Template talk:In the news/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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 16


Contents

new picture please

hi, can we change the picture? it's been that scowling irish guy for quite some time, and it's kinda starting to get on my nerves.. thanks, 131.111.8.99 07:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ITN works on suggestions from people such as yourself. Instead of just asking if we can change the picture, could you perhaps help find a new picture that has a suitable licence to replace it with? If such a picture could be found, it would have been changed already. --Monotonehell 13:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a cropped picture of the May 2007 RCTV protests? --199.71.174.100 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I made a crop as the anon. suggested: Image:ProtestosRCTV crop1.jpg. I have protected it. If someone thinks it is ok for the Main page go ahead and use it, otherwise I will delete it in a day or so.--Commander Keane 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Why is it not mentioned here? Buc 17:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion on the candidates' page. Badgerpatrol 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

new picture, please.

Stanley Cup

ITN has held Lord Stanley's Mug for two days. Actual winners of the trophy can only keep it for one day. Can we have Commons:Image:STS-117launch5.jpg (pictured) on the Main Page instead, please? --74.13.124.115 06:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How about zooming in to the Space Shuttle? All I see are the bright exhumes... --Howard the Duck 09:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Are Premature requests allowed

I want to request "Roger Federer becomes the first man in 38 years to hold all four tennis grand slams by defeating Rafael Nadal in the French Open final." to appear on the main page if it happens. Buc 09:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not exactly 'banned' but they are easily overlooked; it's much easier to use the candidates page when the article update actually occurs. --Golbez 12:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Note: it didn't happen, unfortunately. But the men and women's singles winners should be ITN as it is important and notable. Maybe a picture, too, if there is a free one. └Jared┘┌t┐  17:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Get rid of Stanley Cup now...

Can we remove the Stanley Cup now? - That was on 06/06 already and it's only a local sports event anyway. - I propose to delete sports events after 2 days from ITN, how about that? - Cheers, MikeZ 11:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

See #Loosen up the rules, above... --Howard the Duck 16:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
ITN items are added at the top in date order, and fall off the bottom as more items are added to the top. Any other course of action involves a subjective call which is wide open to endless debate. --Monotonehell 23:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Soccer?

Why does the blurb on Denmark v Sweden read "After a European Soccer Championship qualification match"? Isn't the consensus that we call the sport football when it concerns Europe, as in the Union of European Football Associations? AecisBrievenbus 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there are at least 6 different codes around the World that are all called "Football" locally, a more logical course of action would be to call them: Soccer, Gridiron (or possibly American football), Canadian football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football, Rugby league and Rugby Union. Or similarly, agreed on, unique names. After all we don't refer to Munich as München. --Monotonehell 23:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is called football (soccer). Why can't we go by that? Why use a term that is used only in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, to refer to an event in Europe? AecisBrievenbus 23:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The piped link itself links to 2008 UEFA European Football Championship. If we call it a football championship in the relevant article, why should we use the term soccer on ITN? AecisBrievenbus 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Because as I stated above, there is ambiguity to the term "football" throughout the World. Everyone has their own kind of "football". Whist the competition is called the European Football Championship, the ambiguity exists outside of Europe. Ask a random person in.. oh I don't know.. Amsterdam (;)) what "Football" is and they'll most probably describe a game with a round ball and the beauty of a ballet performance. But ask the same question to someone in Chicago, Dublin, Melbourne or Sydney and you'll get four different answers. As I said the ambiguity exists outside of Europe and so should be delt with outside the article (ie ITN) --Monotonehell 02:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweden-Denmark

The beginning of this discussion was previously on WP:ERRORS Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sweden-Denmark is no longer international news (if it was international in the first place). It doesn't deserve the spot in ITN which could be given to something more significant. – Chacor 02:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • From #3: It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest. This seems to have international interest, judging from the international news coverage in the article's reference section. If you have a suggestion for something more important, it should go here. Cheers!--Chaser - T 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • News coverage that is almost a week to two weeks old. It's no longer of international interest or importance, that is my point. It was no longer news by the time it had been added to the page. – Chacor 02:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Note: the verdict happened on Friday, June 8. Last week. Your June 12 newspaper doesn't add events that happened in June 8th, lol. --Howard the Duck 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Right, the news was added June 8. Things scroll off ITN as they are replaced by newer things at the top. I don't see why we should make an exception in this case. Hell, even the two columns are about the same height right now.--Chaser - T 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The news happened on June 8. It was added between June 11-12 (depends on your time zone). --Howard the Duck 03:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Added just six hours ago. A bit late. – Chacor 03:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
            • That edit was pretty interesting, IMHO; the deleted items were "selected." Well at least the Europeans got what they wanted, no American "local" sports news on ITN (actually the Ducks are composed mostly of Canadians, but what ever)... --Howard the Duck 03:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Touche. In any case, let's let it scroll off like everything else. The stated limit for ITN is 3-5 items, but in practise it is almost always six items.--Chaser - T 04:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
              • But the point is it isn't news now. --Howard the Duck 04:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
What would you like? For it to be removed and restore something old on there? If you want something recent instead, it would help to actually find articles that do fit the ITN criteria.
One huge reason that there are six items on ITN most of the time is because the current DYK maximum limit is now 8 items. Those editing DYK seem to put 8 on there most of the time; in order to maintain some sort of "main page balance" so there is no excess blank spacing at the bottom of the "On this day" column, extra items are placed on both ITN and OTD. But in many cases, there are not enough well-written, good, main page-worthy articles to put on OTD, so old items are left on ITN instead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I was going to suggest something, but it's old news too (lol). Maybe Tony Soprano's real fate hehehe --Howard the Duck 05:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
DYK is short so the last two ITN items can now be removed. --Howard the Duck 13:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Belgian election: fix needed

The current top item reads:

In the Belgian general election, the alliance of Christian Democratic and Flemish and New-Flemish Alliance led by Minister-President of Flanders Yves Leterme wins control of the Belgian Federal Parliament.

This is, as far as I can make out, nonsense. "Wins control" implies they, well, are going to control parliament, and that's just not true - they're nowhere near a majority (and considering the party isn't organised in all of Belgium's regions, that would be a bit of a problem!).

I sugget to change it to something like:

In Belgian, general elections are held, with the current Minister-President of Flanders Yves Leterme, who led the alliance of Christian Democratic and Flemish and New-Flemish Alliance, expected to be elected Prime Minister by the Belgian Federal Parliament.

But it needs changing, right away; this isn't some minor oversight, it's a totally wrong statement that will get cited and attributed to WP and hurt its credibility.

RandomP 09:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use WP:ERRORS, it's much, much faster there. --Howard the Duck 09:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. How about linking to that page from the main page source, or, well, anywhere people are likely to find it? :-)
RandomP 10:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It's transcluded at the top of Talk:Main Page. --Howard the Duck 12:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Parker

I propose we remove "Frenchman" from the part about Tony Parker winning the Finals MVP. We never said "American Tim Duncan" won the Finals MVP. It should just be "Tony Parker won the Finals MVP. Mfn0426 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's notable since Parker was the first European - and Frenchman to win the Finals MVP award. --Howard the Duck 03:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

