Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JohnyDog (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 20 November 2004 (→Iraq Flag POV Message: oops). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page Template:In_the_news is the "In the news" section on the Main Page.

NOTE: Any bolded item that appears on the Main Page must be updated and listed on its corresponding subject area page before being listed on the Main Page. For example, a news item should first be listed on current events, then the article on the subject of that news item should be updated to reflect a current event. Then that item can be placed on Template:In_the_news. Since Wikipedia is not a news report, please only do this for news that is important enough to merit changing the article.

After updating this template, please click this link to clear the Main Page cache, so anonymous users can see the update.

See the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page


In the news

Aleksander Barkov in 2024
Aleksander Barkov
Ongoing:

Notes about the section

Please read before editing the section or making comments on this discussion page.

Main Page: Updates and Caching

The main page does not necessarily update immediately with updates from the "In the news" section. The next update to the Main Page by an administrator will make the change appear properly. This link will purge the cache of the Main Page so that the present version appears: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&action=purge

Image notation

When using images, parenthetically note in the text that the mentioned item is pictured. Example: "...leader José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (pictured right) is sworn in..."

Corresponding "Current Events" item

Before adding an item to the "In the news" section, ensure that there is a corresponding item in page Current Events with a URL to an article about the news story.

Copyrighted images

Before placing an image in the template, ensure that its copyright is well-documented and that it is legal for it to be displayed on the Wikipedia.

Radiation leak

I hope our only source for the radiation leak story isn't an anonymous question on the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Why is this here, where did it come from? Rhobite 15:40, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Nothing on Sky, nothing on TCH (major Irish newspaper company), nothing on the Irish Times, etc.
Hoax, anyone?
Kiand 15:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Election irregularities

2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities

I must say that I'm concerned that this issue is being discussed on IRC and not on this talk page. This has never been the way we do things on Wikipedia, and gives us no transparency in our actions. That said, it appears that the main objection is that this is "not in the news". It didn't take me long to find that ABC had an article at [1]. And now USAToday has an article at [2] - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're citeing one article from Nov 3, and one from Nov 5 and still trying to make a case that this is "in the news"? -- Netoholic @ 02:23, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
It may not be in "the mainstream news" but they are highly POV and not likely to want to be the first to highlight this... anybody remember Watergate? How can major discrepancies and unusual irregularities, and possibly even tampering and fraud in the actual vote-tallying and collection of votes in an election be not as significant as burglarising the opponents to get some edge in an election. It's of huge importance. We don't have a policy that says we only post news on the ftont page if (x news source) posts it on their front page. BBC, CNN and ABC have amply shown they have bias towards both the Democratic republican party and the democratic Republican party, which IMO are two halves of the same coin.Pedant 18:11, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

As this "story" is not front page on any major news network, it does not belong on our front page. Please view:

-- Netoholic @ 02:20, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Indeed, ITN goes on the front page. Like it or not, this is not front page news. A good guide is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/default.stm ed g2s • talk 02:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please point to the policy where the news story must be front page. I think you are pushing a POV when you remove this news. I notice that the news article about Émile Louis is also not front page news either. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} -- Netoholic @ 02:31, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
What's to fix? That's a news story! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you're pushing a POV quite clearly when you promote this news—are you promoting it because you think it's truly newsworthy, or because you're a political partisan? The latter seems more likely. That in itself might be acceptable if it were a decent article, which it is not. It's based on amateurish statisical correlations from which unwarranted causal conclusions are drawn, mostly either original research or something put up on some random website. There are no rigorous statistical analyses cited in the article. Look, I voted for Kerry, and I think there might well have been vote fraud. But this article doesn't present a reasonable case for that, and what case it does present is mostly original research. --Delirium 02:27, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Hardly. I don't reside in the U.S. This is a news story. Don't assume bad faith on my behalf! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that a story being not on the front page of other media is in no way a criterion we should use for choosing front page news. If the election has been tampered with, is it any surprise that mainstream corporate news doesn't cover it?. I absolutely believe that the election tampering is one of the 3 most important stories on any day since November 2 2004. That's not to say I think that our article is presentable at all, it isn't yet. But there is enough info available from 'mainstream sources' to show a strong indication that something is amiss. over 90,000 votes discarded in Ohio? A discrepancy in the amount of provisional votes of over 200,000 votes? Precincts that reported more votes for Bush than the number of voters? Hell, I don't care who is President of the U.S., I voted for a Political prisoner for president that could never be legally inaugurated. I'd be ready for revolution in the streets regardless of whether Bush beat Kerry. But I hate to see the wikipedia look like a bunch of fools that can't decide whether it's 'In the news' that there are allegations of irregularities in electing what could arguably be considered the world's most powerful man, whether or not the decline in his "sentence-by-sentence speaking skills" over the last decade indicate a "cognitive deficit symptomatic of pre-senile dementia" as was reported in Atlantic Monthly. Maybe he'll suddenly freak out and declare unilateral peace on the entire world.Pedant 05:26, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Please don't edit war or NPOV-stamp this page

