Template talk:In the news/"Americanism" vs. "Internationalism"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Recent changes: American and international 2 Americocentrism 3 Useless Revert Wars

[edit] Recent changes: American and international

First, regarding "de-Americanization" of the list. That is not the goal of having international news items. Items that largely stem from America can and do have international importance. For instance, the prisoners at Guantanamo are from numerous nations and the Supreme Court decision may have a considerable effect on the waging of the international "war on terrorism".

As for the Federal Reserve, the objection is not that the discount rates set by the Federal Reserve do not have international importance, it is that the news item does not indicate what is important about it. Saying that it was raised a "quarter point" the first time in 4 years is not inform the reader of much without a considerable understanding of international trade and economics. In order to be an important news item and worthy of an encyclopedia, it should be more explanatory. It's really not important that it was a quarter point and that it was four years, there are other far bigger reasons that make it more important. This was also a widely anticipated move that is not really "news". Most importantly, there is no link to an updated article. Wikipedia is not a news site, the In the News is more of a list of encyclopedia articles (in order to currently be encyclopedia, they must also be up-to-date) that are currently relevant to the news. This should link to an article that explains why this is important. As it stands, it doesn't link to anything that even mentions the raise. The Canadian election is a whole different story. There is a comprehensive, encyclopedia-worthy article on it that directly pertains to the current events.

As for the Arroyo entry, why is this of international or special importance? It's not even recent news, as the Wikipedia article says, she was proclaimed president-elect on June 24. - Centrx 01:29, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"International or special importance" by itself is not a criteria for listing here. Please do not actively enforce such a non-existent guideline until it has been added after discussion and consensus has occurred at Wikipedia talk:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page. Under the current criteria, importance is satisfied insofar that it "warrant[s] updating the corresponding article".

Space is limited here so we cannot explain everything there is to say on a topic. Details should be left in the bolded links. If readers are left clueless, then let them click on the link. That's the whole purpose of having the section in the first place.--Jiang 01:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The standard exists though, because we have a space limitation. We simply cannot include every item that everyone wants, even if they all have updates. It may not be in the criteria, but how are we to determine to include certain items but not others except by looking at their importance? The criteria are insufficient for this purpose. Some items simply cannot be there and I doubt you're suggesting we favor the least important items. Something may be important enough to update a particular but that doesn't give it an absolute importance. A significant update to the article History of the United States of America probably warrants inclusion on the In the News, but an update to Stargate after a change in the cast doesn't or the opening of a new TV series (there are hundreds throughout the world) or a new event in one of the many pages on high schools. For instance, less than a decade ago, someone set my high school ablaze, burning down the auditorium and causing evacuation, cancellation for many days, etc. Do you think that warrants inclusion on the In the News? and if you do, consider that hundreds of events of that level of importance happen every day in the world, and if we begin to include them, it would leave out very important items (in order for that not to happen, there necessarily must be some evaluation of importance in order to put one item on and another not), and if there wasn't a standard, the In the News would be constantly changing because these things are happening the time. You may consider my example minor and ludicrous that would never be In the News, but that illustrates that there is a standard of importance. Keep in mind also that these events populate a vast spectrum of importance, and the number of items in a day or two that might not seem so minor and ludicrous far exceeds the number of items that we can fit In the News. It may not be explicit in the criteria, but there is no other way to reconcile its rules of "important enough to update the article" and "only 3-5 items". We are not putting every significant update that is relevant to a current event In the News, and if we were to, it would be chaos.

As for the second, this is true, but specifically with regard to the Federal Reserve item, they do not really pertain. First of all, there was no updated, bolded link for it, so it doesn't satisfy criteria, no article was updated. Aside from that, I was advocating more that there should be replacement of what was there with a more newsworthy statement of importance, which would not significantly lengthen article, or might not lengthen at all, and would very likely remain smaller than the other items. I am not talking about details so much as what makes the item important. Including that would also lead a person to actually follow the link, which is much of the point anyway right? - Centrx 02:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source. We don't care about newsworthyness, per se. Our main motive is to showcase articles "of timely interest" in order to "support the central purpose of Wikipedia--making a great encyclopedia." The criteria should be 1) the completeness of the article that's bolded and 2) the length of coverage given in the article. The significance of the event will naturally correlate with the amount of coverage that's given by the wikipedia article. Few people would know about your high school and it is unlikely to have 1) an extensive article and 2) extensive coverage of such a catastrophe. Even if it did, the likelyhood of someone editing that article listing it here (yourself excluded) is minimal as few users would be aware of the article in the first place. As for Stargate, the coverage of the change is not well explained and therefore should not be listed.