American basketball game

Relevance to anyone outside the United States? Is basketball even the most notable sport within the United States? There are surely better candidates than this game for inclusion in ITN. Italiavivi 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Basketball is the second most-popular sport in the world, if we'd omit basketball, we might as well omit cricket, etc. --Howard the Duck 03:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Omit cricket from the Main Page? You have my attention. /me ducks and flees from Wikipedia's cricket fans. Picaroon (Talk) 04:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Ssssssh keep quiet, they'll come in droves and strangle the two of us, well maybe. --Howard the Duck 04:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe at least the somewhat opaque acronym "NBA" could be spelled out in full so those not already au fait with the subject at least know what game's being discussed? Sgt Pinback 08:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not an international event and to give precedence to such an irrelevant thing is an insult to people who love different sports in different countries (you know, countries which aren't America). Unless it is an international event, which it is not, it does not deserve to be there. Scrap it. The most glaringly obvious thing? The fact that all the other news tidbits include countries or nationalities; there is no such thing for this stupid ball game, revealing, in earnest, an American view of the world, rather than an internationalist one. Michael talk 08:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Who told you this is not an international event? A British news outlet is covering it; it must be international. --Howard the Duck 09:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
That does not make it international. That means it is covered in the newspaper of another country. It is not the FIFA World Cup or Olympic Games, which are international events. Michael talk 09:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
An ITN item should be of "international importance, or at least interest," the NBA is followed around the world so it is of "at least international interest", and the football-system of national leagues wouldn't be a good comparison since the NBA has the best basketball players, U.S. or non-U.S.; you can't say that to football/soccer in which the best players are distributed in many different leagues around the world. Ergo, the NBA is the de facto world championship of club basketball.
FIBA recognizes the NBA as a continental league, like the basketball equivalent of the UEFA Champions League in North America.
Finally, the U.S. is at least has half of the population of the E.U., and a great majority of them are English speakers, which should mean it should be in an English Wikipedia's ITN page. --Howard the Duck 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
1. We have a longstanding agreement that the premier championship of any major professional sport qualifies for ITN coverage (assuming that the requisite article exists). Most informed individuals would agree that the event in question is the premier championship of professional men's basketball.
2. The reason for this is that the NBA is the world's premier professional men's basketball league. Many of the best players from around the world participate. In addition to players from the United States, the final two teams that competed for this year's championship have players from Argentina, Brazil, France, Lithuania, Serbia and Slovenia.
3. To the best of my knowledge, Toronto, Ontario is not part of the United States. That city has an NBA team, so I don't understand why anyone would argue that the league is of no interest to non-Americans. It isn't even accurate to claim that interest is limited to Americans and Canadians.
4. Just last month, we featured the outcome of an English football final in ITN. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the sport's premier championship event. Nor, for that matter, was the European football tournament that we featured last month. I had hoped that this added leeway would quell the allegations of American bias, but that obviously hasn't occurred.
For the record, I am an American who is not a fan of basketball or any other athletic competition. —David Levy 13:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
There are several glaringly obvious distinctions to be made about the international importance of the NBA final and the English FA Cup final. The two teams competing for the FA Cup, Man Utd and Chelsea, are owned by an American and a Russian respectively. The two managers (sports coach) are from Portugal and Scotland. The two teams featured playes from England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, The Netherlands, Argentina, Serbia, The Czech Republic, Ghana, Nigeria, and the Ivory Coast. Indeed there are more foreign playes in both teams than English players. There are more Manchester United supporters in China than there are in the UK. The English Premier Leauge and the FA Cup are not just parochial national competitions. The global audience for the 2006 FA Cup was nearly 500 million[1]. In comparision few people outside of the USA give a toss about the NBA. Jooler 09:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm "tempted" to slap that last sentence of yours with {{cn}}. Actually, many non-Americans do care about the NBA, especially with Yao Ming playing for the Houston Rockets, the 1.1 billion Chinese are into basketball. In fact the NBA Finals was shown in like 10 TV stations in China. Have you seen those VISA commercials starring Yao and Jackie Chan? And that "484 million" was an estimate, and probably that's the whole potential audience, like the Super Bowl saying that they have an audience of 1 billion, which is actually around 100 million, about 90 million of those are Americans. But American football is not a global sport as basketball. --Howard the Duck 10:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, that simply isn't true, Jooler. As noted above, the NBA features teams from the U.S. and Canada and players from around the world. More than half of all traffic to the official NBA website is from outside the United States. This year's NBA Finals were carried in 46 different languages by 128 television broadcasters reaching 205 countries and territories. [2]
You seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing against the FA Cup's inclusion in ITN. I'm not. I'm noting that we include plenty of athletic competitions that most Americans (a majority of the world's native English speakers) don't "give a toss about" (as well we should, of course), despite the fact that they clearly aren't the premier championship events of their respective sports (a non-exclusive criterion for which we established clear consensus). And I'm not merely referring to association football (the world's most popular sport). We list numerous sporting events that few Americans have even heard of. And yet, we can't mention the world's premier championship of professional men's basketball without people complaining about American bias. —David Levy 10:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
"most Americans (a majority of the world's native English speaker)" - what nonsense.[3]. If you class native as from the country of origin then Americans arn't native. If you count native as official language then Indians are native speakers. Native is irrelevant. Jooler 20:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Judging by your response, Jooler, you do not know what a native language is. One's native language is the language one first learns. India has a larger number of English-language speakers than the U.S., but only about 100,000 Indians can say English is their first (native) language. David is correct, not speaking "nonsense". -- tariqabjotu 21:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make, and I thought I had made, was that using statistics about 'native speakers' is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia is not only read by native speakers. Native speakers of English has no bearing whatsoever on the number of people who read and contribute to English Wikipedia. Jooler 22:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This was a minor parenthetical statement that you misconstrued. My point was only that Americans make up a very large percentage of our readers. It would be unreasonable to exclude a sport popular primarily in the United States (not that this is true in this case) and include one popular primarily in Monaco, Palau and Tuvalu (on the basis that the international following renders it more important). —David Levy 05:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that IS a straw man. Jooler 08:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a hypothetical, not an argument that I'm attributing to you. —David Levy 12:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Tariqabjotu has addressed your comments nicely, Jooler, so I'll simply note that you focused solely on a minor parenthetical statement. Would you care to address the remainder of my reply? —David Levy 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Well - to be honest I was quite suprised to read about the popularity of Basketball in China. However with a bit more research it appears that this is a very new phenomenon with a professional league just over 10 years old (interesting article on the subject [4]). No I haven't seen any Jackie Chan adverts for VISA. They don't show such things here because nobody gives a toss about the NBA here in Blighty. Still the shape of domestic football in China is just as shoddy if not worse. So China is one of the few countries outside of the USA that give a toss about the NBA. I don't store much credit in the NBAs stats about how many channels took the game. A number of those would be satellite sports broadcasters with a very small audience share. You might say the same about the broadcast of the FA Cup Final, but I would be very suprised if they mirror each other in this respect. Nevertheless one of my main points still holds. The FA Cup final was between Man Utd and Chelsea and there are at least 23 million Man Utd supporters in China [5] I wonder how many supporters of the San Antonio Spurs there are? The FA Cup is still of more 'International significange' in my view and shouldn't be viewed as a mere English domestic competition. That was all I was trying to say really.Jooler 22:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You're attacking a straw man, Jooler. Again, no one is arguing against the FA Cup's inclusion. I cited it strictly as an example of the many athletic competitions that rightfully receive ITN coverage despite the fact that Americans don't "give a toss about" them.