This page is included on the frontpage of Wikipedia. It looks very silly if a story keeps appearing and disappearing, or worse, an NPOV dispute header is shown right on our Main Page. The people working on this template are all experienced enough to know this.

This matter seems to be about whether or not the story about the election irregularities should be reported here. That's a matter that needs to be discussed. That's what the talk page is for. Please try to find a consensus by developing a coherent policy on current events, so that we can all agree to abide by it. No controversial edits should be made until the matter is amicably resolved here, either by vote or by consensus.--Eloquence*

Considering that Netoholic tells me that this was all discussed on IRC, you should understand my annoyance. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I certainly haven't discussed it on IRC, but on Wikipedia. See Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities. --Delirium 02:38, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
This needs to be talked on THIS page. The reverts were happening on this template. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Whether or not policy should be discussed on IRC as a general rule, I did so, after reverting the template twice. I eventually reverted myself after Ed G2s spoke with me on IRC. I intend to play no further role in this article's placement or lack thereof on ITN, and personally I think a fair amount of NPOV could be done. If anyone can find a site that expresses a reasoned belief that no tampering occured, it should be added as an external link to the article.
On another note, edit warring on the main page is to be avoided in general, and I wish I'd been more sensitive about that during the mixed reports re Arafat earlier this week. Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Requests for edits during election controversy and vanunu page protections

I've protected the page due to an edit dispute over the Vanunu story. Thank you. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 14:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Would some admin or sysop or whoever has the power to do so, please restore the word "controversial" to the Alberto Gonzalez story [i.e. so that it reads "controversial White House Counsel" or suchlike]? It's not POV to say that his tenure as counsel was controversial — i'ts just plain fact — and that point is a lot more newsworthy than his status as (potentially) the first Hispanic Attorney-General. Doops 06:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um, I actually posted the above comment last night while the page was page-protected over the election results issue. Since then, it's apparently come off protection and gone back on again — but somehow nobody's heeded my plaintive request. If you read the article on Alberto Gonzalez it should be perfectly clear that he was a controversial White House Counsel. Doops 17:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please change the word scientist to technician in the Vanunu bullet. Thanks. Jewbacca 14:46, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Why Neutrality (who recently featured a Israeli flag on his page), Jewbacca, and Viriditas want to censor information about Vanunu is a mystery of astronomical proportions. Admins should avoid conflict of interests in protecting pages - Xed 15:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Removing bias is not "censorship". You posted an editorial, not a news headline. The description you offered deviated from objectivity in a number of key areas. One, you claimed he was a scientist to bolster his credibility, when in fact he was a subordinate technician. Two, you claimed that he gave an interview (no evidence of which was given) where he made a wild claim about Israel and JFK, (an insane claim since JFK was the biggest supporter of Israel ever, at that time). Thirdly, you tried to connect his arrest to your claim, and by doing so you invented a news story that did not otherwise exist. Lastly, you seem to be incapable of recognizing your bias, which I find highly disturbing for someone who runs a project devoted to eliminating bias. Physician, heal thyself. --Viriditas 21:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How am I "censoring information about Vanunu," Xed? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 14:58, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Tell me where I stated he was a "scientist". And are you telling me he didn't give an interview? - Xed 08:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please put:

  • Israeli police arrests recently freed Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu for allegedly passing on "classified information to unnamed international parties".

