictly American might cause some problems. ---CWY2190TC16:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as a Canadian, and someone who read about the results with some interest, it wasn't major. It was of interest, sure, but was it important? Not really. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an American who was glued to the returns and staying up into the wee hours of the morning, I actually don't think this should be included. Maybe once the candidates are confirmed. Even I think including it now would be too US-centric to include now. --Siradia (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when the results come through. Even though a lot of people like harping on about US-centric or don't like the US, the same people will be glued to their sets with baited breath on every US political move. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow American politics, so will there be a winner coming out of Super Tuesday? If so, then I think it should go up. If all it does is produce a frontrunner or less, then there is no reason. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would be hard pressed to find an admin willing to touch this with a bargepole until at least the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates are decided. --Stephen03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you know anything about Super Tuesday, you'll know that this day will almost certainly define who wins their parties' nomination for the presidency. Strong support. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do know about it. Which is why I'm saying nothing will be posted at least until the winners are announced. All elections are treated the same way - No result, no posting on ITN. We don't post that an election is happening. --Stephen06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, we can put this on ITN when the results are known. We never put news like "elections are going on in this country", always "this guy wins the elections". So if the elections produce a clear candidate, it's for ITN, otherwise we should wait to have the candidates confirmed. --Tone08:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive the imprecise phrasing of my nomination, as I am rather new to ITN. My intention in this suggestion was not to list it because Super Tuesday (2008) is an election (big deal, those happen all the time), but because it is the largest primary election ever held in the U.S., with 52% of the Democratic and 41% of the Republican delegates awarded in one day ... a process that normally takes weeks or even months. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must concur. There seems to be a phobia of putting something that is even related to the current election. True, it might only be happening in the US, but the whole world is watching. To put up against a current ITN topic, yes, it is a tragedy that 39 people died in the Lake Kivu earthquake, but just because it happened to occur on the border between two countries doesn't make it more important than a huge event in one country. Looking at BBC, the story isn't even appearing on their Africa page, let alone the main page. However, the lead story pertains to the primaries. I see above (and in other discussions) that because "we don't do it for other countries we shouldn't do it for the US." However, I don't think anyone here would dispute that the elections in the United States have more of an impact on the world than say a small African country. Why? The US is simply bigger and the sole superpower. Why should ITN have a phobia of a topic that, like I said, take place in one country yet is watched by and pertains to the entire world? I wholeheartedly support the inclusion on Super Tuesday in ITN. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Overwhelming national importance, and significant international ramifications on this one. As it's now almost 11pm PST, and polls should be closed everywhere, please put it up on ITN. Lawrence § t/e06:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Since when are party leadership convention winners (or 'primaries', or whatever they are called around the world) covered on ITN? For the rest of the world, we usual only include the actual election (and resigning/death/etc) of Presidents and Prime Ministers. In the U.S. that won't happen until this fall. Kilrogg (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually although it was extensively covered, there seems to be rather a boring conclusion - no candidate won the nomination outright, ergo no news. The weather disturbances above may even have a chance if it would be extensively covered by the media. --HowardtheDuck12:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A city-wide Low Emission Zone has been introduced in London, making this the largest scheme in Europe to reduce pollution and one of the largest schemes in the world.
Even though it's London, and one of the main arguements will be "It's London", I don't think it should go up. Really, even if it's London it's still one city. If Sydney did this I oudln't see it going up. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying one of the reasons is "It's London", some reasons are it is one of the first of it kind and does not just cover the city centre but (mostly) Greater London. And i know i could have summarised the above a bit better. It will be an ongoing scheme and a pilot, if you like, gradually tightening to 2012 on restrictions of vehicles emissions etc. Simply south (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Super Bowl is one of those few sport events that don't need long discussions whether to have them on ITN or not. I would prefer the short formulation, unless the statistic is really so important. --Tone15:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is not. There are a lot of people who feel it doesn't meet the criteria. Also, the mention about the 19-0 is very very important. ---CWY2190TC15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the admins included the 16-0 story means this should go in. Also, no matter what other people had or will say it will still be added so it's futile to complain... --HowardtheDuck16:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, for the record: We are not putting in the Super Bowl XLII is being played in Arizona thing again. The game is only itn worthy when it is over. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the way I had it had "defeat" and "undefeated" in succession. We could change "beat" to "defeat" and "undefeated" to "unbeaten." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This assumes a lot of knowledge on the part of the reader who may not be interested in gridiron. Although I have no great desire for the headline to be lengthy, it should at least make clear what sport we are talking about, and avoid the reader wondering how many years or decades the Patriots had been unbeaten. Kevin McE (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why has it been changed back to read "17 to 14?" This seems like extra letters to me. At the very least, "17 to 14" should be set off by commas. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. The capitol of a sovereign state has been partially occupied by a rebel group, and the government may fall. This is highly, highly significant and notable, and should be on the main page immediately. We're talking about a revolution happening right now. It is the main story on the BBC world news website. If this story is not included it will only highlight again the fact that 'in the news' shows consistant systemic basis in favour of events that happen in the developed world. Please please add this very important event and save my faith in wiki! Willy turner (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A little too tabloid-ish, IMO. I might be more supportive if this is a royal wedding in some monarchy and the line of succession to a throne is altered, requiring changes in multiple relevant wikipages. --PFHLai (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tone. Will support the mention on ITN about the formation of the world's largest __(insert appropriate industry)___ company, but not when negotiations are still ongoing/incomplete. --PFHLai (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that just the announcement of a merger will have major repercussions on the tech industry, and is thus newsworthy enough to make ITN. Lovelac700:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who put up "Internet services are disrupted in parts of Asia and Africa after two undersea cables, including SEA-ME-WE 4, are damaged."? The article SEA-ME-WE 4 makes no apparent mention to this. I stand corrected...but still the article only has ~5 sentences mentioning this...shouldn't it be expanded more?SpencerT♦C02:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5 sentences and as many references is a reasonable update, and the impact of the event was widespread. Feel free to expand it more. --Stephen03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --PFHLai (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
) during the tornado outbreak ? --70.50.200.58 (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