Again, the NBA Finals is the championship series of the world's premier professional men's basketball league. That, combined with the existence of the requisite article, is sufficient justification for its inclusion (and the same holds true for the equivalent events of every other major professional sport, including those that are popular in a small number of countries). It's clear, however, that the NBA has far more international popularity than you're willing to acknowledge. I don't doubt that many of the 205 countries and territories received coverage via minor satellite broadcasters, but media companies from 23 countries and territories deemed the event important enough to actually send crews to the U.S. to cover it. —David Levy 05:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually if you look higher up the page someone described described the FA Cup as parochial and I am addressing that in relation to the NBA finals which I would argue is far more parochial. Jooler 22:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a different discussion from a month ago! —David Levy 03:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Basketball in China is BIG. They've been lording it on the Asian scene. And it seemed that there were more than 5 Chinese TV stations covering the 2007 Finals, that's like 2 TV stations in one province. Don't forget that the top football league in China was established only a year before the top basketball league was established. And in the Philippines, as much as three TV stations covered it, a local company sent in their crew, I saw the ABC broadcast on cable, not to mention the Japanese broadcast. As for the FA Cup, it wasn't even aired on free TV. Only a cable channel broadcasted it, and in a very limited audience, at that. --Howard the Duck 14:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The Philippines is of course in the American spere of influence in such matters. Jooler 22:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Which is a relatively big English-speaking country, if I may say. Perhaps more Filipinos speak English than the French. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we give credence to what English speakers care about. Don't forget the Philippines was a Spanish colony too, so how can you explain the unpopularity of soccer? And how about China? Don't tell me that's under the American sphere of influence. --Howard the Duck 04:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Duh. The fact that the Philippines was a Spanish colony is completely irrelevant. The Spanish are not responsible for the export of Football. The game is popular in the Spanish speaking South America because of the British influence there not the Spanish one. See Football_in_Argentina, football in Brazil (Portuguese of course) and MExico#Sports for example. This is the case in the rest of the world also. As for China. China was closed to foreign influence until very recently. But since the Chinese about turn on Capitalism money talks. Jooler 08:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
So how can you explain that the highest goal scorer of all time of FC Barcelona is Filipino? And don't forget that some of China's ports may had British influence. But this is off-topic already, the fact is the NBA Finals is more popular than you think, and is more popular than the FA Cup or even the FIFA World Cup in some places. --Howard the Duck 09:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
How do I explain it?! What do you want me to explain? The man learnt his football skills in Spain and the Spanish learnt the game from the Brits. Yes off-topic but you're the one going off on tangents. "the fact is..." Among people who read and contribute to English Wikipedia I doubt it. Jooler 12:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
So if a man learned a sport that is ultimately invented in Britain, it is international. If it's from the U.S., it's purely American. --Howard the Duck 13:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a conclusion you've drawn, not me. Jooler 07:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
So what's your conclusion on your own statement, anyway? And I have yet to see an argument that the NBA Finals is not of at least international interest. --Howard the Duck 10:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Btw, by basis of Google hits: 2007 FA Cup Final 29,900 vs. 2007 NBA Finals 349,000 vs. Super Bowl XLI 1,450,000 vs. 2007 AFL Grand Final 29,200 vs. 2007 UEFA Champions League Final 11,500. --Howard the Duck 10:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear you've brought out the Google stats. I was wondering when that would happen. These kind of Google stats prove nothing except that there are a lote more web pages based in the US than in the rest of the world. Ignoring China for the moment, about 70% of the Internet is in the USA. Certainly 95% of the English Internet is in the US. But what are people actually searching for? Take a look at [6] Twice as many searches for "FA Cup Final" in English. Jooler 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The NBA Finals doesn't happen until June, ergo, the low percentage. This might be a more representative chart. --Howard the Duck 03:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is there such a disproportionate number of searches in Tagalog from the Philippines? Look at the English searches and you'll see that FA Cup is higher. Jooler 07:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this comparing "Manchester United" with "San Antonio Spurs" is a better way to do it [7]. Even Leeds United, a club in League One (the third tier division after the FA Premier League and the Football League Championship), gets more hits on a regular basis than San Antonio [8] Jooler 07:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you're into comparing, why not compare Kobe Bryant, whose team isn't in the Finals, to Wayne Rooney? However, it all boils down to the searches on the competition themselves. Clearly, NBA Finals has been "more searched" item when the event is occurring. --Howard the Duck 10:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
While I support the inclusion of the NBA Final, I can't agree with all the comments here. Specifically, the UEFA Champions League (as the article states) has "the prize, the European Champion Clubs' Cup, is considered the most prestigious international club trophy in the sport.". The FIFA Club World Cup for example generates far less interest then the UEFA Champions League. It is the closest thing football has to the NBA. While the NBA is clearly the premier club basketball competition, whether the NBA can be considered the premier competition of basketball overall is questionable. While I suspect many Americans would feel it is, outside of the US I suspect quite a number of people feel the FIBA World Championship is more important Nil Einne 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually the most important basketball competition is Basketball at the Summer Olympics. The most important club competition is the NBA Playoffs. I couldn't say the same for the Euroleague. --Howard the Duck 02:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps. I wasn't sure which one to mention since I regard them as equally important. However from my POV, they are both far more important in basketball then the NBA Nil Einne 09:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
1. Again, I'm not arguing against those football matches' inclusion. I'm noting that the alleged American ITN bias doesn't exist (beyond the fact that articles about topics popular with Americans are among the most likely to be created or sufficiently updated). My point is not that those competitions are unworthy of coverage; it's that the American apathy toward them doesn't keep them out of ITN. Rightfully so, we include items pertaining to rugby championships, cricket championships, and various other sporting events that Americans couldn't care less about.
2. Most would agree that the premier championship of association football is the FIFA World Cup. (Obviously, I'm not suggesting that we limit association football coverage to once every four years.) Every sport is different and must be individually assessed.
3. Another thing that bothers me is some people's insistence on dismissing sports played primarily in the U.S. because we're "just one country." A sport popular among people in several relatively small nations is automatically deemed more important (despite the huge number of English-speaking fans who reside in the United States). Regardless, we established consensus to include the premier championship(s) of any major professional sport (assuming that the requisite article has been created). This means, for example, that the AFL Grand Final and the Super Bowl are on equal footing (given the existence of decent articles for that year's match). We needn't count the number of countries in which the sport is popular or the number of people who watch.
4. Also very annoying is the tendency of some to lump together the United States and Canada (or ignore Canada entirely). Our baseball, basketball and hockey leagues all contain American and Canadian teams, but complainers often refer to them (and sometimes the entire sports) as "American," "played in a single country," et cetera. This is comparable to treating New Zealand as part of Australia.
Of course, the above criticisms aren't directed toward you, Nil Einne.
5. What qualifies as a "premier championship" is subjective and always debatable. We aren't limited to one selection per sport, and the FIBA World Championship certainly qualifies for ITN inclusion (again assuming that the requisite article exists). —David Levy 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I note again that I was never arguing for the exclusion of the NBA. Also, perhaps I didn't make this clear enough but my point was not that I felt you were trying to exclude football, simply that I didn't agree with your charaterisation of the NBA and UEFA Champions League. The UEFA Champions League is IMHO clearly a premier championship and IMHO for many people could be said to be nearly comparable to the NBA when it comes to relative importance within the sport. A slightly lower level perhaps but not much. For many Americans this is probably not true since for them, the importance of the NBA is probably more similar in importance to the World Cup when it comes to footbal. For Canadians, I have no idea. My impression is that basketball is more of a minor sport in Canada anyway (similar perhaps to the way rugby league is a minor sport in New Zealand). Given these circumstances, I felt your characterisation of the NBA as the premier championship clearly worthy of inclusion whereas of the UEFA "premier championship event. Nor, for that matter, was the European football tournament" was misleading. The UEFA is nearly comparable to the NBA in many ways in terms of 'premierness' (yes I know that's not a word).