for the Vanunu bullet as this is a more accurate description. Jewbacca 14:50, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Xed's entry for Vanunu - "Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu is arrested for allegedly passing on "classified information to unnamed international parties" three months after saying in an interview that Israel was behind John F. Kennedy's asassination." is totally unsupported by any news article I've seen (check http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=vanunu+kennedy&ie=UTF-8&filter=0 ). It's true that Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page doesn't say "don't post fringe theories" but Xed's edits certainly go against the spirit of the guidelines, i.e. that news stories should be well substantiated. In the light of his/her repeated reversions I've protected ITN temporarily. -- ChrisO 11:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You didn't look very hard -

You should unprotect and revert now. - Xed 12:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mainstream media, which those are not. And there's no "should" about it. -- ChrisO 13:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So first it's "totally unsupported by any news article", now it's not Mainstream media! I assume you mean the sources above aren't owned by corrupt media magnates. Below is a source that is. - Xed 13:32, 12 Nov 2004

Please don't distort my words. I said "totally unsupported by any news article I've seen", i.e. those indexed by Google News, which does actually spider a few sources that "aren't owned by corrupt media magnates". Your Jerusalem Post article does refer to Vanunu's theory on the JFK assassination, but it doesn't support in any way your attempt to link this claim and his recent arrest. (Please also make sure you sign and date your posts - thanks.) -- ChrisO 13:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"totally unsupported by any news article", "not Mainstream media" and now "doesn't support in any way your attempt to link this claim and his recent arrest."!! I thought I was discussing this with someone who had some intellectual honesty, but I see you just move the goalposts whenever it suits you. - Xed 14:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The point: DID VANUNU EVER SAY THAT? I think the answer is yes. However groundless it could be, THE ANSWER IS YES as reported by the above news agencies. Did that cause his arrest? Maybe not. But that particular speech could be a good start of closer scrutiny. By the way, if Pravda and Al Jazeera are not mainstream, what else is mainstream? Did you mean only papers printed in the U.S. by a big fat deep-pocketed and ultra patriotic boss are mainstream? -- Toytoy 15:24, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Gonzales

Somebody has again reverted out the word "controversial" used to describe Alberto Gonzales' tenure as White House counsel, calling it "inherently POV." I don't see how this can be the case: the word "controversial" means that something has led to controversy — which is simply factually true about Gonzales. And it's not irrelevant to the AG nomination; the AG is a position within the legal system, and it's Gonzales' legal advice which raised controversy. To my ears, that word isn't inherently biased; but if my ears are faulty, somebody please suggest an alternative.

Anyway, rather than starting an edit war by restoring that word, I've instead removed the mention that, if confirmed, he'll be the first Hispanic AG. If our hands are somehow so tied that we can't include a real newsworthy issue, then we certainly shouldn't include feel-good fluff. Doops 02:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "controversial" is neutral and relevant to Gonzales, but I'm not sure it belongs in this template. He is a controversial figure, but putting that in here is like putting it in the first sentence of a news article. What information you choose to elevate to that status is in a way POV. Rhobite 03:09, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed new criterion for In The News stories

I've added a new criterion for In The News in response to the recent flap over adding fringe claims on Mordechai Vanunu to the template:

  • The article must be well substantiated and covered by the mainstream media (i.e. no fringe sources, unsubstantiated blog entries etc). Stories should be findable on at least two mainstream sources through a Google News search.

What do people think? Comments to Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page please! -- ChrisO 13:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I worry that (whoever) will either not accept this standard or not accept that their addition doesn't meet it. For instance, Vanunu's JFK theory can be substantiated but clearly does not belong. I suppose it was only a matter of time before this template became the site of serious edit wars. VeryVerily 13:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Vanunu/Kennedy story meets those criteria so youll have to move the goalposts again! - Xed 14:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If the mainstream sources have to be English and published in the U.S. or U.K., they can be all more or less biased to a certain side. The NY Times dare not say much to the invasion of Iraq even until today.
Personally, I do not believe in Vanunu's JFK or KFC or whatever conspiracy theory on the ground that he was not supposed to know it when he was working for the Israeli government. At best, he could only retell the story that he was told. That means his words are not quite believable if without other evidence. But if that speech DID partly cause his arrest (who knows), it is worthy to report.
Anyway, mainstream itself is not ALWAYS a good criterion. -- Toytoy 15:06, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
That's just it -- there is absolutely no evidence that his conspiratorial comments about JFK caused his arrest. None. --Viriditas 00:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire

