Template talk:In the news/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 12 |

Archive 13

| Archive 14 →

Kyrgyzstan bias

(moved from candidates page) How is Kyrgyzstan always making the front page? It has not even been requested here? Might we have an editor with an agenda? How many English speaking people are interested in the Supreme Council of Kyrgyzstan and its actions? Not enough to warrant front page coverage I propose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.108.104.225 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 January 2007.

The solution then is to work current events articles in your country so that it'll be posted at the ITN. --Howard the Duck 11:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the anonimous user. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet another biased ITN

Nearly three hundred people are killed during a battle between insurgents and U.S.-backed Iraqi troops in the Shi'a holy city of Najaf.

The vast majority of the "people" killed are part of an apocalyptic religious cult, yet the headline wants you to think that "people" is mainly women, children, and uniformed combatants. This is a victory against a patently evil militia, yet it's all about the collateral damage and civilian casualties here on Wikipedia. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't know cultists weren't people. Preston 21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know childen and malicious insurgents could be equivocated. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you do. As they are all human beings, they all fit under the term 'people'. The more you know. Preston 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, your implied premise is, "if the statement is factual, then it is not biased." Please use logic from this point on. Thanks. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'll use logic from this point forward. Logic dictates that I should not argue a troll. My mistake. Preston 02:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing what alternative you suggest for the item. Nearly three hundred people and evil militamen cannot appear on the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 22:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in facts, not ad-hominem straw man attacks. 300 people is who? The insurgents? US troops? Did 300 US troops die in the battle? Did 300 children die in the battle? Who died? Who had the tactical victory? I spit on the idiot that created that vague and inherently biased headline. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ironic is the fact that you start off your statement with a declaration that you are not interested in ad-hominem attacks, but then end it with that. I don't see the ad-hominem attack to which you were referring. I said I was interested in hearing the alternative you suggest, and you have yet to provide that. If you want to learn more information about who exactly died in the article, take a look at the article that is in bold; the information is covered there. In The News is supposed to showcase how current events have affected Wikipedia articles, with a quick blurb on each subject. The word people is wholly correct and unless you provide a suggestion for an alternative (as I requested in the "ad-hominem straw man attack"), you probably will not see that changing. -- tariqabjotu 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why even bother trying to spin? I happily spit on the fool that created that ITN headline. That person isn't you. Your ad hominem came from a hyperbolic suggestion of a revised headline (that you stuck in my mouth). Saying "people" is equivocation, so it makes sense to just simply state the numbers from each side. It's deliberately disruptive when you try to play ignorant and claim you don't know what a better headline would be. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is ever a headline that indicates the number of US troops killed in a single day, you can be damn sure I'll change it to "people," which is wholly correct. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I did add the headline, but that's irrelevant; your suggestion that you'd spit on the fool / idiot / [insert pejorative here] that added that headline is clear incivility. So stop. I know you did not suggest the headline, but you said in your original post that this is a victory against a patently evil militia. I was pointing out that the kind of language you used to describe the majority of those killed in the battle is biased language and especially no less biased than people. Wikipedia is not about deciding whose purpose in the battle was legitimate and whose was not. The fact of the matter is that nearly three hundred people in total – from both sides of the conflict – died. They are all people. Period. No one's playing ignorant here. -- tariqabjotu 02:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask anyone to take sides; I'm sure there are plenty of Wikipedians that support the insurgency. What I called for was a clear breakdown of the numers of people instead of making the battle look like it was a toss-up. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the article, not because of any concern about the blurb, but because the article appears to be {{TotallyDisputed}}. I thought it was normal that articles with "red alert" pages were not put on the main page.. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Justice. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the points you have raised here, Haizum, the way in which you have brought it is completely unacceptable. Your remarks that you "spit on the idiot that created that vague and inherently biased headline" / "happily spit on the fool that created that ITN headline" are outrageous personal attacks. If you have something to say, do so calmly, rationally and civilly. But don't ever insult or attack others. Wikipedia is not a chatroom and most definitely not a boxing ring. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, it could just have been a misinterpreted B.A. Baracus impression. "Ah spit on de crazy fool who wrote dat Wikipedia article, Hann-ah-bool!". Just raising the possibility....Badgerpatrol 11:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - "very likely"

