Wikipedia

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2007

< Wikipedia:In the news | Candidates

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Template talk:In the news. Thanks.


Archived discussion for August 2007 from Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates.

August 29

They've agreed to release them, but they haven't said when they will do it. They may still be hostages for some time. --Peta 06:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper, when the situation comes to an end, and our article is updated to beyond that of what one would expect from a news service, then we can include the item. (Also "40 day crisis" will become 41 soon...) --Monotonehell 09:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like 3 have been released and more will be soon. I say that is enough for inclusion. --Mougie149 19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember Wikipedia is not Wikinews. There must be a substantial update to the article above what one would expect from a news service. One or two sentences added to a dot point list isn't in depth or encyclopaedic. --Monotonehell 22:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding the following formulation
It is agreed that Taliban will release the remaining South Korean hostages in return for South Korea withdrawing its 200 non-combat troops within the year and suspending missionary work in Afghanistan.
I think it is reasonable to add the news item now, as the outcome of the situation has been determined. I think the article is useful as is, as it has a large story up to this point. Thue | talk 22:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone update the article? If the situation has been determined, why doesn't our article reflect this? If the situstion has not been resolved then we've jumped the gun on this one. --Monotonehell 11:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My item used only information which was already in the Wikipedia article. Thue | talk 17:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now the article has an update tag on it. I don't have enough background to be confident to do an update to it. But it's still out of date and shouldn't be on ITN in this state. --Monotonehell 07:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can links to Military of South Korea and International Security Assistance Force be included in the line on 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan? More relevant than current links. --74.13.129.88 07:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to include a link to at least International Security Assistance Force, but that article does not currently mention South Korea's contribution, so it wouldn't be very helpfull. Thue | talk 08:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 28

I would support it if the General had his own article. I don't think the two chineese food/health officials who were executed for taking bribes on ITN. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 02:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started it, but my lack of Spanish language skills prevents me form writing much more. --Peta 02:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support an item about this. The article is still a bit short, but I think it's passable. How's this wording:
The Supreme Court of Chile upholds a life sentence for Hugo Salas Wenzel, the first senior military official sentenced to life for human rights violations during the rule of Augusto Pinochet.
Does that look OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks ok, and I support adding it to ITN, but objections havve been raised about using articles that short. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 04:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll wait for more opinions before adding it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule of thumb that I use is that an article must have more information that one would expect from a newspaper article. This is to satisfy the criteria "wikipedia is not a news paper" and "must be a substantial update". At this point the article is too stubby. Instead of starting a new article perhaps you should be reviewing the articles linked from Augusto Pinochet to see if there's a better place/existing article? --Monotonehell 09:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Thue | talk 16:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should be added. It doesn't have any historic significance. Thue | talk 17:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A professional sportsman dying during the practice of a major sport is important. Marco Alfarrobinha {chat}contributions 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, Corey Stringer doesn't even have his own article. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he does. Of course, this definitely should not (and clearly will not) be o ITN, but I still wanted to point that out. -- Kicking222 14:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet any of the 3 death criteria to me. I thought maybe there was something significant e.g. the other deaths were potentially linked to drug use but this doesn't seem to be the case, one had a congenital defect. Also wording isn't great. I call football football but wasn't sure what sport that was referring to when I read the line. Getafe CF isn't exactly MU. Nil Einne 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't add anything about the whole Chris Benoit murder-suicide. I fail to see how this is more notable. Keep it off, it has no major significance. --Plasma Twa 2 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is comparable to the Benoit murder-suicide. A professional athlete having a heart attack on the field of play and as a result dying is different to a professional athlete murdering his family and committing suicide. Although different, both of these events seem to meet death criterion 2 to me. Hammer Raccoon 12:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know who this guy is ("the deceased was in a high ranking office of power at the time of death"). And would his death change football policies ("the death has a major international impact that affects current events")? --Howard the Duck 13:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says for a death to be placed on ITN it has to meet "one of the following criteria". I refer to criterion 2: "the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically", not criteria 1 and 3. I think it is a given that the death was unexpected and tragic. Whether he was a key figure in his field of expertise is more debatable. However, he was a Spanish international, and a member of the Sevilla team that won the UEFA Cup and Copa del Rey in 2007. Whether you know who this guy is or not is irrelevant. Hammer Raccoon 13:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's certainly not in the calibre of Raúl González in order to satisfy criteria #2: ("the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically" - a in other words, a person must die tragically and at the same time must be a key figure in his/her field). However, if his death on a bigger stage (like national team tourneys), then it may be added. --Howard the Duck 14:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I pretty much agree that this doesn't meet current criteria, but I feel that it is extraordinary enough to merit mention. Somehow, I don't see this happening. Hammer Raccoon 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 27

The wording for this should be "United States Attorney General Albert Gonzales announces his resignation effective September 17th". New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people are saying his resignation is noteable because of the scandal surrounding him. But if this is the case then we need to actually mention the scandals otherwise there's absolutely no context about why this matters and the scandal is irrelevant IMHO in deciding whether this qualifies for ITN Nil Einne 21:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is people resigning from their job alone really big news enough to warrant front page exposure? (unless of course they are president/prime-minister perhaps) Maybe someone could add a little context for those of us outside the U.S. as to why this is important news? Was he forced to do so because of a political scandal? thanks. Kilrogg 21:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big discussion in the talk page, feel free to join it. Nil Einne 21:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