For me, when people debate these issues, they often make points we don't agree with. If I see this, I will usually point out the flaw as I see it. The reason here is not win arguments, often as in this case I agree with the general conclusion (sometimes I may not but can't be bothered arguing the whole issue). I'm not missing the point of the argument or simply trying to pick holes or trying to use strawmen, instead my intention is to address one of the points raised which I feel is flawed. Flawed points can lessen an argument and therefore from my POV it is important that these are addressed. Or sometimes, I just feel infuriated enough by the point I see is flawed, that I feel I have to address. For example, if the issue had not already been discussed I would have mentioned your use of the 'native speakers' as well. I very strongly dislike the use of this term and would nearly always challenge it when I see it. Even though this may not be the intention when using it, it conveys the impression that the person is saying non-native speakers are largely irrelevant. Or that they are concentrating on native speakers because they want to make Americans the most important of our considerations; and since they are a clear majority there, it works well with the argument (again I'm not saying this is the intention simply that it conveys that impression). I'm not denying that Americans are a big percentage of our readers (whether they are a majority or not is unclear) or that we shouldn't consider them. However the fact that they are the majority of native speaker is IMHO totally irrelevant. We should be concentrating on ALL our readers, native or not. Americans are obviously a big part of that. But so are non-native speakers and non-American native speakers. So again, I see no reason whatsoever to mention native speaker of English. Instead simply pointing out that Americans are a big percentage of English speakers. Note also that it is largely an unresolved issue about how much priority we should give English speakers on wikipedia, remembering we're ultimately supposed to be an encylopaedia as opposed to the world in general. (Some might argue English speakers should be irrelevant. Only the world should matter.) And actually, I don't agree with you that the AFL Grand Final on equal footing to the SuperBowl. The AFL is IMHO largely irrelevant on the world stage and I don't consider it worthy of ITN, although this is not a debate I wish to continue further.
Finally, I think it is vital to point out that controversy usually comes up whenever we mention sports. It's true that Americans haven't kept out sports that they aren't much interested, it's also true that non-Americans haven't kept out sports that they aren't much interested. Complaints have come up in most instances by those who are not particularly interested in the sports so there's no particular anti-American bias going on here. There are probably more complaints about American bias overall, but the systematic bias introduced by the large number of American editors is one of the strongest reasons for that. The fact that the complaints are usually not legitimate doesn't mean that the reasons are unexpected or not understandable. We get a lot of complaints of Indian bias too. Note that the systematic bias shows off in many ways outside our article coverage (which of course includes POV, depth and numbers and quickness of updates). For example, in English usage, in unit usage etc. Indeed I've come across a number of article which have gone against policy and where units or English usage has been changed from original usage (or article relevance) to American usage which have not been reverted in several months. While the reverse likely exists, it's far less common likely predominantly because of the systematic bias introduced by the large number of American editors. Coming back to ITN, other then the obvious systematic bias of how quickly or likely that articles are created and updated to an ITN standard, the large number of admins means that it is often quickly added to ITN too, with or without a suggestion. ITN items concerning Americans are also more likely to be added to ITN either prematurely or without clear consensus. This is nearly always resolved but seeing it happen does affect people's perception strongly. My point here is that it's very important not to underestimate the systematic bias that exists on wikipedia since it creates a strong perception that there is an unfair American bias even if this is not true.
P.S. I've never actually liked the word Americans much as I personally feel all people from the Americas are Americans (as American (word) discusses. I started using USians or USAmericans are one stage but have since given up. That issue aside though, I would agree that lumping Canadians and Americans together is unfair. P.P.S. I think it's a very bad idea to say ITN American bias doesn't exist. I understand the point you're trying to make but IMHO phrasing it in that way is a bad idea. The systematic bias which you mentioned does exist and is often very strong and even if this is not the intention, the phrasing seems to trivialise it to me and I expect others as well.
Nil Einne 09:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
1. As I noted, the criticisms in question weren't directed toward you. I fully realize that you haven't argued for the NBA Finals' exclusion.
2. You appear to have misunderstood my earlier comments. My point (which I'll again stress was not a rebuttal of anything that you argued) was that American editors didn't withhold coverage of the UEFA Champions League from ITN on the basis that it isn't the premier championship competition of association football. In this context, "premier" means "first in status or importance," and I doubt that many would argue that this describes anything other than the FIFA World Cup. I didn't mean to imply that the UEFA Champions League is less popular or important than the NBA Finals. I only meant that it was included despite the fact that it didn't automatically qualify under the non-exclusive criterion for which we established consensus (being the sport's highest championship). In other words, Americans didn't keep it out on a technicality.
3. I referred to it as a "European football tournament" because that's what it is. (Given the fact that our UEFA Champions League 2006-07 article refers to it as such in the first sentence, it didn't occur to me that this would be perceived as derogatory.) Likewise, the NBA Playoffs is a North American basketball tournament. In neither case does this mean that interest in the events is limited to those continents. That the two are comparable (apart from the nonexistence of a basketball tournament rivaling the FIFA World Cup's immense popularity) was my point.
4. Speaking of the FIFA World Cup, I don't think that it would be accurate to claim that Americans perceive the NBA Finals to be on a level of importance similar to how the FIFA World Cup is perceived by most of the world. It is, after all, an annual event. The same applies to the Super Bowl of American football and World Series of Major League Baseball. These events are more popular than some of the world's other major annual athletic championship competitions (many of which nonetheless qualify for ITN inclusion), but they don't approach the FIFA World Cup's level of popularity.
5. I certainly didn't intend to suggest that "non-native [English] speakers are largely irrelevant." On the contrary, I have argued that such individuals should receive greater consideration. (In fact, I've edited ITN entries to reflect this stance.) I merely cited a statistic that counters the common "USA is only one country" argument. The point is not to exclude countries in which English is widely spoken as a second language; it's to draw a comparison between the United States and all of the other nations/territories in which English predominates. If we add up the number of English-speaking people in Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the British Virgin Islands, Canada, the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, Guyana, Suriname, Ireland, Jamaica, Montserrat, New Zealand, Norfolk Island, the Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, Trinidad and Tobago, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United Kingdom, we arrive at a figure equaling less than 47% of the English-speaking people in the United States. (I'm including non-native English speakers in all cases, incidentally.)
Yes, there are many native and non-native English speakers elsewhere, but that's beside the point. There are people who would argue that an event directly affecting any two of the above nations/territories should qualify for ITN inclusion, but an event directly affecting only the United States never should (because it isn't "international"). I would never think of claiming that Americans are "the most important of our considerations," and I only seek to counter the notion that we're unimportant because our citizens happen to share a common federal government.
6. I agree that we lack sufficient ITN coverage of events affecting places where English doesn't predominate, but this is because we also lack sufficient articles on such subjects (a problem that arises naturally, but one that we should strive to rectify).
7. I don't mean that the AFL Grand Final is on equal footing with the Super Bowl in terms of popularity. I mean that under the agreement for which we established consensus (the purpose of which is to discourage heated arguments), both automatically qualify for ITN inclusion (assuming that the requisite articles exist).
8. I'm not suggesting that we haven't debated sporting events in general. I'm addressing the specific arguments that frequently arise regarding "American sports" (as well as other "American" topics).
It also should be noted that some of the same people attack these "American" subjects over and over again. Every discussion in which I've ever engaged with Jooler has pertained to such a dispute.
9. I have no statistics establishing that either direction is more common, but I've encountered numerous articles that were inappropriately changed from American English to Commonwealth English. I seldom change them back, as I don't wish to trigger the sort of ridiculous controversy that erupted over the yog[h]urt article. I have, however, reverted some articles from American English to their original Commonwealth English (which I can get away with because I'm American).
A few weeks ago, I noticed that our apple article underwent an inappropriate English variety switch. It was written in American English until this edit introduced British spellings. The usage remained mixed until this edit, wherein the same user replaced the American spellings with British spellings. I assume that this was accidental; in all likelihood, the user simply contributed in his/her English variety and subsequently corrected the mixed usage without realizing that the American spellings were present first (though I do object to his/her use of the term "intl eng" in this context). Most such occurrences stem from something along those lines (or the mistaken belief that an unfamiliar spelling is incorrect) and are entirely innocent.
10. I agree that the word "American" is far from an ideal term to describe people from the United States. Unfortunately, it's the only one in common usage. I have, however, argued in favor of replacing "American" categories with "United States" categories.
11. When stating that "the alleged American ITN bias doesn't exist," I explicitly noted that I was excluding the systematic bias (which is separate from the allegation to which I'm referring). —David Levy 12:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the same discussion we get every few months. Again I put forward my solution: No sport at all in ITN ;) --Monotonehell 08:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. In the long term, I'm not convinced our current policy is going to work. However as Howard pointed out on the main page, sports does generate ITN items which are not 'sad' items Nil Einne 09:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
(Although I was sad - angry - when the Mavs were beaten last year. --Howard the Duck 13:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Please update ITN