Is it better to replace "very likely" with greater then 90% chance. "very likely" isn't very quantitative, and in this case the term means "greater then 90% probability" (see IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). So why not be clear? - Shudda ^talk 02:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I went with "very likely" for two reasons: one, it's a direct quote from the IPCC report, and two, 'it is "very likely"' is much shorter than "there is a greater than 90% chance". But if others think the percentage is a significant improvement, I won't oppose a change. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image suggestion

Would it be a good idea to replace Federer with a crop from Image:Sadriyadistrictbombings.jpg? It's rare that we have a freely licensed image actually connected with an event in ITN, as opposed to merely an image of the participants in that event. However, some people might think that a photograph of a survivor isn't sufficiently connected to the story, or might be inappropriate for the front page of Wikipedia. I need to run some errands, so won't be able to crop and protect a copy of the image, but I thought I'd mention it here as a suggestion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's actually not a free image (it was improperly tagged before), so this is no longer an option. -- tariqabjotu 21:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I should have realized that having a freely licensed image of that quality so quickly was improbable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, since that's no good, how about using an image like this to illustrate the global warming story? We could put (glacial retreat pictured) at the appropriate place. Failing that, we could even use a graph like this, although I'm not sure how that would look at 100px. Actually, let's see:

Nah, that's probably no good. I guess I just think we should be able to do better than a photo of a tennis player from a completely different tournament than the one he just won. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Guinea correction?

User:Davdavid posted to Talk:Guinea that "human rights advocates have been saying 60 people were killed by security forces during the strike, and a figure of 59 dead (more than half of them shot in one incident) has been confirmed by the Minister of Health, as reported in this Reuters article. [1]." The main page just says 'at least 59 deaths'. --Cherry blossom tree 16:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this news being ignored?

This news item needs to be on the main page on the news section. Why isn't it?

[2][3]

I dont know why the media is ignoring this. Please consider.--Zereshk 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to what the world's media are doing, but the first reason this item isn't in the "In the News" section on the main page is because nobody's proposed it, with a link to an updated Wikipedia page, on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. If there's an updated Wikipedia page, please suggest it there, and it will be discussed on its merits. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been proposed, and is now being considered there. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the claim. The "international" coverage is nothing to write home about and the associated article had little detail. Add to that the fact that the claim's factuality is disputed and the existence of articles such as this one and I believe it does not deserve a place on Wikipedia's Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Loss of shortcuts

Am I the only one mourning the loss of the T:ITN and T:ITNT shortcuts? They were never linked from too many pages, but they seemed like decent shortcuts for people just trying to reach Template:In the news and Template talk:In the news. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Since these were part of a mass nomination and the deletion argument was predicated on their lack of use, having at least one of them should be fine. These are certainly useful given the lack of any link to the template from the main page (which is as it should be). —Centrx→talk • 03:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that there are WP:ITN and WT:ITN?-gadfium 04:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. But I don't see why another one is a problem. After all, this and Template:In the news, are in the template namespace, not Wikipedia namespace. -- tariqabjotu 04:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Delete the Superbowl ITN entry now - hey, it's almost a week ago

Get real, that event is now almost a week in the past, and it's lacking global importance in the first place anyway. I strongly suggest to get it out of ITN immediately. MikeZ 08:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. I've taken it out. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The admins might as well remove the Italian football thingy as some teams are now playing with people at their stadiums. --Howard the Duck 12:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the Super Bowl, but I'll note that "global importance" is not an ITN inclusion criterion. —David Levy 15:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with its removal, to say that the Super Bowl lacks global importance is unfounded. Okay, no more beating of the dead horse. --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I think our criteria for ITN have gotten so ridiculously high that we don't include enough. There has only been three new ITN-worthy events in the seven days since the Super Bowl!? -newkai t-c 05:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding suggestions