Sorry, is this a joke? This has little to zero interest outside the NoCal region. (If it's not a joke, sorry I'm sincerely thinking it is?!?!?) Edit: okay maybe it is in good faith, in that case a few points. Items must have International Interest, only one wikilink should be bold (the main one), and ITN is not a news service items must have encyclopedic value above what someone may find in a news service. --Monotonehell 08:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that something that involves an "Interstate" freeway would certainly be of interest to more than just the Northern California region (NoCal?). Consider the closing of the Bay Bridge for Labor Day weekend next week, as advance notices have been put in place as far as Florida. Also, sorry, I forgot to put this in Portal:Current Events. --Geopgeop 12:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check the criteria above, number 3: "It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest." is what I'm getting at. Wikipedia is an International encyclopedia, not a local news service. The above item is news, and only local news. This item is of little interest to those outside the NoCal region, let alone those outside the US. --Monotonehell 15:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to pile on, but this hasn't even gotten attention in Massachusetts, let alone worldwide. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other then the international interest issue, I don't see the update in the article as being that major. Nil Einne 19:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always hated writing headlines so if someone has a better one please contribute it. These floods are a pretty big deal, 26 dead so far, extensive damage, covering a large swath of the United States. IvoShandor 21:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, with associated picture. Thank you, BanyanTree 01:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2007 Greek fires: Unfortunately this is one of the worst enviromental disasters in Europe. 51 dead people (and this number is going to rise further), thousands left their homes and thousands square miles of forest burnt. To be exact, whole Greece is under fire.. --KaragouniS 16:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree. BBC World described how the the fires have now progressed from an ecological disaster to a human disaster. Greek television has reported that the 2007 fires in the country are the third most devastating worldwide since 2000 in terms of forest lost and the most deadly for many more years.--Damac 19:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: we should get this up asap, very important event. IvoShandor 21:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article on wikinews grown since i created it this morning. Also, very big thing. ACBest 22:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please suggest the wording for the headline, per the instructions above. - BanyanTree 00:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
World Championships, unquestionably the biggest event in the sport outside the Olympics, therefore biggest event particular to this sport; multinational, probably describable as global, interest. Kevin McE 10:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After they're over then we can report on which country won the most medals. --Howard the Duck 11:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: it is not primarily a team event: it is a series of individual championships. The "winning" does not become world champions: the winner of each event becomes world champion in that event. It is obviously not suitable (although it would fit an interpretation of the criteria) to post each winner at the end of each final, so what is relevant is that a series of finals is underway. Kevin McE 12:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So for every championship race we should post updates? (that's a lot... 24 events alone for men) IMHO, results between races should only be posted if and only if a world record is broken. Otherwise, a mention of which country took home the most medals at the end of the tourney would be fine. We did this at the 2006 World Cup (results of games was posted) and it was a mess. ITN did mention someone breaking the 100m world record a year ago though. --Howard the Duck 13:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"So for every championship race we should post updates?"If you read my comment, you would see that that is precisely what I was proposing to avoid. Look for the words "it is obviously not suitable". You have given no reason for continuing to suggest a comment at the end of the championships that does not reflect their purpose. Kevin McE 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't see why every championship race is notable enough to be in ITN. If it is, we should have a specific article specifically for it. The only specific races that should be there are the ones where a world record is broken. --Howard the Duck 14:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how many times I need to say this: I am not proposing that every event be featured on ITN, I am pointing out that every event is the World Championship for that event. Thus Luke Kibet is world marathon champion, but the nation who tops the table will not be World Athletics champions, and I will vehemently oppose any proposal to post this as a headline at the end of the games. Kevin McE 19:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no overall Olympic champions (#1 in medal standings), nor does the IOC recognize these medal counts but we report them anyway. --Howard the Duck 03:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? That is tantamount to OR: it is certainly misapplying the whole purpose of the championships. As already said, I will oppose this vehemently if it is reported in this way. Kevin McE 11:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If other news reports report the same way then it's not OR anymore. --Howard the Duck 12:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything Howard says is true. Also, the article is a stub, there's next to no prose, just a load of empty tables. There's no substantial update to point to. Also this is not the ultimate level of competition in athletics, that would be the Summer Olympic Games. Sorry but this item fails on several counts. --Monotonehell 13:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought World Championships count too at the ITN? It could be posted if all of the prerequisites are met... --Howard the Duck 14:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm unsure, the article says that the IAAF World Championships in Athletics is inferior to the Summer Olympiad, but also says that the IAAF wanted their own competition separate from the Olympics. So it seems that they consider their competition to be one step below the Olympics. But it's unclear. --Monotonehell 15:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is like the several setups of different sports (except soccer) where the Olympics is the highest level of competition, while they maintain their own world championships as a step lower to the Olympics. Nevertheless, once this tourney is completed and all of the criteria is met there should be no problem posting this. --Howard the Duck 15:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympics is not an Athletics championship: it is a multi-sports event in which athletics is one of c.22 sports. This is the top event run by the world governing body of athletics. Kevin McE 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the IAAF also conducts the Olympics races, so technically, the athletics events at the Olympics is the highest level of competition in athletics. --Howard the Duck 14:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However it's still not the top athletics event which is unquestionably the olympics (as it is for many other sports represented in the olympics except perhaps football, baseball, tennis and perhaps also some of the cycling events). Personally I'm not opposed to including it but the article would need to be up to scratch and we should still wait to the end Nil Einne 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the updated article suggests that there is still reasonable doubt that the bodies discovered are of the children. I am thus uncomfortable putting this up. - BanyanTree 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin opinion) I agree with the finding of the two bodies being listed. I would've nominated the floods in the US when I nommed the heatwave, but couldn't find an article. New England Review Me! 04:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(BTW New England, the fact that you're not an admin doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid. Just because ITN is edit protected doesn't mean that your participation isn't welcome :) ) --Monotonehell 06:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Romanov item is interesting enough (IMO) since it's part of history that most of the World knows about. But the article is a bit lacking in references and detail as yet. As well as being mostly unfounded/proven. The out-of-body article's quality is not up to standard. Way too many tags and disputes. The floods and fires sound a bit too "newsy", unless an article of encyclopedic value can be found? Remember ITN is not Wikinews. --Monotonehell 04:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleanup and updated the OBE article somewhat; some time on the main page might get it some needed attention. The Romanov article might be a bit premature since they haven't DNA tested the bones so it's just news reports at this stage.--Peta 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ITN isn't really WP:CLEANUP we have quality standards that are intended to stop ITN becoming a news ticker. The passage in the OBE article is a bit dodgy, playing with people's perception through telepresence isn't really an OBE by the defintion in the article. I agree with you on the Romanov article, if and when there's a conclusive ID of the bodies then it'll become something to talk about. --Monotonehell 07:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article for the 2007 Greek fires has been found. Needs work at this point. Maybe something like...
...when the article is up to scratch. --Monotonehell 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support this one, the article is borderline in terms of substantially, but considering that that part of the World is outside Wikipedia's systemic bias I wouldn't expect a much better article. Caveat though: the event's old, it was listed in current events back on the 14th :( It would replace the Iraq bombing item, but would be knocked off by the next new item? --Monotonehell 07:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also support it. Good article too -81.178.126.124 17:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mav 20:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as an August 15th item, per the date of the NK announcement. Thank you, BanyanTree 01:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