I'm not opposed to an importance criterion, but if that's going to be used to keep something as well documented as Canadian federal election, 2004 off the main page on the notion that Canada is an unimportant country and has a silly maple leaf flag, then the guideline fails to serve our purpose here. --Jiang 02:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That criteria is insufficient because it does not account for the limit of 5 news items. Following this criteria will also The significance of an event does not necessarily correlate with the level of updating it receives. Its much more dependant on the people who's interested in the subject enough to update it. Those criteria also mean putting up numerous items "unimportant" news and few of importance. Most of the news items on the In the News have not been significantly updated. My examples were extreme in their minority and not very good because there were not updates for what I was talking about (the fire, for instance, happened before Wikipedia existed), but that does not invalidate the point and it is ludicrous to think that there will not be major updates for minor news. You don't think people are going to create articles on new TV series? You don't think people are going to create articles on new ships that have been commissioned? You don't think people are going to create or make substantial revisions to articles on people after they die after they have been prompted to retrospection by the death? There are hundreds of these new and unimportant things around the world. There need only be 5 to replace everything In the News. The news need not even be that minor for my point to be valid. In fact, it need only be the 6th most important news of the day for there to be a necessity of making an evaluation on its importance. You don't think there are 5 complete and substantially updated articles on current events in any given couple of days?

As for the Canadian election item, my objection to it had nothing to do with the fact that it was Canada. I stated this before. My objection was because the news was minor, whatever the country (I have objected to unimportant things from the U.S., after all), and because it was posted before the election had even taken place. In light of the latter, there could be no statement of its importance, and it could not be known that there would be the unusual situation of the minority government. I consider the news item as it was posted after the election to be appropriate and worthy of inclusion, and I stated that in the comment of one of the edits I made.

As for my use of the word "newsworthy", I may have been using it too subjectively and tautologically. I don't mean "important enough for it to be in the general media", for various media report on all sorts of worthless things. Rather, something is worthy of being in the news (rather than just being in the news) is something that should be included in an encyclopedia. Pretty much any (that is, not necessarily the opinions or columns like "Journal from London") item in the front section of a newspaper as good as, say, the NY Times is appropriate for inclusion somewhere in an encyclopedia (one without size limitations). - Centrx 21:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The premise you hold is still that the items here must have some significance, as you define it. This basically translates into uniqueness with international implications. I can also define significance as anything that is worthy of inclusion, which is part of the guidelines. I find this irrelevant to our purpose here.

"In the news" is not a headline section. Again, it is to showcase good articles with extensive coverage of recent events. Whether the Canada election was routine or had international consequences was irrelevant. What was relevant was that we had a few full pages on it and results were updated by wikipedia users as soon as they became available. This showcases wikipedia's ability, among other encyclopedias, to adapt to the news quickly (and very much so). If someone is looking for a list of significant news events, then this is not the right site. It is just that what they hear in the news may be explained in further depth here and the main page is a place to bring the availability of this info to their attention. It would be ridiculous to hide this information from them on account of outside factors.--Jiang 01:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, that is not my argument. The premise I hold is that there is necessarily some standard for deciding which items should be on In the News and which should not, and that the appropriate standard for that is a level of importance and a level of international applicability that is appropriate to the international readers and users of the English Wikipedia. This forum is a perfect opportunity for a refinement of the definition of the appropriate standard.

As for your second paragraph, please address the issue; your current response does not. A standard of inclusion is necessary because there are more than 5 articles in a given day or two that are substantially complete and have been significantly updated with information on current events. If there is not a standard of inclusion, then items will be In the News that are important to fewer people and the In the News section will change so much that any one item will receive an extremely small audience. In other words, pursuant to your guidelines, there is no criteria that has the effect of the news items being attractive to a wide audience; there is no criteria that has the effect of disallowing news items that will attract only a couple readers to the article when there are possible items that will attract hundreds. There is no criteria that disallows news items for 5 new sitcoms at the beginning of the TV season even though there might be other news items that are of tremendous importance. According to what you're saying, there is no dictate that an article on a nuclear attack in London not be cycled out in favor of articles on the ArenaBowl championship or Thurmond's daughter joining the Daughters of the Confederacy or a new major release of the Eiffel programming language.