The term Anti-French violence is linked to Anti-French sentiment which itself is a redirect to Anti-French sentiment in the United States, not in any way relevent. How can I edit the page to remove this mistake? --212.76.39.1

I removed the listing for now, because the article had a single line of information on the current violence—less than the summary did. It looks silly when we have a news story with a bolded link inviting people to click through for information, and then there isn't actually any information there. IMO, the sequence should go: 1) See a news story; 2) write a detailed article about it; 3) add it to "in the news". People seem to do 3 before 2 though. --Delirium 21:27, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

No. The sequence is 1) See a news story; 2) update relevant Wikipedia articles (or possibly create a new one); 3) add it to Current events.
4) For the same or a different user later, once the item has been on current events for a bit (for people to amend): add to "in the news".
If its a really important story and people are really sure of themselves (one thinks the updated content is good and encyclopaedic), then 3 and 4 can probably safely be merged.
There are of course no hard and fast rules (as with everything in Wikipedia), but I believe the above fits with the guidelines, and it seems logical to me. zoney ♣ talk 21:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

U.S domestic news

Could the murder trial item, which is clearly U.S. domestic news, however much it may be an important story, be removed from the template? I'm reluctant to do so myself as the page is protected, and I do not want to break policy or raise heckles. zoney ♣ talk 21:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've removed it. Wikipedia is not Court TV. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:57, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC) (a proud American)
I'm ambivalent on this. When the Marc Dutroux murder trial in Belgium came out with a verdict, we had that on the template for a while. Major domestic news is of international interest from at least a perspective of "this is an issue drawing a great deal of attention in [Belgium / the US / etc.]". --Delirium 10:37, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
I've never heard of that trial and it's not international. If it is so important in the US then the reason should be mentioned, otherwise it just sounds like a normal murder case. violet/riga (t) 11:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fallujah

Reports indicate we now have full control of Fallujah (Woohoo!). Please update. - Calmypal 01:11, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

"We"? The page has been protected. Besides, ITN only includes news items where the relevant articles have been updated to reflect the news. — David Remahl 01:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ignoran-uh...Americentrism

Look, I understand that most Americans and most non-Americans here are constantly fed garbage, trivia, and inanities raised to the aura of worldwide significance, or GO USA GO-style news on TV to soothe their general complacence, ignorance and/or lack of curiosity, and I'm tired of arguing about this again and again, but can we please just set up a policy that will restrict ITN editors from filling the template with (usually idiotic) US-only news items, no matter what the justifications?

Please look at the difference between the template a half-hour ago and now, result of the efforts of yours truly: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template%3AIn_the_news&diff=0&oldid=7462060

I hope there is some agreement that it is possible, with very little effort (all the stories were found on a single site, BBC news) to find something both relevant and truly international, instead of: #1Death of obscure US rapper, #2Health of members of the US administration, #3 General camaraderie between the US administration and other frat boys.