Is it a good juncture to post this on ITN now ? Better to wait till this political crisis is resolved ? --PFHLai 01:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be added when it's resolved, or at 90 days - whichever is sooner. -Peta 02:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely one to watch, but at this point there is only one reference in the entire article. Needs work before it's representative of our best work. --Monotonehell 15:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there evidence of any international interest in this one? Many thousands of deaths in Europe were attributed to a heatwave in 2003, and hundreds earlier this year, so 13 is not going to cause much of a blip in terms of newsworthiness. Kevin McE 23:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's dangerous to start to use death tolls as metrics for inclusion. The two tropical cyclones included recently had similar numbers of deaths reported. I'm uneasy using this metric. I don't think we should look to precedence either. Precedence here means we look to the mistakes we've made in the past to continue those mistakes. So the question is, when does a weather related disaster cross the line to international interest? Most weather events are regional. Death tolls in lesser developed places seem higher for similar impacts... I'm asking questions more than giving answers here, sorry. --Monotonehell 04:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear that you consider France and the UK "less developed places".  :@) I did not want to use death toll as some kind of morbid threshold (which of the 2 cyclones do you think was more noteworthy?), but simply used the figures to show that I did not anticipate the incident cited being widely reported beyond the USA.
I agree that death toll is not the only issue: if it were, then the news would have been totally dominated by malnutrition and easily curable, not very sexy or telegenic diseases for as long as there has been mass media. I have two, not unrelated, concerns for this page.
The first is that the easy thing for mass media to do is to give coverage to that which has dramatic high quality television footage, with, depending on the broadcaster/news agency, little or no judgement about proportionality. Thus forest fires in Australia and the USA, annual events which are part of the natural cycle, even if their costs are little more than inconvenience and insurance clams, will be widely reported far beyond the boundaries of the nation experiencing the event, while landslides and floods that might affect remote villages in less developed areas, with devastating effects to those communities, are afforded no more than a couple of column inches deep in the inside pages, if any mention at all is given.
The other issue that leads to systemic bias is that people's interests are, naturally, parochial. A political scandal in my home town has more impact on me than one in Kazakhstan, therefore I am more likely to read about it, inform myself about it, and maybe even compile a Wikipedia article about it. It may be lesser in moral shock value, relevance as a precedent, or in volume of money involved, but that will not affect me as much as familiarity with the places and faces round which the scandal revolves. If that story then goes beyond regional news, people across the nation become more aware of it, and therefore invest it with more importance than its Khazakh counterpart, and, because it happens in a part of the world which is a) English speaking, b) has strong socio-politico-economic links with other wealthy countries ("Gee Ellen, these folks live in houses just like ours!") and c) has media with high specification equipment, transnational borders, at least within the English speaking world, are leapt by the news item. All the time, it remains, by any measure of profundity, lesser than the Central Asian events; nevertheless, it becomes "In the News" in England and maybe Canada, and finds itself proposed for ITN here.
Once again, the key issue becomes, does "In The News" here mean "In the news in USA/UK/Canada/Australia"? Kevin McE 10:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, it only becomes international when the disaster crosses country lines, something that won't happen in the U.S.A. since it is one big place, and happens frequently at Europe since the continent is splintered into many different states. However, another way is if there's an international reaction, like if Sarkozy or Putin felt saddened by the events. Also, if the article is shabby it shouldn't be there. --Howard the Duck 11:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought both cyclones were equally worthy of inclusion, that's why I pushed to get Sepat up after it had been overlooked, the horse had bolted a bit, but better late than never? :/ The metric I tend to use (although perhaps metric isn't the correct word as it's fairly subjective) is I look at any impacts the event may have had politically, socially or economically, as it's these factors that tend to have effects across borders. If the effects are not impacting upon those in a 'large' way then I tend to treat the event as of local interest only. (Eg. 2007 New York City steam explosion) This is something of an interpretation of the Criteria; I treat the "international interest" term to mean interest above curiosity. That is, going back to the political, social and economic concerns. Questions like, Is it being discussed in other countries' Governments? Is international aid or relief being considered? Will there be impacts on trade and other economies? That sort of thing. It's a tough call sometimes, as we don't always have all the information, but if we don't have the information that's possibly an indication that we don't have an encyclopedic article ready to include in ITN. --Monotonehell 04:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

Comment: Before anyone says this is US-centric news, I'd like to say that it matches ITN criteria 5 part 3, because it's one of the worst coalition crashes to date. --EfferAKS 21:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 5 only refers to obituary types entries. There's only one line in that article referring to the incident. There's no demonstration of any International fallout from this specific incident. The article does not provide an encyclopaedic coverage of the incident, it's less than what one would expect from a news service. Wikipedia/ITN is not a news service. --Monotonehell 01:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


 

Can we have a picture of the space shuttle landing (right) instead of a colorful map of a hurricane that means nothing to non-climatologists? Or, a picture of the expanded ISS. --03:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