I'm not as active here as I was formerly, as I found that regular updating often involves too much work writing articles oneself. This is an arduous multi-step process, and it would work better if it could be broken down. So I suggest a new type of subsection in the daily sections on the suggestions page: "Potential items". These would be ITN-worthy events whose items have not been sufficiently updated, but that probably could be with a little work, and would include one or several links that could be used to update the article. If we had such a system, I think I would be able to contribute a daily report to it of 3 or 4 potential items.--Pharos 20:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems a lot of admins have abandoned ITN recently. Perhaps because it's a thankless job which attracts constant complaints. I'm unsure about your suggestion however. Does it seem a little too close to news gathering and reporting? --Monotonehell 21:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't abandon it because of the complaints really, just because it was too much work updating it all myself (including the articles) when there were no appropriate suggestions. Several times I've gone about half-way through the process of researching "viable" items and given up. Of course there would be no original reporting, just a survey of the Current Events page and major news sources for "viable" items.--Pharos 21:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Soon I'm going to resurrect the near consensus discussion we had before Christmas regarding a change to ITN's format and criteria. Your idea could certainly be incorporated as part of that process. (the reason it was abandoned was we still had two or three issues to resolve and then the holidays came up...) --Monotonehell 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to "death" criteria

Please take a look at WP:ITN/C (Feb 8 2007) for discussion relating to the (non-)inclusion of Anna Nicole Smith's death in the ITN template. Apparently there is support for the idea that the "death" criteria should be expanded to include notifications of "notable deaths" in fields other than science or politics. Ekantik ^talk 05:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's actually a topic of discussion in the revised criteria we talked about before Christmas. Like I said above, I'm going to resurrect that discussion soon. I just have a load of "real" work to do before I can put in a good few hours thought over the two or three final issues we had before I re-propose the changes. --Monotonehell 15:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A major thing to note is that the death criteria were added because of a surplus of obituaries crowding out other news items. We have the opposite problem now: We have very few items to put in the news, and some death items would be fine. —Centrx→talk • 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. Take Britney Spears for an example. She is not in a high ranking office of power at the moment, I'm not sure she qualifies as a key figure in her field of expertise, and I don't think her death would have a major international impact that affects current events. Yet her death would be highly notable, and would probably be put up, despite the criteria. The problem with the current criteria is that they are focussed on the higher levels/echelons of institutionalized societies. I think that that scope is too limited. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If this discussion is ressurected then I'd like to ask if someone could please inform me on my talk-page, as I would like to participate, thanks. Ekantik ^talk 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Alpine skiing: which is wrong?

What are we doing with that piece of news on the Swede Alpine skiier? I'm posting this on February 12: the specific article we have on the competition in question, in the relevant sections, says that one of the events will only happen tomorrow (Feb. 13) and the last one, only on February 16. So either the specific article is completely wrong or we are conjecturing the future here. Since the Main Page is far, far more visible than the specific article, I thought it best to post this here. Redux 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Anja Pärson is not the first to win all five gold medals in one championship, noone has ever achieved that feat. She is, however, the first person to win five titles in her career. See the infobox underneath her picture in her article. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Humm, I see. Perhaps it is that what the entry is attempting to convey. We need to rewrite it then, I got the impression that it meant that she had won all five events in the current (2007) World Championship, which is reinforced by the fact that the competition is ongoing and Pärson has won all of the 3 events that have already been contended. I suppose this wouldn't have confused those initiated in the sport, who are familiar with the leading athletes, records and trivia, but for the uninitiated, such as myself, the current entry seems to be saying that she won all 5 in 2007. Redux 13:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost completely ignorant to the whole sport, but I understood what was meant. --Monotonehell 15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I never got that impression either. -- tariqabjotu 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Baghdad blurb

Why was the blurb about the Baghdad market bombing removed? It doesn't really improve the Main Page balance. But more importantly: in about an hour's time we'll get quite a long FA. Instead of removing a blurb, we probably need another blurb to maintain the Main Page balance for tomorrow. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I did remove it to balance the page. But once the new article comes in it should be added back. I don't see any story that could be added besides that. JACO PLANE • 2007-02-12 23:10

I've got something that might be useful: the Dixie Chicks winning five Grammy Awards. I will bring up at WP:ITN/C. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are the Dixie Chicks ITN?