Please update ITN. There are a few suggestions at WP:ITN/C waiting for admins' approval. Thanks. --74.13.130.59 01:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Admin:Zzyzx11. --74.13.130.59 08:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove 'Chemical' from Ali Hassan al-Majid's mention immediately.

This is so remarkably POV it's insane. What next, shall references to Saddam Hussein in ITN read "Saddam 'Butcher of Bagdhad' Hussein," for example? Why don't we call Hugo Chavez "Hugo 'Socialist Dictator' Chavez"? Can you not see the problem here with using American nicknames? Italiavivi 16:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I have sought out the discussion page for ITN, and for precisely the same reason. Cheap tabloid nicknames are not suitable for a project that has any pretence at gathering expertise and neutrality. Kevin McE 16:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
"Tabloid" was exactly the word I was looking for, yes. Thank you. Italiavivi 16:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
1. A major distinction between this nickname and "Butcher of Baghdad" is that many people are familiar with Ali Hassan al-Majid only as "Chemical Ali." It isn't as though we threw in "Butcher of Kurdistan."
2. While this nickname apparently is of American origin, its use is not confined to the United States. A Google search for "Chemical Ali" yielded our article as the first hit and a British Broadcasting Corporation article as the second hit. In one instance, an Australian Broadcasting Corporation article appeared as the example news result.
3. Having said that, I have mixed feelings about this, and I can see how it could go either way. —David Levy 16:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Great, so we have a completely POV and tabloidy nickname prevalent in the media of the three primary occupying countries (USA, UK, Australia) sitting on our Main page. This is a matter of NPOV, and needs to go now, we can debate the merits of how it might not be POV later. Italiavivi 17:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. —David Levy 17:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) First, I am pretty sure the nickname is an old local (Kurdish?) invention, not an American one. The English language versions of Al Jazeera, the Kuwaiti News Agency, and Khaleej Times (UAE) all use that moniker. Secondly, the man was governor of Northern Iraq and was convicted of committing genocide during his rule; there is no significant doubt that he used chemical weapons. Third, in my opinion, this is definitely the way he is most commonly known, just as Sting is certainly more recognizable than Gordon Sumner. Lastly, I am honestly confused about what the POV issue you see is? "Chemical Ali" only evokes the use of us chemical weapons (an essentially undisputed fact), and doesn't carry the same perjorative meaning as "Butcher" in my opinion. Dragons flight 17:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Sting is Gordon Summer's stage name, chosen by the artist himself. Do you have reliable sources behind your assertion that this is "an old local Kurdish invention," Dragonsflight? Italiavivi 18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Alex Efty. "Rebels Welcome Safe Haven Promise", The Associated Press, April 17, 1991. : Many of the Kurds accused Saddam's forces of continuing to use phosphorous and napalm weapons, and of abducting thousands of civilians before, during and after the uprising. "What is even worse, Saddam's associates even boast of their crimes to terrorize the people even more," said Abu Ali, a rebel official. He claimed that Iraqi Interior Minister Ali Hassan al-Majid had boasted of the nickname Kurds gave him after he oversaw the use of chemical weapons against them in 1988. Abu Ali said the minister told a gathering of Kurds in Kirkuk last month: "You know me. I am Ali Chimyawi" - "Chemical Ali." (emphasis added).
So, according the AP, the nickname dates to at least 1991 and came from the Kurds as I said. Further, if the source quoted is reliable then Ali himself embraced the nickname, hence completing my parallel with Sting. For the record, I got this from LexisNexis, and I don't believe it is available on Google. Dragons flight 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
In light of this evidence, I support restoring the nickname to ITN. —David Levy 19:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I've put it back in. Dragons flight 19:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Ignorance of his real name is not an excuse to keep this nickname on our Main page. This is an encyclopedia. Italiavivi 17:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't have immediately recognised the name without "Chemical", but it is far too tabloidy outside of the article (where it should be dealt with properly, of course). violet/riga (t) 17:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I disagree, all the major news organizations including Arabic ones use that moniker, which refers to an event which is as far as I can tell essentially undisputed and for which he was just convicted. I think this is a case where using the common name makes more sense. Dragons flight 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the BBC and other news agencies use the term and would not have taken it off ITN myself, but I think it does come across as tabloidy and we should be careful not to overuse it. violet/riga (t) 18:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Without having an opinion on the use of the nickname Chemical Ali on ITN, David is correct when he says that al-Majid is often primarily known by his nickname. It's Chemical Ali in English, Ali Chemicali in Dutch, Kemiske Ali in Swedish and Chemie-Ali in German, to name a few permutations. While I don't know if it's encyclopedic to use the nickname, it wasn't pulled out of a big hat. AecisBrievenbus 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't overuse the term (and we don't). However, the principal reason for including it in the first place is for ease of public recognition - as has already been pointed out, he's very widely known by that nickname. If you look at the Google News feed for articles on his conviction, you'll see that virtually all of them call him by that name. Moreover, as Dragons flight has noted, it's not even a perjorative nickname since the man himself embraced it. Our use of it in ITN is eminently reasonable in this admittedly rather exceptional circumstance. -- ChrisO 23:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it appears that there's a rather quixotic denialist fringe (apparently an outgrowth of the anti-Iraq War movement) seeking to "prove" that Iraq never actually used chemical weapons, despite all the evidence to the contrary. (See [9]). I suspect this may already be an issue here, judging by some of the edits to the article. We'll need to keep an eye on this article for a few days . -- ChrisO 00:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You keep referring to "weaseling" in your editing at al-Majid's article, but did it ever occur to you that this was previously an article about a person on trial? The use of "alleged" you removed while accusing others of "weaseling" dates farther back than any attention from the ITN linkage. Being a sysop, I would think you to be more familiar with assuming good faith, Chris. Italiavivi 00:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
One person, a sworn enemy of this man, is said to have reported hearing him apply the nickname to himself. No part of the AP citation above is found on Google: most tellingly, the phrase "I'm Chemical Ali" or "I'm Ali Chimyawi" is found precisely once on google. Even if we do accept this far from neutral source, self-deprecation can have any number of motivations. Pejorative or deprecatory nicknames (even if self-applied) depreciate, belittle and disparage: one cannot do any of those things and at the same time claim to have a neutral point of view. Inclusion of this nickname is unnecessary (if anyone is uncertain as to who this convicted man is, they can follow the link) and is a tabloidism unworthy of the front page of Wikipedia. Kevin McE 22:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I hardly think it counts as a "tabloidism" if every single media source mentioning the story uses the name, very often in the headlines. See [10]. We're doing no more than following the lead of the media (tabloid, broadsheet and broadcast alike) here. -- ChrisO 00:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Just remember that Wikipedia is not a news service, and so we should only document not participate. The nickname seems to be well entrenched and I suppose the article needs to make note of that. As to ITN, I'd say we should refer to people by their proper name. Especially when they are involved in such serious charges. Out of respect for the legal process. --Monotonehell 04:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the use of his widespread nickname is not non-NPOV, but rather a name which he, unjustifiably or not, is commonly known by. For example, how many have heard of W. Mark Felt? How many have heard of him by his nickname Deep Throat? Now personally I wouldn't want 'chemical' or 'deep throat' involved with my moniker, but when a nickname is more recognisable than a given one its use is clearly appropriate and arguably preferable. A possible compromise would be to change the wording to something like, "Ali Hassan al-Majid, commonly dubbed "Chemical" Ali...". Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 01:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

New Picture

I move that we put the new brit PM as the pic. Image:Gordon Brown.jpg . as far as i can tell it's a U.S. State Department pic, which would be PD, if i'm thinking correctly. -- preschooler@heart 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Done before I pressed save page. good work. -- preschooler@heart 13:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
As soon as it morphed into an Egyptian sarcophagus I was hardly expecting to see Gordon's ugly mug reappear. Why do we have to use it simply because it's PD? The Egyptian one is Creative Commons which is just as good, and preferable as it is the highest article. --84.71.35.120 09:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Gordon Brown is the mastermind of the bomb attempt! I knew it! --Howard the Duck 16:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, the higher article. The bomb news was put there after my message. (I knew I should have listened when someone mentioned a suspicious car in Piccadilly yesterday.) --84.71.35.120 16:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Not that it matters, because I can't remember a single time that I have commented on this page and something was done as a result. --84.71.35.120 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Aww, well you can count this as the first time then. :) --Monotonehell 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hurrah! That has restored my faith. --84.71.35.120 22:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Car Bombs Foiled?

Foiled is rather a stong word to use for what the police did and a bit tabloid. The bombs were planted. They just failed to go off. Wouldn't wording based on the main article be better? Two unexploded car bombs were discovered on 29 June 2007 in London, England.--Cavrdg 06:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, either discovered, defused, or made safe. Foiled puts a different slant on it. -Monotonehell 09:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither the defused car bombs or the burning car are 'world news'. These things happen on a daily basis in some parts of the world.--Nydas(Talk) 21:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should submit those for the candidates. And they don't happen on a daily basis in Britain; the novelty is part of what makes it newsworthy. --Golbez 21:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
They don't happen on a daily basis in Turkey or Malaysia, either. But I doubt unexploded bombs in those countries would make it into the news template.--Nydas(Talk) 07:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
They would(should) if the meet the criteria. --Monotonehell 14:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Richest person in the world

I added this to the template, but was reverted. This is being widely reported, but I don't feel like entering a wheel war. Since this is being widely reported in the mainstream media it seems to me that there is no problem with verifiability, and I would request that another admin readd the story to the template. JACOPLANE • 2007-07-3 21:41

Being widely reported is not enough, ITN is not a news ticker. If you feel it's worth adding, you can bring it up at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. AecisBrievenbus 22:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly more notable than the American basketball game that was listed here last week. I swear, this template's priorities are so backwards it's laughable. Italiavivi 22:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely no precedent on ITN. And that basketball game had internationally interest, read the sections above. With that said, this is even not news. --Howard the Duck 16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The edit summary says that the position is disputed, the article says that the position is disputed, we don't tend to put wobbly facts in ITN. That's most likely why it was removed. Nothing to do with "backward priorities" --Monotonehell 23:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(pictured)

isn't one of these mising?America's cup 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wimbledon

Roger Federer and Venus Williams win the men's singles and women's singles of the 2007 Wimbledon Championships.