August 20

Sepat is history already. --Howard the Duck 14:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it was overlooked while Dean was included. Inserting it back on the 19th doesn't hurt and it certainly helps. We often wait for an article to come up to standard before including it, ITN is not a news service and so the pressure that the news media experiences to have 'hot headlines' isn't such a weight upon us. --Monotonehell 01:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the admins here were always tardy when it comes to non-Western news, considering the problems in the article were sorted out pretty quickly (when Sepat/Egay was still over Taiwan). Including items not in the news in "In the news" is a bit baffling, even though ITN is not a news service, it's not a historical service, either. --Howard the Duck 04:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Including items not in the news in "In the news" is a bit baffling (HtD): I cannot believe that Typhoon Sepat was not in the news in China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Eastern Russia: I know from my own reading that it was in the newspapers in the UK. If you mean that it wasn't "in the news" in the USA, then rename the section and be done with it. Kevin McE 09:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly not in the news now, for example, it's not on the front page of the newspaper I bought today (or yesterday), considering our place was hard-hit and a lot of places were underwater for days. In fact the weather bureau is monitoring a new storm, so this is in many ways tardy and out of date. Might as well say Sepat/Egay dissipated by now... --Howard the Duck 11:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 
China Airlines Flight 120
The article isn't much better than what a reader would expect from a good news service. Not substantial enough for an encyclopaedia entry at this point. --Monotonehell 00:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Old news. --Howard the Duck 04:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we do have an interest in timeliness for items, but consider that this item was posted two days before you commented ;) --Monotonehell 09:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually saw this on the local news a day before this was suggested, the passengers were using the inflatable slides to flee from the airplane. --Howard the Duck 11:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the crew jumping out the cockpit window? That's quite a drop. --Monotonehell 15:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno... it did show the plane exploding. --Howard the Duck 16:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The incident was covered by all major news sources; and the article has been reasonably expanded in the last couple of days. I presume Howard the Duck is unhappy it didn't happen in Yorkshire. ;) --Camptown 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I even dunno where Yorkshire is (LOL)... the point is it isn't news anymore. But if this story happened after any of the ITN items maybe this can be added, not at the top, though. --Howard the Duck 12:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not important enough and not of international interest. -- Kicking222 00:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure as to why it has an article all to itself. Are we in the habit of documenting every court case in the US? --Monotonehell 03:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK this attracted a large amount of attention in the US for whatever reason. Whether it really needs a seperate article I don't know for sure but it's definitely not just an average court case. However it definitely doesn't meet ITN requirements even less so then when it was originally revealed (and it was proposed) Nil Einne 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is dispute tagged and there's a lot of dissatisfaction with perceived bias on the talk page. I don't think it represents our best work. --Monotonehell 03:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the slant on systemic bias the article is better than we could expect, although a bit light on content. What's the consensus on mentioning parliamentary results in Presidential (head of state) style governments? In Westminster systems the "wining" party forms government and so is the pertinent election result. But in presidential systems is the election of the president the pertinent election result? --Monotonehell 03:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the Westminster system, the Head of state (QII) is elected by God, in Kazakhstan by the people in Soviet style elections. The system is a bit similar to the French system, so parliamentary elections are important. True, the article is rather short, but isn't it worth mentioning that the President's party took all the seats in the legislative assembly (a trend we're seeing in many post-Soviet states)? --Camptown 12:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was, because in the Westminster system the head of state being the Queen/King/Governers General the actual seat of government "rests" with the wining party who forms government. So in those systems the winning party is the pertinent election to highlight in ITN. Whereas in other systems where the head of state is elected and is not a mostly "ceremonial" role (USA for example) the seat of government rests with them and their election is probably the most pertinent to include in ITN. What I'm asking is, should we mention both the Presidential as well as the house elections in such places? --Monotonehell 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That already happens on a regular basis, e.g. Finland where both Presidental and Parliamentary elections are observed in the ITN. And the Finnish president is hardly cermonial. But more important: To ignore the Kazahki elections where the opposision lost all their seats in the national parliament only makes WP look like a backyard for high school kids... --Camptown 21:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

  • Underground rescue operations to find six trapped miners at Crandall Canyon Mine are suspended as three rescuers are killed and several injured.
This has been the top news item on Google News for almost 2 weeks. --Camptown 23:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really encyclopedicly-notable outside the region. It's caught the attention of some of the media, but only out of curiosity's sake. (news verses encyclopaedia dichotomy again) --Monotonehell 03:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

 

Anyone can create a far better headline when the smoke, or the storm, clears. --Howard the Duck 16:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telling everyone to stop being productive seems a fairly notable event. I think the word "holiday" is a bad choice, however. Nothing holy about it. Although I'm unsure of a better one. Perhaps something like:
Actually, those "typhoon holidays" are quite common in SE Asia. I used to look forward to such unplanned days-off from school when I was much younger. ...... Please beef up the "Impact" section with more info from the Phillipines and Taiwan, such as casualties, floods, damaged houses, blackouts .... and location of landfall in Taiwan. Much important info are missing. --PFHLai 05:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Hurricane Dean (2007) has already been posted about a hour ago (not by me). --PFHLai 06:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite amused myself when the used the word "holiday". Much of Luzon is now on a 4-day (Wednesday-Saturday) holiday, actually. --Howard the Duck 15:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the choice of word amusing, too. Usually it was an advisory to stay home for a day or two. At least when I lived there.
Still waiting for more info re: impact of Typhoon Sepat in the article..... --PFHLai 16:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dean, but not Sepat, gets on the main page of wikipedia. Is this NorthAmericentricism? --11:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't throw around the suffix '...centricism', it's getting tiresome. But I agree, I see no reason why this was overlooked for inclusion. Dean was added unilaterally without any discussion here. Even though it's quite late, I suggest it be included in the template straight away (just under Dean - in date order as per usual practice). Especially since things have been slow. --Monotonehell 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the objection to Sepat from above appears to be that it lacked info on the impact of Sepat. This is important because to meet the international interest angle, the article really needs to demonstrate why its of international interest. It does now altho it's still fairly short. While I wasn't convinced Dean met the international interest angle either when it was added the article definitely reflects the international interest requirements now, much more so then Sepat Nil Einne 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added and grouped with Dean as a "hurricane" item. - BanyanTree 13:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 16

 
There's already an STS story on the template. Wouldn't it be better to just switch them out? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switch what out of where? You guys have the craziest turns of phrase, why do you often add a redundant word? ;) But yes the proper thing to do would be to update the current entry to reflect the new information.... umm ... upon. Did I do it right ... off? ;) --Monotonehell 05:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. Look forward to more updating this weekend regarding the expansion of the ISS. Hope there will be a nice PD pic from NASA soon. --PFHLai 05:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would just change tsunami warnings to tsunami advisories, but yes, this should be on ITN. The great kawa 05:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: the death toll is now at least 48 people, injuries surpass 300, and tsunami advisories have been cancelled. Also, saying "central Peru" might be misleading, since the epicenter was in the ocean, so either "central coast of Peru" or simply "Peru" would be better in my opinion.--Gabbec 06:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now 71 dead, over 680 injured. Maybe more stable figures should be waited for before adding this to ITN.--Gabbec 06:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as
I left out the part about the tsunami warning 'coz the "tsunami" was only 10 inches tall. I'm not sure what to write about besides the 71 dead and 680+ injured at this point. --PFHLai 07:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AP writes that 135 people are dead, and more than 1300 people injured. [1]. Recurring dreams 10:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFP now reports 337, confirmed by the Peruvian gov.Recurring dreams 10:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the magnitude was 7.9, why does the ITN say 8.0 (unless the magnitude was changed by the people who research that stuff)? New England Review Me! 15:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's 8.0 according to the latest update from USGS (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2007/us2007gbcv/). --PFHLai 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't realize it changed. New England Review Me! 16:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. --PFHLai 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-posted as
The death toll keeps rising. I hope this will avoid the easily outdated figures. --PFHLai 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I for one oppose the change. Dont' want to get into a wheel war over such a small thing (so I wont), but, we seem to have active admins looking over the template anyhow, so it's really not such a big thing to keep updating it. If it's not updated, someone will post an error on the main page talk page. Or on the candidates page. Or somewhere. I don't see why it's such a big deal. For me, it lets me know what the death toll is at without having to look over at the main article. Pepsidrinka 21:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this gets people to click and read the article, so much the better. This is the purpose of having ITN on MainPage, anyway. I don't think ITN should be taken as a news-ticker. --PFHLai 05:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. ITN's job is not to inform people of the news (Wikipedia is not a news service). Its job is to provide substantial background information connected with current events (Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia). Many people forget/don't know this. --Monotonehell 06:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Pepsidrinka 18:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 15