I am not keen to read any more boring and stupid replies like "this is a mostly American site, if you don't like it, leave", I want to know if any admin are going to do something about this, because if they can't, I am going to change all the templates about ITN and several other pages to make sure this doesn't keep happening - let Wikicivility, policies and all that trash go screw itself. -- Simonides 21:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, if you're some sort of red-necked conservative reactionary, please do me a favour and read these messages before replying to the above because I'm sure some of them already encompass your unoriginal reply: Americocentrism, Insular headlines. -- Simonides 21:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I take offense to this remark. Retract it please. --Golbez 23:26, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how the piece on the Bhopal disaster is "news." It sounds like something that might be more useful as a featured article. - Sekicho 21:53, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
It is news because the reporter that went to the site of the disaster tested the water and found it contained some 500 times the highest permissible contamination level, contrary to the claims of Union Carbide that opened up the site again in 98 claiming it was free of contamination. -- Simonides 22:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Simonides, I agree with you, but name-calling is not going to help matters...We all have to work together, americentric or not, so we should try to keep open communication channels, not clouded by personal or general attacks. That said, great work on the template! — David Remahl 22:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You're right, I already regret my condescending tone, but coming across the same behaviour every other day, looking at the good efforts to work against bias sink back into the same routine, does not help matters either. That said, I would like to see some actual change to the editing instructions, as I'm not looking to exchange arguments and/or insults etc. (which apart from being unpleasant and obstructive is an enormous waste of time.) -- Simonides 22:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If enough people are monitoring, editing and amending ITN I really don't think it matters. I actually enjoy trying to find articles and current news events that can allow me to kick off the Americentric additions. violet/riga (t) 22:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Violet, I find that with very few exceptions (you, Jiang and perhaps the occasional passer-by) the people editing this page fall into the same pattern. Notice the current efforts by Neutrality to remove the Bhopal incident, which has affected and continues to affect thousands, with the Iraqi conflict news, which dominates the headlines all the time in any case. While I have plenty of sympathy for the other thousands affected by the Iraq war, I don't have any for those editors (or anyone else, in fact) who keep emphasizing the importance of victims publicized in the news over those who don't get any airtime (notice the complete oblivion Afghans have sunk into because the media doesn't care as much anymore). -- Simonides 23:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's true that it is quite depressing that people forget that there are so many wars raging (over 100 at this moment, I believe) and that we are so media-led. Unfortunately that often dictates what we know about and thus what we can write about. The heart-condition of some US politician (yes, I know his role) is hardly massive news when considering the enormity of other activities around the globe. violet/riga (t) 23:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And who effects the enormity of other activities? Dick Cheney does. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 05:07, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

DO YOU MEAN TO CALL HIS GREATNESS THE Ol' Dirty Bastard OBSCURE? YOU FILTH! - BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bhopal story.

The Bhopal story should be in the anniversary section, not 'In the news' section, I'm going to replace it with Iran's halt on nuclear enrichment. Neutralisation 02:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you read the BBC article like you were asked to? There's a slight possibility you'd know what you were talking about if you did. -- Simonides 21:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The post deals with a new investigation into poisoning occuring right now. It's unquestionably news. --119 04:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protected?

Can we get this template unprotected please, a protected news template seems highly unproductive. It seems to me the ODB vandalism was coming from one single person using different user names, I think the solution would be blocking that user, not protecting the news page. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:29, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree; protection of ITN should only be for a short time, long enough to block the vandal. --Golbez 10:27, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Atlantis

The evidence is is not as strong as the team is making out and this would be what the 2451th time that atlantis has been found. The team leader makes some slightly odd claims

"People who dismiss this have not really done their homework, skeptics don't really understand. To understand the enigma of Atlantis you have to have good knowledge of ancient history, Biblical references, the Sumerian culture and their tablets and so on," said Sarmast. "[3]

Biblical references? Where?

In short this isn't really news and ashould not be the top item.Geni 11:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, the entry adheres to all the guidelines, international interest, it is being reported by some major news agencies, the article surely warrants updating, which has been done, it is listed on current events as well. Whether Atlantis has actually been found is hard to prove right now, but that doesn't mean it's not news, also, what does Sarmast pointing to Biblical references have to do with this being news, it is unclear what point you are trying to make. I'd like to point out that there is a general tendency to value news where deaths are involved more important than anything else, I'd like our news section to be somewhat balanced. Further more, it being the top item has nothing to do with importance, the order is by date, although entries where no image is available can be placed lower. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:10, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
The reason that quote is of interest is that it shows all the clasic signs of junk science. Attacking sceptics by claiming they don't understand and making vage refuerces to documents which you don't make precises enough to be of any use (ok the bible is reasonably precise but I've read thorugh it and I can't recall a mention of atlantis anywhere).Geni 16:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ITN, and wikipedia, is not a news site. We are neither obligated nor supposed to have the latest breaking international news. What is more important is news items relevant to an encyclopedia, and Atlantis is certianly one of those. --Golbez 12:26, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