Your statement about hiding information on account of "outside factors" doesn't make much sense. As a matter of fact, placing items of higher importance rather than those with less importance will present information that is relevant and interesting to a greater number of people. Indeed, leaving out items of great importance and retaining items of minor importance seems to me like it would be hiding information from people. Any way, favoring an item of higher importance is certainly not a hiding of information that is greater than the opposite favoring. I don't see how placing an item of higher importance rather than one of lower is hiding, yet doing the opposite is not.

Also, if your opposition to this is just an opposition to the qualifier I use of importance, rather than an opposition to the argument that placement be based on important, whatever important means. - Centrx 06:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a standard, but a standard should not stand in the way of showcasing our best articles of recent importance. Why give people topics they only know about? People have objected to featured article candidates that are based on obscure subjects but had their vote disqualified. Are you saying only topics known to wikipedia's English-speaking centric readers should be listed on featured articles? on the anniversaries? If people see something and they have no clue what it is, then they should be motivated to click on it. That is not to say that insignificant news events deserve a place here. I disagree with the notion that anything here must have "international" implications. We should try to give coverage to every region of the globe, but the events themselves must not need to have to deal with every other part of the world. The ArenaBowl article was a stub and on that alone there was sufficient reason to remove. I don't think there would be much elaboration on Thurmond's daughter joining the Daughters of the Confederacy. Using the criteria I have listed, one can already eliminate topics of little significance.

You have gone to great lengths to explain why specific articles are or aren't significant. Do you have a universal guideline you propose for the standards? I find the Canadian elections definately significant here. We shouldn't make you write an essay everytime we add something here.--Jiang 01:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

People have objected to featured article candidates that are based on obscure subjects but had their vote disqualified.

The featured article candidates do not purport to be "news" or "current events", they must only be "good". The In the News criteria even has one that specifies that items must be listed in the "Current Events" page, but there is no criteria for an item to be listed there, so the problem of importance remains. That itself is an error, because there is no length limit for the current events page, and an inconceivable plethora of insignificant news could theoretically be placed there. I would have no objection to the replacement of "In the News" with a second featured article.

Re: international, english-speaking

This is a recognition of the audience. If the audience were U.S.-exclusive, it would make sense that more In the News articles are about items that are not important to non-U.S. people. The same is true with English-speaking. The Canadian election is simply more important to the English-speaking world than to the Chinese-speaking world, but maybe that's a fluke of geography.

Do you have a universal guideline you propose for the standards

It's certainly difficult to determine what's important and what's not, but a fair judgment can be made by looking at Google News, by looking at the front pages of the BBC and the NYTimes, etc. It's hard to pin down and not really possible to make an objective criteria of the news itself, only of its coverage in the media. That is not to say that the threshhold does not exist, and that is not to say that a criteria of importance or similar is not appropriate, whether it might be only certain enough to rule out the lowest of the low. - Centrx