This should be a trigger for something regarding the continuing violence in Iraq, but I believe we should bold link one of the more mature articles that are less "recentism" and news "reporty". Afterall we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, can't we educate people a bit beyond what a newsflash can do here? If people follow my reasoning. Maybe Terrorist attacks of the Iraq War, Iraqi insurgency or some better suggestion? --Monotonehell 12:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...Didn't you see that Terrorist attacks of the Iraq War was already included in the hook? --Camptown 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The key phrase in my suggestion was "bold link" --Monotonehell 15:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have a surprisingly good article on the main victims, the Yazidi people of northern Iraq. -- !! ?? 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should be put on the front page, instead of the oldest person in the world dying, thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.31.54 (talk • contribs)
I agree, but it's still stubby. We need more information. --Golbez 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would support after the article is developed somewhat. Agree with Monotonehell as well; it needs a link to a subpage about the violence in Iraq. Recurring dreams 12:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's certainly a bit stubby - but how long should we wait...? --Camptown 21:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already posted hours ago (not by me).
How long should we wait...? Well, Camptown, there are no set rules for this. For brand new articles, I usually wait till there are at least 250~300 words in the main text (perhaps slightly less after consecutive slow news days), plus references, of course. But this is just my own rule. --PFHLai 07:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My own measure has been to compare what's in the article to what you would expect from a newspaper. If the article is less informative than a newspaper I say wait. If the article starts to exceed the standard of information you'd find in a newspaper article I say post. --Monotonehell 11:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like your way, Monotonehell. It requires more patience, though. --PFHLai 17:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people jump at things too quickly IMO, we are an encyclopedia, we have the luxury of being able to wait for verified information, rather than having to scoop news services. --Monotonehell 22:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit local for the moment. Perhaps when it does some damage -85.210.181.199 01:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this is a bit too location. Wait for Hurricane Dean. -- tariqabjotu 02:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not just too local, but merely a warning. We get many warnings during a hurricane season. If there aren't much notesworthy damages mentioned in the article, it's probably not big enough a news story for ITN. --PFHLai 17:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane watches out for Tropical Storm Dean, btw. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The storm's projected path suggests that we keep a close eye on this storm. --PFHLai 17:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
T.S. Erin is a wimp compared to Typhoon Sepat. Too bad Sepat is a subsection. --Howard the Duck 13:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a while, I considered posting a line on Typhoon Pabuk (Chedeng). --PFHLai 17:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sepat/Egay is blowing Taiwan off the map. There's a Typhoon Sepat (2007) now, but with some problems. --Howard the Duck 12:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 14

  • I'd propose that we post the nominated Ingmar Bergman item today, as the criterion no 5 de facto doesn't seem to include the requesite unexpectedly any longer. --Bondkaka 08:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Are you being a bit Pointy here?? Just checking.. --Monotonehell 12:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm pretty sure those who live by the ITN death criteria won't allow a simple death of an old person dying naturally to get onto ITN. --PFHLai 07:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not really that exceptional. The oldest person in the world is dying all the time, because he/she is very old... If it was the oldest person ever then maybe it would be notable. Thue | talk 13:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this not exceptional? It's the passing of a superlative. I think this is the one case where we should include people who simply die of old age. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So next week, when this lady dies we will put the new oldest person on ITN. And a month later, the same story. Ad nauseam. This is not a good ITN item, maybe if we found a person 130 years old, but this is surely not. The great kawa 21:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there is a new oldest person every 16 months on the average. Art LaPella 02:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How could this item by-pass the ITN-nomination???? Please, remove! --Camptown 21:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agreed. There is NO WAY this should be up there. It's not that newsworthy, and the linked-to article is a stub. It's not a particularly amazing event, and there is ZERO international (or national, or even local) importance. In short, GET RID OF THIS. -- Kicking222 00:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of it at ITN, then place it at DYK if it eligible. --Howard the Duck 04:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incrediable! This happens only two weeks after Bergman and Antonioni were ignored by the ITN decision-makers for formalistic reasons! Remove the item, or skip rule No. 5 immediately. --Bondkaka 07:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone citing criterion 5 is missing the point. It isn't the death itself that justifies the ITN entry. It's the fact that a different person now holds one of the most prominent world records (which absolutely is of international interest). —David Levy 07:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did the record holder died unexpectedly? No, it doesn't satisfy criterion 5. So, lets skip this obsolete criterion as of today. --Bondkaka 08:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm betting the reason why it's at ITN is because the new record holder is an American... --Howard the Duck 08:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was that a serious comment? —David Levy 13:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agreed that, if ever the new record holder was European, African, Asian or Latin American, this won't have make it on ITN. A chinese bridge collapse killing more than 30, not on ITN; An US bridge collapse killing less than 10,on ITN. US-centrism on ITN as always. 132.206.22.8 13:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's funny that just a couple of days ago, I (an American) cited criterion 5 as an explanation of why the death of Merv Griffin (an American) wasn't included in ITN. And look, no other Americans tried to sneak it in. We must be slipping.
2. Has someone written an English Wikipedia article about the Chinese bridge that collapsed and proposed an ITN entry? —David Levy 14:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it shouldn't be on ITN but I also agree with David Levy's point. While criterion 5 is important and shouldn't be discarded without discussion, if someone's death is somehow an event of international interest beyond the death then the death criterion are irrelevant because it's about the event then not the death. If for example we establish a lunar colony and someone with cancer goes there to die and becomes the first person to die on the moon then that should probably be on ITN even though the death was expected... (yes I know this is rather far fetched but it still illustrates the point). This is the same as when sports news other then the final result of a prominent event makes it to ITN e.g. the Tour de France drug controversy, last year's Italian football crisis Nil Einne 10:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That actually is a good analogy. People are fixating on the death and missing the big picture. Criterion 5 isn't in play. —David Levy 13:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if the death itself were the reason for posting the item, criterion 5 would apply. But it isn't. The death is merely what triggered the event that justifies the entry (a new world's oldest living person). —David Levy 13:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(undent)What David and Nil say is the point here, not Crit#5. Arguing on that point, trying not to sound harsh here, but our oldest earth citizens die a lot. They're old. The record is important but I think we're looking at the lesser notable record. The most notable record in this area is who has lived the greatest number of years, ever. To be tacky and relate it to sports, we only include the most highest/furtherest/fastest athelete's record. --Monotonehell 12:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that there isn't international interest in who's the oldest person alive today (which last changed on 5 April 2005)? If not, what's the problem? —David Levy 13:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're the problem David! lol .. But seriously, I'm discerning the relative notability of a virtual baton that's passed quite regularly (currently living oldest person) with the notability of the absolute oldest person so far. To expand my analogy with sports; Babe Ruth held the most home runs record for years. Many others jockied around 2nd and 3rd position until Hank Aaron broke that record, and more recently Barry Bonds. The most notable record there is the absolute record holder, regardless of those currently in play. Does my clumsy analogue make sense? --Monotonehell 14:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but I don't believe that the comparison is a fair one. Sports fans mainly care about all-time records, but that isn't the case here. Every subject must be evaluated on its own merits, and this is one that happens to attract a great deal of international interest. That this record might be regarded as less notable than another one is irrelevant. What matters is that it's widely regarded as notable. —David Levy 14:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edna Parker is a stub and should not be featured on ITN. I've emboldened the link to Oldest people instead. --PFHLai 17:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about some dumb thermal tiles on a space shuttle? Surely Karl Rove's resignation has a much larger impact than this. I also see there is no discussion on it. I say the new ITN item about the space shuttle should be removed. 24.118.45.5