Exactly, the goal of the ITN section is to illustrate the news and to point people to encyclopedic information, which is usually somewhat static, historically oriented, that is actually changing because of recent events. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:03, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, do you know how many times they've "found atlantis". This is not front-page international news. ed g2s • talk 13:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then how is a fairly randomly timed statistic on the Iraq war effort in Fallujah front-page news? Do you know how many soldiers and civilians have already been killed in Iraq, not to mention in all the other wars currently going on (about 100 according to statements above). Atlantis is of international interest, it spurs peoples interest, whether is can currently be proven or not. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:45, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
The BBC now also has an article on the discovery, note that hey also point out the controversy, that does not make it any less newsworthy. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:50, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
The BBC story is in a section on "Also in the news" on the Europe subpage, hardly front page news. Fallujah is front page news on just about everywhere. Compare google news: "atlantis": 883 results (157 since yesterday), "fallujah": 61,000 results (3,540 since yesterday). It's not front-page news, and it shouldn't be our front-page news ed g2s • talk 15:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Google news is not a guide of importance. Its simply a guide of whats reported. See [4] for an illustration of news media bias. - Xed 16:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please read the above comment by Golbez, it sums it up nicely, we do not have to report just the most important breaking events, we should report on internationally interesting events that have a decent Wikipedia article that is thereby put in a new perspective. Further more, what is wrong with having a fast news cycle, our rotation speed on Did you know is way faster than the news section. We should focus on adding entries, not removing anything that might just not be important enough for the entire world population. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:09, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
But the Atlantis article is not put in a new perspective. It has gained 3 lines and a link. IT already has a huge number of atlantis found stories mentioned.Geni 16:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How to edit the template

  1. Look for headlines on the BBC or Yahoo News pertaining to regions other than the US, US areas of interest (Iran, North Korea, etc) and UK.
  2. Help to avoid systemic bias by finding important articles about these ignored regions, unless there is a VERY important article that relates to a completely new event rather than some record in a long, ongoing process (ex. invasion) in the above named regions. Remember that not more than one headline per country is allowed.
  3. Update as per guidelines, etc.

A good suggestion would be to post major headlines from different countries on a separate page as and when you see them (perhaps Current Events, or this Talk page) and other editors can check them out before adding new headlines and updating the relevant Wikipedia articles. See the wealth of information, for example, on : BBC - Europe, Yahoo - Latin America, Yahoo - Africa and so on; these are all good places to start though you should by no means restrict yourselves to those sources, unless they are not as reliable. -- Simonides 22:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this map is a good way of viewing the biases of places like Google News and the other major news outlets. Reload that page a few times to get an idea of the biases involved. Often something significant, affecting millions of lives, is taking place on one of the blue areas of the map, and it only gets a passing mention in the 'international' press. - Xed 02:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who put ODB back?

Hold on a second, we're actually giving an ODB obituary top placement on the main page? Above the resignation of four US cabinet members? I disagree with this, he hasn't produced anything notable in years. It's a shame but it isn't front-page news. Rhobite 00:21, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Iran.