[edit] Americocentrism

(Copied here from the Village Pump)
Can we please finally set up a policy against Americentrism or American_exceptionalism especially where the Template:In the news and Current Events sections are concerned, as I requested earlier at the Village Pump. Asking more non-American users to edit the page is not the way to go about it - at this moment there are currently only four articles on In The News and they all relate headlines that're either only pertinent to domestic American issues or reinforce an American perspective, though only one - Lance Armstrong's win - is worth keeping in the manner it is written. There should be a clear policy stating that no more than one out of three, or two out of four articles should relate to any single country, and as for Current Events, at least one or two articles from each of the permanently inhabited continents. It is not that hard. You don't have to sacrifice reading your favourite news source. You don't have to learn a new language. If you're on the net, just navigate to the "World" section of your news site and review the general headlines or click on individual countries and you will get plenty of important news that relates to the approximately 6+ billion - 300 million people that aren't American or don't live in the US. The only effort it's going to take is intellectual and if you can spend ages copyediting and padding articles you can certainly spare a couple of minutes selecting headlines that don't universalise US news items. -- Simonides 22:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of the seven hundred or so edits on current events this month, you've made exactly zero. If you want non american news in Current Events, go ahead and add it. Right now you're asking others to do something you don't care enough to do yourself. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:46, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yawn. Just the kind of knee-jerk reaction I expected and already quoted above. I have been editing the In The News template from time to time, but if most users who haunt the Current Events and In the News templates are American, there will be a slant no matter what; a policy can at least help change that, while yet other sulk over their flag. -- Simonides 23:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Write some news stories. Show others that there's a non american world out there, that it matters, and that you're willing to help. Lead from the front. You'd have every right to complain if valid non-american stories were being deleted or discouraged, but there's absolutely no evidence that that is happening. Like everything else in the wikipedia, people will only add stuff they personally are interested in, and no policy is going to change that. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All of which diverts from the issue of Americentrism which you demonstrate - no one needs to "prove" there is a world out there and that it matters, because it does whether idiots and some Wikipedia users believe it or not. Policies go a long way in determining what stays on pages regardless of the numerous POVs that clamour for attention. -- Simonides 00:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Americentrism which you demonstrate" It's such a shame I'm not American, huh? There's no evidence that the policy you suggest is needed. There's no evidence that any such deletions have occurred, or that they will ever occur. There's no evidence that POVs "clamour for attention" or will ever do so. There's no evidence that space restrictions have preempted valid stories, or ever will do so. We already have too many policies and too many rules. If you want non-american stories, write them. Oh, and please reread wikipedia's policy on personal attacks - calling me an idiot and making bigoted assumptions about my nationality and motivations only make your case weaker. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to be American to demonstrate Americentrism; there's plenty of evidence to prove Americentrism - you only have to look at the Template and Events section mentioned, but of course if you don't want to see it, that's up to you; the space restrictions on the News template prevent more than three to four stories - if all four are about the US, then valid stories are obviously pre-empted; if you think "there's no evidence that POVs "clamour for attention" or will ever do so" on Wikipedia, which is bustling with POV, you're off your rocker; I don't need to write all non-American stories - several already exist - they just need more attention; having a lot of policies is not an excuse against having good policies; I didn't call you an idiot, but I did mention idiots and "some Wikipedia users" in the same line; last but not least, my case is evidently strong enough that you can only reply with side-stepping tangential nonsense. -- Simonides 00:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If all they need is attention, why not give them some? As you can see, now that someone bothered to put non-US stories on ITN, they're still there (EU sanctions over Darfur, e.g.). I don't see why you didn't just add them in originally, rather than complaining here. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:45, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

I added them. And this is not the first complaint, which means it's a problem. -- Simonides 00:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I think discussing things, even complaining about them, is okay. However, as this is a wiki, the obvious solution is to fix things you don't like yourself. But please consider that in quite a number of cases this is not possible because you just don't understand anything about the subject. I'm barging in here because I just came across a case of Americocentrism (or whatever it's called) in one of those very unlikely places, and there's no way I can fix it myself: I wanted information on Contergan and, surprise, I learned that there were no -- no -- victims of the drug in America. In spite of that, the article is mainly about a reluctant lady from the FDA who saved America. <KF> 00:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The more you browse, the more of those you'll find.

It should be obvious to any disengaged user that mere dissatisfaction with an article or state of things, and personal editing when errors are noticed, is only good for the short term; but if a site has pretensions of NPOV and encyclopedia standards, and the majority of the editors have a shared POV on some articles or issues, then an innate conflict of interests exists which needs to be ironed out as much as possible through editing strictures; note the emphasis, because there is not even an effort being made to get there. I'm just reading the usual reactionary retorts, like people arguing that if poverty exists, the poor should simply make an effort to get rich, and complaining (ie reporting and requesting an examination of the issue) doesn't solve things. I had only one or two experiences with the Current Events article as a newbie. I added several international headlines that I thought others would wikify. Instead, they were simply reverted and the usual programming came back on. There was less of a struggle with In The News - I've had some success with some articles though I initially faced frequent reverts. The point is that if there is a site-wide problem, it is not about what one or two users can or should do - people should 1) acknowledge the problem 2) consider resolving it through obligatory checks. I can't even seem to bring people to (1) and it is always disappointing to come across so much intellectual resistance on Wikipedia that one usually only sees among more narrow-minded people. -- Simonides 01:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just don't see what would be solved by a new policy that isn't addressed by NPOV and our other policies. Well, we can agree to disagree. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:21, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