Rove will be replaced by someone from the same party. What impact? --74.13.130.96 13:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thermal tiles on the space shuttle might be quite important but, really, is it worthy to be in the news? Please wait a little bit longer to see what effect they will have upon re-entry into atmosphere (God forbid anything to happen) and then, only then, mention something. Marco Alfarrobinha {chat}contributions 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although 74.13's comment is a tad uncivil, I tend to agree. Arguably this has been occurring on every Shuttle mission since the first one to varying degrees. It's inherent in the design. It was only the unfortunate incident that brought it to attention. --Monotonehell 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ME? UNCIVIL? COME ON! I think you mean 24.118.45.5? --74.13.129.17 06:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry yes, I was looking cross eyed at you not-a-name just-a-number-non-people ;) --Monotonehell 12:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was a rewrite of an existing item about STS-118 already on ITN, reflecting updated materials in the wikiarticle. It was also an excuse to discard that old picture of the shuttle launch that has been on MainPage for f-o-u-r straight days. --PFHLai 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

Support, this seems sufficiently important internationally.-gadfium 09:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well. Can remove the "ally" part of that as well; its not really necessary. Recurring dreams 12:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning the US attorney general controversy seems POV because they weren't the reason for his resignation. Other than that, I support. Warhol13 14:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Warcholl3. The controversy should be left out if this gets posted. We don't know the "real" reason why he left. --Souphanousinphone 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it probably shouldn't be posted - it's hardly important if it's just another member of staff resigning -85.210.181.199 21:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Rove has a 'high profile' outside the US. I'd be more supportive if Rice or Cheney quits, or if Rove quits because of a big scandal with a good, updated wikiarticle. --PFHLai 06:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He does have a somewhat significant profile, particularly after the worldwide publicity of the 2004 campaign. I think his profile is certainly high enough to place this in ITN, compared to other items such as shuttle launches/problems. Recurring dreams 09:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost tempting to wonder whether Karl Rove is 'high profile' outside I-495... ;) --Camptown 10:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not international enough, IMHO. If Rove's resignation meant pull out of all of US troops (highly unlikely), then that's something. --Howard the Duck 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. PFHLai's summation is accurate. I don't think Rove's profile is that great internationally. People may have heard of him but even if they have, they probably don't really know or care who he is or what he does. Also whether or not the shuttle thing qualifies is a different matter and doesn't affect whether Rove should be on ITN altho IMHO it's of greater international interest then this Rove thing anyway. Nil Einne 10:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