Why do people keep replacing the news that Iran has agreed to stop it's uranium enrichment program with stories like Bhopal and the Ugandan peace deal. As significant as those two stories are they are not more significant than the Iran story, especially since that topic is or was due for the UN and is forming a bulk of US and World foreign policy. Neutralisation 11:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your argument is characteristic of the brainwashed masses each of whom think they are independent critical thinkers. Yes, Iran is enriching uranium, and so what? Why is that causing you so much concern, more than the huge stockpiles already kept by militaristic countries like the US and Russia? Because Iran is part of the "axis of evil". Because Iran is a furrin cuntry filled with brown or something like that people. They can't be trusted you know. What if it gets into terrorist hands? There's no chance of it happening in Uhmerica of course. Flood the news with what Iran and other mid-East countries are doing and step up the panic levels and keep braindead foreign policies thriving among the public.
"That topic is or was due for the UN and is forming a bulk of US and World foreign policy". How about the millions killed, tortured or mutilated in Sudan and Uganda and elsewhere who are also on the UN agenda? Why don't those keep turning up prominently on your news sources? Does it ever occur to you that you keep posting or reading about the same bunch of countries all the time? If it has, did you ever think about why?-- Simonides 12:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you didn't have to revert to personal attacks. Contrary to what you have said I am not one of the "brainwashed masses each of whom think they are independent critical thinkers". I'd also appreciate it if you didn't immediately assume that I see this as important news because I am some gung-ho militaristic patriot who laps up every word Government's say and agrees with every opinion Government's give. I'd also appreciate it if you didn't automatically assume that by finding this news important that I am racist and that I think that nukes in the hands of "brown or something like that people" is more dangerous than Nukes in the hands of the US or Russia. I'd also appreciate it if you didn't assume that I think countries like Iran would be more liable to helping terrorists than America. I'd also appreciate it if you wouldn't assume that I'm anti-Arab or anti-Middle Eastern and only opt to use news that reflects the Middle-East in a bad light. The simple fact of the matter is that this is major world news, the simple fact of the matter is that _if_ Iran is in pursuit of nuclear weaponry it is in violation of agreements and treaties it has signed.
"How about the millions killed, tortured or mutilated in Sudan and Uganda and elsewhere who are also on the UN agenda? Why don't those keep turning up prominently on your news sources? Does it ever occur to you that you keep posting or reading about the same bunch of countries all the time? If it has, did you ever think about why?"
I'd appreciate it if you didn't automatically assume that I don't care about Sudan or Uganda, I do, and it's tragic what's happening in those countries. The news that Iran has agreed to stop its uranium enrichment however is significant news and it should be "In the News". Neutralisation 12:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Done, what's the next step? How can you contribute to defining positive and genuinely NPOV criteria for editing this template, as I and a few others have tried to do over the past months? -- Simonides 21:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Simonides, this is the news, you can't NPOV the news no matter how hard you try. You'll always have disputes about what news should be in the 'In The News' section and what shouldn't be, and periodically you'll get disputes over how to present that news. To one man it may be important, to another it isn't. I'd really appreciate it if you didn't jump to conclusions and assumptions in future, you have no idea what my beliefs, morals, thoughts and opinions are, at least you cannot know that on the basis of one dispute or difference of opinion, so please don't act like you do. On a sidenote, please stop with the insults, Wikipedia is meant to be a friendly environment, don't make it any more hostile than it unfortunately is at the moment. Neutralisation 02:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You don't have to NPOV the news, but on the basis of NPOV you can try to moderate bias with a few simple guidelines. As I may have said to you before, you can't necessarily eliminate or uproot discrimination, but you can go a long way in preventing, working round or mitigating it. It is really that simple and I don't see why there is so much resistance to this "revolutionary" concept. -- Simonides 19:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

England smoking ban

I've removed this story, as for one thing, it's not an actual certainty of yet. Even in that situation, it would be of debatable international interest. I think with all the tirades against US domestic stories (which I support such a protest), similarly non-international stories this side of the Atlantic should be curtailed. zoney ♣ talk 14:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, its been swiftly replaced (I admittedly broke the markup). I still stand by my comments above. zoney ♣ talk 14:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree, it is a highly controversial issue in countries all over the globe who are thinking of imposing a smoking ban, it is also featured on major news agencies and balances the ITN section's current content. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:38, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Righty-eo. I'm not sure it's so very controversial. Certainly in Ireland, the clear majority favoured it, even a significant no. of smokers. zoney ♣ talk 15:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think some people see it as internationally important because some people see it as a violation of human rights and a scheme that could transfer itself across the world. Neutralisation 15:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, it's evidently an issue worthy of ITN. In any case, I've added yesterday's announcement by Bhutan that they are introducing an outright ban on tobacco sales.
Maybe it is more controversial elsewhere, although I think it's reasonably obvious that smoking in enclosed public spaces, certainly in workplaces, violates others human rights. I'm sure the scheme will indeed spread around the world. zoney ♣ talk 16:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ITN protected

And yet again the ITN template is protected, it saddens me to see the hard work me and others invest in keeping this section balanced and up to date made impossible. Simonides, I support the intent of your actions, put the means and the result are both depressing and unfruitful. We should work towards a balance based on policy, but the ITN is but a small section which sometimes makes it a tough effort. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:44, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

k, I'm here in talk. Now stop your pitiful revert war. (well, stop when it's unprotected) Consensus obviously doesn't exist, so rather than risk getting blocked for violating the three revert rule, if such an amendment to policy passes, how about, oh, I dunno, we discuss it? --Golbez 09:22, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

The section has been discussed to death, but for the most part only by me, because the others shy away rather than admit their shortcoming/s. I only want to see if anyone has a good reason not to implement my suggestions, and it seems pretty clear there are none - hence the refuge in a distortion of "concensus" or "policies" . -- Simonides 22:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

British Hunting Ban?