Seeing as the BBC and other news networks have and will not report on a country music band winning grammys, why is wikpedia? Given the small amount of headlines given in ITN, I think this one is particularly unimportant and only of very specific interest: thus it does not meet the criterion. Djlayton4 05:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Grammys are the biggest music awards in the world, comparable to the Academy Awards for film. As such, the Grammy Awards are highly notable. Regarding the coverage of the Dixie Chicks victory:

BBC: Dixie Chicks earn Grammys triumph
CNN: A 'Nice' night for the Dixie Chicks
Fox News: Dixie Chicks to Country: Nah-Nah
Der Tagesspiegel: Dixie Chicks räumen fünfmal ab

Just a few links to press coverage of reliable sources focussing on the Dixie Chicks. A ecis^Brievenbus 10:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also from the Aussies: Do mention the war: Chicks blitz awards --69.6.157.3 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention ITN's been stale lately, and the deaths/obits criteria is hard to please. --Howard the Duck 07:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Album of the Year - the most prestigious annual award in music - was won by a country music band. It's almost like a foreign film winning the Oscar. Ok, so I exaggerated, but c'mon. Xiner (talk, email) 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dixie Chicks have won Record of the Year, Album of the Year, Song of the Year, Best Country Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal and Best Country Album. The first three are among the most notable Grammys that any band can win. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

UNICEF Report on Child Welfare

Today UNICEF unveiled a report on the welfare of children in 21 of the richest nations in the world. The full report can be read [[4]]. I believe this would be worthy of main-page news. Mathteacher1729 14:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion — in future, please make suggestions on the candidates page. This page is meant to be about maintainance of ITN.
Is there an updated Wikipedia article on this report? That's one of the criteria for inclusion in ITN.

Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

An item?

Romano Prodi just resigned. That seems pretty important. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

International Crisis Organisation

Who on earth are they? They don't look notable enough to have their opinions voiced by ITN. --90.240.102.48 00:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the articles? They're a well-regarded international non-governmental organization. The government of Turkmenistan didn't allow international observers to monitor their election; in the absence of monitors, NGOs like the ICG are as good as it gets. If we remove the clause indicating that reliable international organizations consider the election fraudulent, we would give the false impression that Berdimuhammedow was elected in a legitimate election. Which, by all accounts, he wasn't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You're mixing opinions with facts. --90.240.102.48 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And we'd be doing the same thing if we merely said "Berdimuhammedow was elected", because "elected" implies some sort of fair democratic process. Doesn't it? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So is that an admittance? --90.240.102.48 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an admittance that I was trying to reflect a neutral point of view in ITN. If I had added the statement "Berdimuhammedow was elected" without any qualification, that would have placed undue weight on the dubious claims of the government of Turkmenistan. It is possible that the mention of the ICG's views put too much weight in the opposite direction. Since the item is no longer on ITN, the discussion is moot, but in future it would be helpful to suggest an alternative wording, if you disagree with the wording of an ITN item.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice tactic you have here, waiting until the item is gone before you respond. I hate admins. --90.240.102.48 13:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

that's okay, we hate you more :* --Golbez 14:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For what (little) it's worth, anon, I honestly didn't notice your comment of the 16th until the 23rd. Did you have a substantial comment to make, or did you just want to bitch? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, like you so convienently said, the discussion is moot, so I can't possibly comment. --90.240.102.48 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Add Blizzard, Remove Grammies

The 49th Annual Grammy Awards are old news now. Can we replace it with something more timely and news-worthy such as the Eastern North America Valentine's Day Blizzard, which has killed 16 people and dumped over a foot of snow or more across much of the Ohio Valley and Northeast, glazed over Virginia in a sheet of ice, and spawned tornadoes in New Orleans, becoming one of the most violent February blizzards on record. --Abog 01:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really the best place for this discussion: WP:ITN/C would be better.
I'd support adding the blizzard iff it's being given substantial international coverage. We didn't highlight the flooding in Jakarta a few weeks back, and it would be a bit US-centric to add the blizzard now if it's not of sufficient international interest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: a Google News search shows that it's being covered in the UK, Canada and Australia, but not many other countries. I'd like to hear other opinions about whether this is ITN-worthy or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Channel News Asia