— └Jared┘┌t┐  17:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Criteria 5

It would obviously be a violation of Criteria (or "Criterion") 5 to mention the death of former US first lady Lady Bird Johnson. I can understand the rationale for Criteria 5 -- we don't want to swamp ITN with death notices. But on the other hand, considering that we've been quite conservative in updating ITN, I think we could loosen Criteria 5 just enough to allow for including the deaths of very notable people like James Brown and, when he passes, Ariel Sharon. I figure many people look for information on a famous person when he or she dies, and including a very limited number of deaths on ITN might be helpful. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think so too. Here's my suggested test to allow a suspension of criterion 5: if an article on the person's death appears as the top story or front image of a major news website for a reasonable time, the person's death is significant enough to be featured in ITN. In this case, LBJ (wasn't that her husband's initialism, too?!) appeared on CNN for a while, as well as others I'm sure. Thus, I believe it is important to mention. └Jared┘┌t┐  23:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
What's a major news site though? If we only go with things like BBC, NYT, CNN then we risk a major US & UK bias. If we accept a major news site from every country then we risk getting overwhelmed with deaths including some that are perhaps of fairly limited international interest. One option would be to require at least two major news sites, from different countries and from countries that the person didn't live in or be involved in. However at the same time this risks getting very technical and opening up endless debates IMHO. N.B. bear in mind the article would still require a substanial update whatever we require Nil Einne 00:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It's no good looking to news sites for guidance, they often grab hold of puff pieces and run with them. Criterion 5 offers "(b) the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically" So the timely passing of a notable person generally wont be listed. If they die in mid-tour, like James Brown, then they generally would be listed. Lady Bird Johnson, was neither an expert in any field nor died unexpectedly Also this is a very US centric event. --Monotonehell 03:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
That's too subjective on the "major news website for a reasonable time." I wouldn't agree if Anna Nicole Smith appeared just because CNN posted as their stop story for a while. --69.6.157.3 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
They had her death on a BREAKING NEWS banner on cnn.com. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, it wasn't mentioned with any prominence at all on any UK media (probably deep in the inside pages of broadsheets), and I had never heard of the woman, or of her death, until stumbling upon this. News sources, even "major" ones, can be very parochial in their priorities, and Wikipedia should not give undue prominence to stories of interest in one country only. Kevin McE 19:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well let's just take Smith as an example. She had to have been of some importance in American society. Just because she wasn't a politician or scientist doesn't mean she was not important. She was an icon in the entertainment industry and her loss was undeniably a historic event. I think we're mistaking "important" for "socially contributive." I think, in short, that if several news agencies did keep her story one of the top stories for some time, then her death does deserve to be noted. I think this goes for any other event, too. If it's important enough to be broadcast on the internet as the main story of several news agencies for several days, it might be a heads up that it's an important story or event. └Jared┘┌t┐  01:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You just hit the nail on its head. It's important for news agencies, not an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Wikinews was forked from Wikipedia, we shouldn't replicate what our sister project is doing. It subtracts from their purpose. --Monotonehell 08:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

2007_Niigata_earthquake and nuclear leakage

This is on the headlines everywhere, this should be put on Wiki frontpage as soon as possible!! 2007_Niigata_earthquake 11:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's being discussed since yesterday on the suggestions' page. The article isn't up to a standard where it can be highlighted on the main page as yet. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, any articles placed on the mainpage need to be encyclopedic. --Monotonehell 12:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
How about now? Isn't it good enough now? Even if Wiki ain't a newspaper, people do come here to get information about stuff like this. By putting it on the frontpage, we can make sure more editors flock to the article, and improve it to a wikipedia-worthy standard. Sir Poke 16:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
And how about Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant#2007 Chūetsu offshore earthquake? --199.71.174.100 23:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian plane crash

I see Wikinews have wikinews:TAM Linhas Aéreas plane crashes at São Paulo airport in Brazil. Do we have an article yet? Carcharoth 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone has pointed me to TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054. Carcharoth 03:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is way too short at this point. I honestly believe it should be removed from ITN until we get something that could actually qualify as an article. -- tariqabjotu 03:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I dunno when you looked at it but it's definitely not "way too short" now. --Golbez 06:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Based on the time stamp, I guess [11] Nil Einne 11:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pedantically, it was added at 03:31, so at that point it looked like this, which is too short. Three hours later, is looked like this, which is much better. This was never going to be an article that got a few desultory updates and then nothing more. So adding it early probably wasn't a bad thing, and may even have contributed to the growth of the article. Carcharoth 12:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Time stamp and history say 03:54 so my guess is probably more accurate, not that it makes that much differene Nil Einne 12:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry misunderstood Nil Einne 12:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone update the ITN blurb so it says 186 people on board? This was changed in the article from 176 and is referenced, but the change hasn't been reflected on ITN. BigNate37(T) 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Updated. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. BigNate37(T) 17:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Yang

Is Jerry Yang (the article is an unreferenced stub btw) winning the World Series of Poker really notable enough for ITN? And is it really urgent enough to bypass WP:ITN/C? Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 11:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, in my opinion, and I'll tell you why. If the death of Lady Bird Johnson is less important than the winner of the World Series of Poker, there's something wrong with the system here. So I would suggest we remove this, or add notable deaths. It's got to be one or the other, though. The World Series of Poker really isn't a well-known and anticipated event. └Jared┘┌t┐  12:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Remove the poker thing. The sports current event portal is as high as that should go. Carcharoth 12:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
...is someone going to pull it? └Jared┘┌t┐  13:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've removed Yang and restored Federer and Williams. AecisBrievenbus 13:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, regardless of all of that, hasn't the main event not yet been televised? I don't follow poker as well as I used to, but I would be frustrated, to say the least, if I logged on this morning and had the tourney ruined. Topher0128 13:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Not to assume bad faith or anything... oh I guess I will anyway, considering who added it, that might have been the point. --W.marsh 14:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't matter IMHO provided the information is verifiable. However I agree that it was never something suitable for ITn Nil Einne 14:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree on the first point. We mustn't allow such concerns to prevent us from writing/expanding articles, but we certainly can consider them when deciding what to include in ITN. Our goal is to convey information to interested parties, and I doubt that there are many users who are interested in reading about the outcome of a competition that has not yet been televised. (People either don't care at all or don't want to see the spoiler.) —David Levy 14:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Not everyone who is interested in the outcome is going to be interested in watching the game. If it helps, think of other sports. In many countries the sport whatever it may be may not be televised live (boxing in particular appears to share numerous similarities to this, not that boxing results are worthy of ITN either IMHO). However we will usually put the result as soon as the article is up to scratch and the results known. People who are planning to watch the delayed telecast are likely to be extremely annoyed if they accidently learn the results, but anyone with any experience with wikipedia should know that ITN, even though it's not a news source, does publish the occasional information update updated articles sports results and therefore they should stay away from it as with all sources that may publish sports results. Besides that, anyone who wishes to avoid knowing the results should well be aware that once the results are known, they're liable to be all over the internet and so should stay away from it as much as possible. Otherwise, we might as well never have sports on ITN (perhaps people are going to say here that's a good thing, but that's against the point) since it's always possible someone is interested in watching the televised content but has not been able to do so yet for whatever reason, and would be rather annoyed if they accidently learn the results from ITN. I should add from what I can tell it was possible to watch the events live in Las Vegas and via Pay Per View [12] and to get some info on the progress from the official blog/news site. It does appear ESPN is the primary broadcaster worldwide, so what your suggesting is not quite as bad as if you were to be just suggesting we wait until it's broadcast in say the US and everyone else be damned but it's still a very big mistake IMHO. We should not, and never consider whether or not an item has been 'televised' because if we do, we are almost definitely going to introduce selective bias by concentrating on television coverage in only certain regions and we also somehow make it out as if television coverage is all that matters (ignoring all the people who choose to follow the event live where it happens, via radio, via PPV, via the internet, etc etc). The reality is, if we are going to protect our readers from learning some result they may not wish to know, then we should NEVER put results on ITN, not come up with some arbitary denominator Nil Einne 22:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
1. My comments were based upon the claim that the event had not yet been televised (not merely that it hadn't been televised in a particular location).
2. I wrote nothing about "protect[ing] our readers." It simply isn't logical for ITN to contain information that most of our users don't want to read (for whatever reason). —David Levy 07:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In short, it is my opinion that even though the site is not supposed to be censored, there is a certain degree to which one should be morally compelled to hold back information in order to protect others from learning what they don't want to know (yet). It's like the decision of Schenck v. United States (sorry to you Brits) where it was held that the first amendment is limited when your actions obstruct the freedoms of others. └Jared┘┌t┐  23:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good argument for not putting sports results in ITN at all. Very good, from this point on; no sports results in ITN at all. And while we're at it, we shouldn't put anything that a schoolchild hasn't learnt as yet, in case we prejudice their future learning... larf.--Monotonehell 06:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I know this argument is just about over, but I really think the spoiler argument deserves some credit. I mean, in a couple days, will "Harry Potter survives final book" or "Harry Potter dies in final book" be on ITN? People would go nuts! I think then the spoiler thing plays a role, it's just that this is not as big of a deal. Topher0128 14:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to put it in my comment above, but I did mean to say that after a certain reasonable amount of time (i.e. when the sporting event has been broadcast) it is OK to post it as news. We have to take into account the possibility of unfair surprise. I mean, you've got to let potential viewers/readers, etc, figure it out on their own first, before you give a dry one sentence summary of exactly what happens.
As for Harry Potter, I think it would be inappropriate to even write anything about the contents of the book, but something about the release of the book only is very appropriate, because it is a well known fact, and interesting none the less. └Jared┘┌t┐  15:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Harry Potter might be a bad example as ITN would never include something like that under the current consensus for inclusion. Despite my flippant remark above, I see the point of the argument. However those who don't want "sports spoilers" already know to avoid all news outlets. The media will plaster sports results all over their homepages the instant the result is known, sportscrufters update the wiki-articles even earlier ;). I don't see why we should behave much differently, where would this end? --Monotonehell 22:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I mean if it's something like the World Series, Super Bowl, or high profile game that everyone would be watching, then of course we would put up the information right after someone gets wind of a winner. This is because nearly everyone and their grandma watches these type of things (in the US anyway), so the "uninformed" argument shouldn't be an issue, nor should the "haven't watched it yet" argument, because everyone watches it at the same time and should have a sense of the winner at the same time. On the other hand, "minor major events" where there is not a crazed hype about the event, but there is still some will to watch the event without finding out the results before-hand should be held back to let people watch it first.
I do see your point though, as in why should we be different from other news agencies. And I probably can't answer that. I can hardly explain myself as is it. I just think we should keep a rule of thumb, and then decide on a situational basis the controversial items that should or shouldn't be posted right away. └Jared┘┌t┐  01:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't post any sports results that are not absolute Top Level International events anyway, so I don't think we need to bother with the "minor major" considerations at all. :) --Monotonehell 05:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Right. ☺ └Jared┘┌t┐  14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to have more items on ITN