The subprime meltdown article could use more references, esp. for the things to be mentioned on MainPage. --PFHLai 12:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article in question needs far more references before it's of appropriate condition to be placed on the Main Page, but otherwise, I'd completely support this. What are the odds that, for the first time I can remember, everything on ITN is actually notable news?! -- Kicking222 12:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. If possible, please add more refs to the rest of the wikipage. Thanks. --PFHLai 04:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have had to blank out most of the meltdown article as being based on illicit copying from newspapers. Dragons flight 06:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page should then be urgently built back up (its little more than a stub now), or removed from ITN. Recurring dreams 07:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the current state of the emboldened article, should this item be removed? --Monotonehell 09:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't the ECB injected 156 billion euros?[2][3] etc RHB - Talk 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
€156 billion, RHB? ITN says €94.8 billion. The article says €61 billion, with no mention that it's "the largest loan ever." Can someone fix up this part of the article, please ? I've removed this blurb from MainPage for the time being. --PFHLai 18:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the short section that mentioned this, under "Examples." RHB - Talk 20:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RHB. It's now back on MainPage. I've updated the figure to "more than €150 billion" (61+95>150). I can't find any mention of "its largest loan ever", so I've taken that part off ITN. --PFHLai 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Today (Monday 13), the European Central Bank injected another EUR 47.6 billion (USD 65 billion) of liquidity into the European financial system (i.e. on top of the EUR 156 already injected in the last couple of days). Market Watch Camptown 11:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not at all sure that this is suitable ITN material, but I thought I'd throw it up for consideration. This is a crucial decision in the whole SCO vs Linux controversy. I realise that this controversy isn't terribly important compared to many other stories on ITN, but it does interest many Wikipedians because it's at the heart of free software, and Wikipedia is very strongly part of the free software movement.-gadfium 00:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the be all and end all absolute final no appeals to come that's it SCO back in your box ruling - then I'd say it's worth a mention, considering half the Internet is built on Linux, it really does have International Importance. --Monotonehell 09:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IANALBIRG (IANAL, but I read groklaw), but SCO probably has the right to appeal. However, the case was always clear cut, with the contract, the people who originally wrote the contract, and now the judge, saying "Novel owns it", while SCO said "no it doesn't". So IMO an appeal is so likely to fail that it makes sense to put the news up now. Thue | talk 13:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support putting this on the front page. I suggest the formulation
The SCO v. Novell court case concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. As Novel has waived SCO's (unproven) claims of UNIX copyrights in Linux in the SCO-Linux controversies, this effectively clears Linux.
Thue | talk 13:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as
I don't understand the part about 'this effectively clears Linux', so I left it out. --PFHLai 00:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I took this out before navigating to see this discussion. I removed it because it is clearly not as important as other topics that could be covered. I personally read all the coverage about it including Groklaw, etc, but it represents a pretty heavy bias to have this on the main page. For example Google news only 47 related stories which puts it behind several hundred other current stories. It doesn't really have a significant international importance in my opinion. - Taxman Talk 03:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about this one. Does it really have much international importance? Whatever the importance of Linux, SCO AFAIK shut up in Australia after the ACCC asked for clarification and they also AFAIK largely shut up in Europe after SCO v. DaimlerChrysler (admitedly this is largely based on a Groklaw user comment and my own research). So it seems to me this is really only a story relevant to the US since even if they'd won in the US they'd already given up in Australia and lost in Germany. Also this is another case IMHO of 'no surprise'. While I understand why Linux and GPL supporters are happy about this (I don't know if it's fair to say the whole free software movement since AFAIK it wasn't particularly important to the BSD world for example), it's also IMHO another one of those cases where it's not of great importance or interest because it's not big news but was expected. The verdict surprises no one and doesn't really affect the world much because most people already knew SCO's claims were BS. The same reason we rejected the Bush state of the union and other similar stuff. In the unlikely event SCO had won for example, we probably would be putting it up. Nil Einne 16:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering it's about an operating system originally authored by a Finnish person and a court-case to do several of the biggest companies on Earth (including IBM and Microsoft) regarding the legal status of arguably the most popular operating system in the world, I would say it is important on an international scale. -85.210.181.199 17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[4]this is clearly notable enough for ITN. I came here because I wondered why it wasn't listed. I suggest it should be restored. dab (𒁳) 13:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not giving evidence of why it's notable enough. It really hasn't had nearly as much news attention as hundreds of other topics, and it's only really important to fans and supporters of free software or people that closely follow the issue. It's just a US court case, and to justify the importance of the topic by association with the importance of Linux in general (as has been done above) is premature. - Taxman Talk 14:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 9

The table near the end of the wikipage on this election needs more data. --PFHLai 04:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as
--PFHLai 00:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be "win a majority". "Win majority" makes no grammatical sense. Lockesdonkey 02:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lockesdonkey. And thanks, Woohookitty for putting in the missing a. --PFHLai 03:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 
 
Support this; any manned space launch with a decent article should go on ITN. I can't recall ever seeing a Soyuz launch here though - is that because the articles aren't as well developed, or is no one nominating them?-gadfium 05:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted hours ago (not by me). Just added an M-cropped version of Commons:Image:STS-118 launch1.jpg.
Gadfium, I think you are right on both counts. I'd add that Soyuz activities are usually not as well advertised as NASA's. Maybe we just missed them. --PFHLai 07:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gadfium: why is it that space shuttle launches are so important. I kind of get sick of coming to the front page and seeing the latest launch "In the news" every time one is up. Unless something of global interest happens, like one burns up on reentry, I think there are more newsworthy entries to be reporting on. They fly every few months for goodness sake! 121.45.209.193 07:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shuttle launches invariably have detailed articles associated with them. Science and technology news is intrinsically not limited to a single country. Wikipedia has a high proportion of editors (I'm less sure about readers) who are interested in technology (although this is not an ITN guideline). Shuttle launches are no more than a few times a year - if they were weekly then interest would be considerably less. All these considerations - except perhaps the detailed article one - also apply to manned spaceflights from other countries, so I have watchlisted the next couple of scheduled Soyuz flights and will propose them here at the appropriate time.-gadfium 09:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
possibly "allegedly violate" or "the Georgian Government says", as the Russian government, despite rather compelling evidence, denies the incident took place. --Camptown 21:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which "compelling evidence" do you have in mind? Probably something along the lines presented by the Washington Pravda and Murdoch-controlled media to "prove" the deadly threat posed by Saddam's fabulous WMD? --Ghirla-трёп- 12:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I agree we should use the allegedly wording.-gadfium 05:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how important this is in the "Georgian-Ossetian conflict". Should this be in Georgia-Russia relations instead ? Whose dud was it, anyway ? --PFHLai 13:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This seems important enough. Dont forget that Georgia is a NATO candidate and that Russia is preparing for Presidental and Parliamentary elections in months to come. --Bondkaka 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain what this insinuation is about? What is Putin's interest in destabilizing the politically hypersensitive region known as Russia's underbelly? On the other hand, Saakashvili has been searching for a pretext to bring the NATO troops into the region ever since he came to power. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposed to be an encylcopedia not not a political chatroom. Given Putin's attempts at reviving the Russian empire, Saakashvili doesn't need any additional pretext to bring Georgia into NATO. It's a request from Georgia's society.--KoberTalk 13:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Putin's attempts at reviving the Russian empire"? Wishful thinking and conspiracy talk which has no business in an encyclopaedia. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added. - BanyanTree 03:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deplore the decision to trumpet the petty incident on Main Page, especially as the recent deaths of Bergman and Antonioni were emphatically ignored by the decision-makers. The coverage of the incident in the article amounts to two lines reflecting Tbilisi's take on the issue. I find Saakashvili's unsourced rhetoric insulting to reason and see no compelling reason to advertise it in Wikipedia. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me User:Ghirlandajo, in his best tradition, continues to intellectualize his Georgianophobia through disrupting any appearance of Georgia-related article on Wikipedia's Main Page. --KoberTalk 13:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Georgianophobia"? Ha! You should start the article about this phenomenon. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should change the line to "Two Russian aircraft are accused of violating Georgia's airspace ..." Would this be better ?
It's not clear in this blurb what Georgian-Ossetian conflict has to do with this incident. Perhaps the bolded link should go to the Georgia-Russia relations article, but this wikipage needs {cleanup} and updating before going onto MainPage. --PFHLai 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after all, the incident seems to be a part of the Ossetian conflict: Georgia claimed to have radar evidence proving that the invading aircraft flew in from Russia and said that the strike had aimed, unsuccessfully, at destroying radar equipment recently installed near the South Ossetian conflict zone´.... --Camptown 17:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems more like a "Georgian-Russian conflict" than a "Georgian-Ossetian conflict" so far, and this just happened to be taking place near Ossetia, and also near the Russian border, BTW. --PFHLai 17:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, we can convert the section about this incident into a separate article titled 2007 Tsitelubani missile incident or something like this. --KoberTalk 17:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the situation escalates, maybe. If it's just politicians yapping at each other, I don't think so. --PFHLai 17:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 
Xanana Gusmão, the new Prime Minister of East Timor
Support, but East Timorese parliamentary election, 2007 might be a more suitable article to bold link to.-gadfium 05:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support too. --Howard the Duck 05:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as:
Can someone help shorten this, please ? --PFHLai 07:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Possibly could also drop the "parliamentary" from "recent parliamentary election" as it's a bit redundant. --Monotonehell 11:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but sorry, it doesn't work for me. It needs to be clear that FRETILIN's protests are against Gusmao forming govt and not directed to the election. And I think it's important to highlight the fact that the largest party in parliament is not forming the government. Maybe I'm trying to get too much out of one sentence, making it seem rather long.... And, there's a recent presidential election, too, so I think the word "parliamentary" has to be there to be specific. --PFHLai 13:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, revisiting the situation, isn't the fact that the protests were general and violent the salient factoid? As opposed to FRETILIN's protest over their majority being ignored. There's buildings in Dili and elsewhere gutted by fire set by vandals. There's a lot of aspects to this story, so it's hard to get it down to one headline without ostensibly misrepresenting something :( --Monotonehell 15:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 8