Meelar, let's not just disagree and sorry if I was a little abrasive earlier. I am requesting a policy specific to the sections so that people have a guideline when they are in doubt, or so that we can avoid having four aticles about the US and US opinions for a day or two at a stretch, or anniversaries, etc that mostly mention American celebrities or reactions to events - it's a little different from general NPOV for articles. -- Simonides 01:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I don't know how a hard guideline would work (for instance, numeric quotas for ITN are, IMO, a bad idea). However, a reminder in the ITN source text or something of that nature might not be a bad thing. You can come up with some proposed wording, and then take up a vote on Template talk:In the news. Best to announce it here. I'll look it over, but I'd like to see your suggestion first. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:48, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

Thank you. A simple "Please make sure the same country, the actions or views of that country, or the same issue is not the focus of more than one headline, with rare exceptions." should be fine - a little vagueness offers leverage. As for Current Events, I think a numerical option is best for starters - "at least one key headline from Asia, Europe, South America, Africa, and Australasia apart from North American stories; stories relating opinions and decisions of NATO member countries on the Middle East do not count towards the quotient for Asia." -- Simonides 03:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yawn. Boring. Move on to other things. This same old song is falling on unresponsive ears. RickK 04:25, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yup, sort of like your replies. -- Simonides 04:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is a perfectly valid criticism, and has been met with the typical Wikipedia/open source response, i.e. "Fix it yourself" (ignoring the fact that yes, something is broken and shouldn't be). I am not interested in editing the current events thing (unless I spot something of interest that's been missed and add it), but yet that is no reason why the entries should be Americocentric. Zoney 13:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Useless Revert Wars

• Why is there a revert wars whenever some well meaning contributor tries to remove content not related to the US? — 205.188.116.199 21:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Because you're not well-meaning. — Golbez 22:13, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • How is this user not well-meaning? He's obviously trying to make this wiki adhere to the laws of the WikiWatch Foundation. — i386 | Talk 12:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Do not feed the trolls. — RickK 22:29, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yessir. — Golbez 22:36, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Not wanting to get directly involved, but isn't Hurricane Ivan purely local news? And the Countryside Alliance story? and the NHL strike? In fact, I see no reason for including this last item. In the news should not be Anglo/USA Today. Filiocht 13:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hurricane Ivan has caused serious damage to several nations spread over several thousand miles. You might call that local, but I don't. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Apart from the Olympics and the UN, then, everything is local. Frankly, then, I'd rather have more stories about "local" news like Beslan and Ryanggang than the UN. Don't want it to be "Anglo Today?" Then find some news from a non-Angolphone nation. Maybe not much is happening today. --Golbez 16:30, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how people bitch about there being an "Anglo" or "American" bias, and demand that things be removed, but never come up with alternatives. RickK 04:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I thought I would add something more international, so I went to the 'world' section of the ABC (Australian) News site What did I find? -- Chuq 05:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To reply to my own comment - the 'world news' article was about Hurricane Ivan. The page has since been updated however, and top story (Beslan story) has now been added to ITN, bring the international ratio up a bit more. -- Chuq 06:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just as a follow on to Rickk's thoughts - our primary audience is native english speakers. Now, let's consider:

• Number of native english speakers in the world: approximately 400 million [1]
• Population of the US - 294 million [2]
• Population of the UK - 59.6 million [3]
• Population of Australia - 20 million [4]

So, by simple subtraction, every other country combines for about 25 million native speakers. →Raul654 05:37, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

By that logic, since the population of Canada is 32 million, the population of Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa must be negative 7 million. Could it be that the population of the US, like Canada, includes people whose native language is not English ? After all there are a lot of Spanish speakers. I also find it difficult to see why you would discount India (population 1,000 million) given the number of Indians who contribute to the English Wikipedia since English is, to quote the CIA world handbook, "the most important language for national, political, and commercial communication". -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:55, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)