I propose that we have more items on ITN than we currently do. Right now, the candidates page suggests we have 3 to 5. I can't recall the last time we only had 3, and well, as it stands now, there is a bunch of wasted space below the On This Day template that could be utilized by something; I suggest with ITN items. This can be accomplished by having a less strict criteria on what gets added. I'm just throwing the idea out there and seeing what others think. Pepsidrinka 02:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the Featured Article texts are getting longer and longer and longer. We usually need at least five items nowadays just to maintain the main page balance. AecisBrievenbus 02:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The other part of the problem is that DYK generally puts around 8 items. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you both are missing the point. It appears to me that Pepsidrinka is suggesting we be less stringent about criteria for inclusion so old events don't remain on ITN as we are starting to have quite a few ITN items. I'm not sure at this moment we have an issue finding news events with the oldest item being dated July 16. However, I can recall times when we have. -- tariqabjotu 03:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
But then you also might have the problem of having to cut the number of items showing on "On this day..." So far, they generally have five or six items. If there are less, there will probably be more complaints about why certain items are not on the main page. Having a bunch of wasted space below the On This Day template does not happen everyday you know. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Burj Dubai

Not to be Mr. Pedantic, but I'm trying to think of the best way to phrase it or refer to it:

(a) The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat has not deemed it the world's tallest building and will not do so until the structure is completed.
(b) The height of the building is unconfirmed (although there's really no reason for them to lie about it, so this is not important).
(c) Yes, the Burj Dubai has surpassed Taipei 101, but it has yet to pass the Sears Tower. This is a problem if we were to compare the highest non-structural elemental on a finished skyscraper to the highest structural element on an unfinished skyscraper, which does not seem unreasonable.
(d) High-rise building redirects to the skyscraper article, which, in its first sentence, says "A skyscraper is a very tall, continuously habitable building." It's not quite continuously habitable.

I know; I'm being pedantic. -- tariqabjotu 17:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I too was a bit worried that the structure hasn't yet been topped out. But I thought it too trivial. Perhaps it should be in DYK? --Monotonehell 06:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd consider it valid enough for ITN but I'm a skyscraper geek. Two future events will definitely be ITN-worthy: When it surpasses KVLY and/or Warsaw as the tallest structure on earth/tallest structure ever built, and when it is completed. --Golbez 19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd considered this. IMHO, we probably shouldn't have mentioned it. Instead, we should have waited until it surparsed everything and put it then and also put it when it was launched/unveiled/whatever Nil Einne 13:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
But it doesn't fit the DYK criteria at least as the criteria stands now Nil Einne 13:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a grand total of two sentences in the Burj Dubai article about being currently taller than Taipei 101 (which is what the ITN is about). How is this enough of an update for an ITN feature? When the building is completed, then it should go to ITN, but not now. Teemu08 19:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Floods in UK: wealthy white people affected.

Because I live in England, I am following with interest the stories of the flooding in England, and fully expect to see this item having a high priority in the national news, especially as most of the politicians are on holidays and not much else is happening here at the moment. But do the current events, which cause inconvenience to many and have severe financial implications for some, really deserve to be considered among the top 5 stories in the world, if Wikipedia is seriously to attempt a world-wide, non anglophone-centric set of priorities?

In what way is it proportionate or even-handed, or reflective of a balanced world view, that the only one of these tragedies to have made the ITN slot is the last one? Kevin McE 19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Because we have too many editors interested in United Kingdom topics and too few editors interested in Southeast African and Asian ones. A textbook example of systematic bias, but what can we do? Write faster, I guess. Picaroon (Talk) 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not a case of we humble editors writing faster: what we can do to avoid systematic bias is to insist that admins apply this policy, and draw attention to the times when they seem not to have done so. User:Violetriga, who I think was the admin who first posted this, would you care to defend your choice? Kevin McE 08:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There are also floods in China killing 150+ people. Do we have an article on that yet ? --199.71.174.100 02:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
One possible rationale for this to be mentioned is that the UK flooding is virtually unprecedented in the summer months, and the worst for 60 years including winter floods. QmunkE 06:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's quite simple, there aren't admins who specifically manage ITN. It's mostly generated from suggestions from any passer by on WP:ITN/C. If a nominated article meets the criteria it should be posted in ITN. So the systemic bias inherent in English editors unfortunately means certain types of article are going to get more attention. If you have any future suggestions please suggest them. --Monotonehell 09:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it perverse and offensive that this item has now been restored in preference to other current meteorological crises. Does User:Aecis really believe that inconvenience and cost to the people of southwest England is more significant on a worldwide scale than inconvenience, cost, and the loss of hundreds of lives, elsewhere in Europe? Kevin McE 08:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? Where have I said that? If you're gonna use my name, please use it correctly. I have only restored this item to ITN for Main Page balance (left to right balance, top to bottom balance), and only because it was the last item to be removed. That is common practice for ITN. AecisBrievenbus 10:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Insofar as this is a convention that I was unaware of, I apologise. I remain disappointed that this is the decision that you made in the light of the other proposals available at the candidates page. Kevin McE 10:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I can understand that you are disappointed with it, that's fine with me, but calling it "perverse and offensive" is utterly uncalled for. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 12:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I mostly agree with you, I've learned in the long run that normal editors like me can only so far object to high heavens and expect nothing in return. Even if you object vehemently, there's nothing you can do unless someone backs you up. And if somebody backs you up, it's too late since it's on the main page already, and very rarely does an ITN item be removed, rarer still for objections. --Howard the Duck 09:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hear hear. --84.66.11.8 22:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