Not really important news at all. Why is it here? --[[User:Tomf688|tomf688]] 00:17, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I assure you it is important to some people. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 00:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A few british hunters maybe? Who else? --[[User:Tomf688|tomf688]] 00:22, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Shows that you are not from the UK. From the way I hear it, this is a very important issue at the moment. I would advise you to look into it more and stop making this judgement call, especially if you don't live in England. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Most of the population of the United Kingdom has an opinion on the issue. The use of the Parliament Act is notable too - it is rarely used and of great constitutional importance [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 03:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In re Ta Bu: I looked on the BBC news website, and saw it not even in the top three headlines for the continent of Europe, so I assumed it to be a rather menial issue. --[[User:Tomf688|tomf688]] 04:26, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it is a pretty huge issue, from everything I've read here in Australia. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It matters to the varius aninal rights groups, farmers and a few back bench mps. I think pretty much everyone else lost interest about 6 bills ago. It's getting so much coverage because there isn't much else going onGeni 06:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are two versions of the BBC News website. The hunting story tops the UK edition, whilst in the world edition the hunting story is the lead story on the UK section. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 08:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And now it has been overtaken by a story about Prince William. I hope no one thinks that is significantGeni 17:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Its a BIG issue, and its significantly more important on an international scale than the Sears merger.
The WP is so US centric some times it seriously infuriates me. News of pissy minor events in the US gets put above major issues that are covered seriously EVERYWHERE else on ITN, US spelling seems to reign supreme, etc. Kiand 02:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Big issue? Total number of times I herd it mentioned today outside the media=0. The correct way to deal with any US bias is not to replace it with minor stories from elsewhere but to replace it with major stories from elsewhere. The lastest bussness over Kashmir for exampleGeni 02:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree, it's a big issue in the UK. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 18:12, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hans Eichel and Iraq

"Any bolded item that appears on the Main Page must be updated and listed on its corresponding subject area page before being listed on the Main Page."
But as far as I can determine the news fact on Hans Eichel and Iraq isn't updated in any of the linked articles. Can someone either fix it and put it in the most appropriate article, or just remove it? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 18:12, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ol' Dirty Bastard

Who the hell keeps on adding him and why the hell do they think his death is important in the slightest? The man died nearly a week ago it's old news, not new news and even if it was new news, I would still oppose adding him to ITN. He is insignificant, his death is insignificant and is made even more insignificant by the fact that whoever is trying to add him to ITN is removing other more appropriate and significant news to compensate. Whoever keeps adding him read what the template says "Only of international importance or atleast interest", ODB is neither of international importance nor interest, he's not really of international importance nor interest from an Entertainment news standpoint. 172.186.197.216 18:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Iraq Flag POV Message

The file Image:Newiraqflag.gif seems to have a POV message in one of its rotations. It says "Governor Adolph Bush did it only for the oil!" in big red letters, as can be seen in a screenshot I just uploaded: Image:Inthenewsscreenshot.png. This image should be deleted and a new flag image should be made, preferably a png so this can be avoided. I'm posting this on WP:IFD as well. Telso 21:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've stripped the second frame from the animated gif and reuploaded as Image:Newiraqflag-2.gif , that should do it for now. Not sure about the copyright of the original image, though. - JohnyDog 21:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The similar Image:Iraq_flag_large.png is apparently [5] from the CIA World Factbook [6].

Are you sure there was a problem with Image:Newiraqflag.gif? I thought the problem was only in Image:NewIraqflag.gif, which I have since deleted... Evercat 22:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The big image on the page itself is ok (not animated), however if you link it as thumbnail (look at the version of this template just before my edit and wait for minute) you'll still get the animated flag - maybe the thumbnail wasn't updated correctly, or there is bug somewhere linking thumbnail from the (deleted) image with capitalizes 'i' ? - JohnyDog 22:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&oldid=7697625"