Turkish Press

News 24 South Africa

Although these appear to be older news stories from yesterday (the death figures are lower), it is indeed an international-reaching news event. --Abog 02:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a point (again) items in ITN are only "removed" by newer items added to the top of the list pushing older items off the bottom. There's currently 3 older items than the Grammies story. --Monotonehell 03:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah — if something is replaced it'll be the Dutch cabinet. (Government, that is, not item of furniture.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

lol you leave my dutch cabinet alone, it's where I keep all my clogs, peffernusen and bittleballen! --Monotonehell 06:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing better than making fun of us Dutchies, is there? ;) A ecis^Brievenbus 17:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This story may prove interesting. Xiner (talk, email) 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

North Korean flag

Isn't it out of place beside the North American blizzard item? Caerwine Caer’s whines 09:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The image is used for another story below. --Howard the Duck 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It turns out North Korea is not developing nuclear weapons, they are developing a weather machine. —Centrx→talk • 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, I'm glad the Korean flag was replaced with the current image of carnage on ITN. That picture really hits you with the lethality of the blizzard. --90.240.102.48 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a slightly more dramatic image. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Storm of International importance/interest ?

Criteria No.3 for news entries stipulate that "It should be a story of an(sic) international importance, or at least interest". It appears to me that the storm in the United States and the resultant loss, however unfortunate, is only of national importance to a particular country.

It does not appear prominantly on websites of some (random) international news agencies such as BBC(UK), NDTV(India), Japan Today(Japan) or Buenos Aires Herald (Argentina).

Could someone help me understand how this is of international importance /interest.

Thanks.Chocolate Horlicks 07:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above contains links to coverage of the blizzard in international media. Also, although it's no longer on the front page of the BBC's news site, it was there for a period yesterday. (Their most recent story is here.) I believe that it was prominently displayed on other international news sites yesterday (when it was fresh news — it's mostly over now). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. Chocolate Horlicks 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

interwiki

please put an interwiki link to yiddish template.

[[yi:אקטועלע ארטיקלן]] thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yidisheryid (talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Added, but that link seems to be to a blank page. Is there a typo? (I can barely sound out Hebrew with the vowels, and so wouldn't be able to tell if it was misspelled or something.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The מוסטער (template) namespace was missing; I have fixed the interwiki link so it is yi:מוסטער:אקטועלע ארטיקלן. -- tariqabjotu 05:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture problem

a big tragedy has occured and the train bombing picture has not yet been displayed on main page pl change it.User talk:Yousaf465

Pl find some Pic which can be used on main page and place it there.User talk:Yousaf465

The problem is that we can only use freely licensed images on the front page, and there don't seem to be any of the train bombing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Specificity of images

Image:Land Rover Defender 110 patrol vehicles Crop2.jpg

I had added Image:Land Rover Defender 110 patrol vehicles Crop2.jpg to ITN to illustrate the British troop withdrawal story. David Levy (talk • contribs) removed it, in part because I had made it too large (at 110 px — fair enough), and in part because "unless those specific soldiers are among the 1,600, the image is misleading". I'm not sure that the latter reason holds up. It was illustrating the concept of "British troops in Iraq", not claiming that these specific soldiers were among those being redeployed. I tend to think that a photograph illustrating one aspect of a larger issue is better than a generic one of a politician, or a flag. What's our guideline on this sort of question? Do we have one? What do other people think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have a picture of Romano Prodi back on ITN. --PFHLai 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there were license problems with the Prodi images that were up earlier. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this one, Commons:Image:RomanoProdi cropped 2june2006 049.jpg (right) ? --PFHLai 00:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit blurry, but I'm OK with it if others are. It seems slightly odd to replace a picture accompanying the first ITN story with one accompanying the third, but I suppose Blair is more overexposed than Prodi, and he's not really what the first story is about. Use your judgment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I've updated the Prodi story with Napolitano's refusal of Prodi's resignation, I've put PFHLai's Prodi picture up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's User:Jollyroger's Prodi pic. I just cropped it. BTW, Image:CycloneFavio 2007Feb22 annotated.jpg (left) may be another option. Either one is better than Blair's pic, I suppose. --PFHLai 22:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Prodi pic is probably a better choice. It's always good to feature a photo by a fellow Wikipedian on MainPage. --PFHLai 22:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Timing of election items?