we need to handle this sort of thing pragmatically. On one hand, yes, we have the chance here to draw attention to things overlooked by mainstream media. But we are not an alternative media outlet. Wikipedia's gauge has always been notability, and notability is determined not by us but by mainstream. If worldwide attention has perverse bias, such as going nuts over white people getting their feet wet or the latest riot in Jerusalem, while thousands of black or brown people are left to rot where they fall down in the back corners of Africa or Asia without the world batting a collective eyelid, there is only so much we can, or are supposed to, do about this as Wikipedians. The danger we have to counter first is the abuse of Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. We should counter systemic bias found on Wikipedia, but it is only with grave caveats that we should regard it our job to set right systemic bias in the very mainstream we are supposed to report. dab (𒁳) 09:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is "The Mainstream" coterminal with US/UK media though? Kevin McE 10:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps ostensibly, but not actually. Generally speaking; "the International media", but more specifically because this is the english language wikipedia; "the International english language media". Past consensus has loosely defined International as to mean of interest across two or more nations.
The only way this systemic bias can be countered is by those with an ear to the somewhat neglected parts of the World to put some effort into articles on those subjects, get them up to encyclopedic standard, when they meet the criteria make a suggestion on WP:ITN/C and participate in the discussion there to get them listed. But please note: Wikipedia is not Wikinews. This is an encyclopedia not a news service.
The bottom line is this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That means that people tend to only contribute to articles on topics that interest them or topics that they have knowledge of. No amount of guidelines will counter the lack of suitable articles for inclusion. --Monotonehell 04:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The main problem IMHO is that we can't find enough English sources for non-Western news events, even other articles in general. --Howard the Duck 05:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That's true of many topics on Wikipedia. Once we stray from what the english language academia tend to study we're left in stub-hell. There's a few articles that I contribute to that have gaping holes for "the rest of the World". I've tried to recruit help from the various country/regional based WikiProjects, but only a handful of editors are interested. And of those they suffer from the lack of source material. Many a time I've poured over other language documents trying to wrestle something useful from them. Which is difficult considering I barely speak english ;) --Monotonehell 06:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually TIME Magazine had a list published a few years ago on some great English language news websites from anywhere in the world. Now the question is if people here will find them reliable. BBC News has been good enough for news not covered by American media, though. --Howard the Duck 06:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Not wanting to be a horrid generalist, but I'm about to be anyway; I've found that several articles in the past have suffered from reliance on such sources. Although the same can be said for some western outlets like Fox and CNN. I think the best thing to do is embrace that this is an encyclopedia, and WAIT for a while until the facts come out instead of reporting every piece of speculation that the media spews out in the first few days. **cough** --Monotonehell 05:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tour de France

This needs to be taken down. There are plenty of scandals in pro sports that are (rightfully) ignored by ITN. When a mention goes up, if it does, of the winner next Sunday maybe the greater than average number of scandals can be mentioned. That said the information is also factually inaccurate, as Rasmussen was withdrawn by the team for violating internal team rules, lying about his training wherebouts basically, and has not yet been even accused of having taken doping. if it stays up the blurb should reflect this. 90.25.0.187 22:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Copypasted from WP:ITN/C: This is notable because of the people involved (Rasmussen and Vinokourov), because of the event involved (the Tour de France), because of the sport involved (cycling) and because of the immense media attention on doping during this particular Tour. AecisBrievenbus 22:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
As Aecis has said, this is a very major scandal in a very major sport (that is already under a cloud in relation to the scandal), involving very major people. The latest time I remember us having a scandal in sports was the Italian football violence drama and that was very similar (major scandal which was already an issue for the sport, major sport, major people/country). If there are any other such major sport, major people, major scandal that arises which meets the other criteria (article updates, portal etc) then we should also post it. Indeed, I would argue this scandal is likely to be far more significant then the victory and if we were to choose one (not that we should) it would be the scandal not the eventual victory. I can't think of any other recent scandals except perhaps the Formula 1 spying allegation (not that major a scandal at the current time), Oracle vs Alinghi battle (which isn't really a scandal), the American footballer-dog fighting thing (which is hardly a major scandal and has little to do with the sport), the Chris Benoit thing (which again is hardly a major scandal and has little to do with the sport). If you can come up with some of these 'plenty of scandals' with similar characteristics to the two earlier ones I've mentioned, you'll likely find most would agree we should in fact have mentioned them (if we didn't) assuming the criteria are met. Nil Einne 07:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do find the current blurb a bit wordy: "Cyclist Michael Rasmussen, wearer of the yellow jersey early in the 2007 Tour de France, and pre-Tour favourite Alexander Vinokourov (both pictured) and his Astana Team are removed from the competition amidst separate doping controversies." In the case of Rasmussen, it's not completely accurate either: he got his first yellow jersey after stage 8, which isn't really early anymore, and he held it up to his dismissal after two and a half weeks, which is late in the Tour. I would suggest something along the lines of "Cyclists Michael Rasmussen, Alexander Vinokourov and Cristian Moreni, as well as the teams Astana and Cofidis are removed from the 2007 Tour de France amidst a doping controversy." The separate articles make it clear that Rasmussen held the yellow jersey at the time and that Vino was a pre-Tour favourite. I also think Cristian Moreni should be included, since his was also a positive doping test during the Tour, like Vino, and as a former Italian national champion he is somewhat notable. Aec·is·away talk 13:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Better image?

The current image Image:Rasmussen and Vinokourov.jpg is ... ugly. I think it is a combination of things --- the black border, the caption font that is completely different from the front of Wikipedia. Why not have no caption and just refer to them in the text as "blah (pictured left) and blah (pictured right)"? Evil Monkey - Hello 02:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that "pictured left" and "pictured right" might confuse some readers (because both images are to the right of the text). I used a free font to ensure full compatibility with the GFDL; you're welcome to suggest a better one. I believe that the captions would look unusual without the border. —David Levy 03:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nto to mention it states that one is in yellow and you cant' see who's wearing what. -Violask81976 02:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "wearer of the yellow jersey" refers to Rasmussen's standing in the race (not to his clothing in the photograph). —David Levy 03:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Coming up: Barry Bonds

I want to discuss this now so there's no argument when it happens.

Barry Bonds is about to break the career record for home runs in Major League Baseball. He has 754 home runs; the record, held by Hank Aaron since 1975. He hits about one home run every six days, but he could hit two tomorrow and break the record.

Ordinarily, we would not put sports milestones, other than championships, in ITN. But this case is truly an exception. Those who don't live in North America may not know just how gigantic-huge this is over here. It will be on the front page of every paper in the U.S., not only because the career home-run record is the biggest record in the stats-heavy world of North American sports, but because Bonds is such a controversial and divisive character. (Bonds has been widely accused of using steroids, and his trainer is in jail for refusing to testify to a grand jury.) This will be one of the biggest news stories -- not just sports stories -- of the year in America. -- Mwalcoff 02:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up early; I think it should definitely be included. Then again, I am a U.S.-based baseball fan. Grandmasterka 04:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I believe you're exaggerating the greatness of this event. I'm a little uneasy about adding the item. If we have a slow news week, I might be okay with it. However, with the Tour de France concluding soon, I don't really believe we will need another sports item (especially one of relatively lesser international significance). -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that Mwalcoff is exaggerating the event's significance. It will be a major occurrence in baseball and U.S. sports in general, but I seriously doubt that it will be widely regarded as "one of the biggest news stories -- not just sports stories -- of the year in America." —David Levy 05:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are 28,707 Google News hits on /"Barry Bonds"/. (As opposed to 4,980 on /"Alberto Condator"/, 3,728 on /"Tim Donaghy"/ and, believe it or not, only 28,397 on /"George W. Bush"/!) This is clearly not your run-of-the-mill sports story. At the very least, it is by far the biggest sports story of the year in North America, bigger than this year's Super Bowl, World Series or NBA Finals, each of which is or was on ITN. As a once-in-a-generation event, the breaking of the career home run record is bigger in its sphere than the results of the Tour de France are in its realm. As for the argument about it not being "international," which always comes up with American sports, it's not really a fair comparison -- the U.S. is one country, but it's a big country, with 300 million people. Europe is divided into itsy bitsy countries, so its easy for its sporting events to be "international." And anyway, baseball is of interest not only to Americans but to millions of Latin Americans and Asians. -- Mwalcoff 06:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if anyone doubts how much the Bonds thing has intruded on the world of general news, check out The New York Times' web page on Bonds: [13]. The Times is not known for its sports coverage, but even the Old Gray Lady has been writing about him almost every day. -- Mwalcoff 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
We hit a consensus on this kind of item some time ago, but I've lost the bookmark I made to it in the archives. This gist of it was only career long achievements should be included. That is, not a record that was set in one event, but as a consistent effort over a career. And only in top level international sports. So I guess this meets the first point, but the second is up for debate (as per usual with major US sports). --Monotonehell 07:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Include after Bonds surpasses (and not (05:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)) ties) Hank's record. Just make sure all of the prerequisites are met. --Howard the Duck 09:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree -- home run 756 goes on ITN, not 755. -- Mwalcoff 01:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm Canadian. We only have the Jays. I don't think we're that much of a baseball country. It's still getting large amounts of press up here. It's one of the largest sports stories of the year, anyway. It's deifinetely getting more press here than the Tour de France did. --Plasma Twa 2 03:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)