What's our practice been for posting items about elections in progress? I was thinking of putting an item about today's election in Senegal up, but then thought that it might be better to wait until after the polling has closed. What has the precedent for this sort of thing been? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, standard practice is to not mention elections in ITN until they are resolved and the results can be verified (Unless some extraordinary event has interrupted the process). Doing so is a bit too close to reporting news. --Monotonehell 12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

79th Annual Academy Awards/Oscars

Add Oscars. The ceremony is currently ongoing. Real96 01:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Add this to the "In the News" category, once ceremony is over with, because that will lessen the probability of WP:CRYSTAL violations. Real96 02:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1) IMO not a hugely major thing, 2) There's no news to put up yet, and 3) We have a Candidates page. --Golbez 02:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Superbowl results were listed on the ITN talk page, recently. I think tomorrow or so, when the Oscars are over, an administrator will add the link to the page, since the Oscars are a major event relating to the film industry. Real96 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This should certainly go up; it is of international interest, especially because this year's Oscars have an especially diverse and multi-national group of nominees. -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps we can wait until there's something to actually say about it. --Golbez 03:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant after it was over. -- tariqabjotu 04:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(I'm expecting "Why didn't you include the BAFTAs (and/or insert my country's film award) previously" comments a little later lol. --Howard the Duck 08:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

awkward bold

Am I the only one who finds the bolded text unhelpful in the headlines? Right now it is: Serbia cleared of genocide charge; Martin Scorcese wins Academy Award; etc. The verbs are bold.

But to know to what the verbs refer you must first know the nouns. At first glance, someone won something and someone was cleared of something. I want to know that Serbia and the Academy Awards are in the news right now. Just 2 cents. Potatoswatter 02:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The bolded links refer to the wikipages with the updated materials. --76.64.76.106 05:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Serbia's acquittal

The current text is unclear. In the article, it says "The Court also noted that while the Belgrade government has no connection to the genocide committed in Srebrenica in 1995 and such a genocide did occur, there was no Bosnian genocide on the scale of the whole country" but the wording in ITN is confusing. Also Serbia did not violate International Law by failing to prevent genocide but by not handing over individuals accused of the crime[5]. I would amend the text as follows:

From:

The International Court of Justice clears Serbia of direct responsibility and complicity in the Srebrenica massacre, but finds the State violated international law by failing to prevent genocide.

To:

The International Court of Justice clears Serbia of genocide in Bosnia, but finds the State failed to prevent the Srebrenica massacre and violated its international obligations by not handing over individuals accused of the crime.

Regards, --Asterion^talk 02:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this over to WP:ERRORS. We may get a quicker response. It's good for suggesting any tweaks of the text on Main Page. --76.64.76.106 05:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The present text is horrible. It implies that no genocide occured whatsoever, when in fact the ICJ once again confirmed that the Srebrenica massacre was indeed a genocide. Live Forever 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The blurb says that the court has cleared Serbia of genocide. This can be explained in two directions, the first being your explanation that no genocide occurred in the first place. The ruling of the court states that genocide has occurred, but that Serbia was found not guilty of this. This is the other explanation possible with this wording. To use an analogy: if a defendant is found not guilty of murder, it doesn't mean that the murder was not committed in the first place. It might indeed mean that the death did not constitute murder, or it can also mean that another person is believed to have done it. A ecis^Brievenbus 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The verdict clearly states that Serbia's offence was one of omission (failure to prevent the crime) rather than commission (actively carrying out the crime). I've modified the wording accordingly. -- ChrisO 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/_/Template_talk%7EIn_the_news_Archive_13_81da.html"

Category: Template talk archives