Previously discussed on Template talk:In the news. Biggest North American sports story of the year. Front-page news across the country. -- Mwalcoff 04:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we possibly discuss its inclusion once more, like most other ITN items? Recurring dreams 10:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have to mention the steriods allegations.
It's oh-so-very long already... --Howard the Duck 04:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the part about the Nationals really belong in it? --Plasma Twa 2 04:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Op, there it goes. Nevermind. --Plasma Twa 2 04:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone want to push for consensus on the steroid allegations part? Now that the Nationals part is gone, we could perhaps add that. Thoughts? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Nationals are gone we might as well add the roids. --Howard the Duck 05:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the bit on steroids is that neccessary. Anyone who knows anything about this story will know there is talk of steroids. Aside from that, I think it's rather inconsequential. He is the home run king now, and unless there is definite proof that he takes steroids, and in turn if it affects his record, there really doesn't need to be a mention --Plasma Twa 2 06:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does a second person which to endorse either opinion, deciding whether or not we should add the wording? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, knowing next to nothing about baseball I would say the steroid allegations should be mentioned if they are substanial enough and they do appear to be Nil Einne 14:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is every match not in front of a home crowd? Headline is assuming that AT&T Park, and Home Run, mean something to people beyond the fanbase of an unspecified sport. Is this a record in the US leagues, or worldwide? (relevant, regardless of any assertion of US league being the foremost). Kevin McE 10:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been added to an already long ITN when it has almost no international coverage or relevance?Recurring dreams 10:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the Japanese, Koreans and Taiwanese. --Howard the Duck 10:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certain pockets of Asia isn't the same as the rest of the world. Recurring dreams 10:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More than two countries is International. This item has been discussed for a couple of weeks before it actually occurred. The general criteria for inclusion of sports items are only the top level of competition in any sport, and only career long records (not one off "flukes"). It's been argued before that with sports like basketball and baseball the International top level of the sports is the US competition. So we have an item that is arguably the top level of competition, and a career long record. But it is difficult with sports, as many fans thinks that their respective sport is internationally important and a lot of International competitions are complex when we're trying to assess their "international importance". :/ --Monotonehell 10:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
International importance is not equal to worldwide importance, FYI. It doesn't even have to be "important," but at least it should have interest. Our local newscast made it a headline, that says a lot for a country who doesn't care about baseball (oh, the Athens riots made it too :p) --Howard the Duck 10:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per the criteria: international importance (don't think so); international interest (don't think so either, but a bit meh about it; few sports outside football actually do). Recurring dreams 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm absolutely positive this is Britocentrism *evil mad scientist laugh* --Howard the Duck 12:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about Barry Bonds and steroids? Please think of the children! Recurring dreams 12:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Britain and/or Europe = international and USA and "certain pockets of Asia" = not international) = Britocentrism *runs away* --Howard the Duck 12:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Football = Europe + Asia + S.America + Africa. Baseball = US + Japan. Recurring dreams 13:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the Taiwanese. And international = 2 or more countries. --Howard the Duck 13:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the US of America, there are also many other countries in America where many people follow baseball. --PFHLai 13:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball seems to be popular in the West Indies and Central America too. In Asia, soccer is largely confined to the Middle East and SE Asia. Central Asia is more for cricket, while East Asia ex China is for baseball. China they say play table tennis. --Howard the Duck 13:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, actually football is a very big thing in most of East Asia too. Did you happen to miss the 2002 World Cup with 60k or so South Koreans dressed in red? Nil Einne 14:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Korea yes, China and Japan maybe. But most of that place is baseball country. --Howard the Duck 14:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just linked to an article from December. How is this news? Dragons flight 17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I see, sorry about that, I simply took the link from the article, which appears to be unrelated to the event. The reason this is news is that the dolphin has been officially declared extinct today, after much speculation. I'll try sort out the links now.Nwe 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusions of the survey were made available in December and this appeared in the news at that time [5]. Now the full report has been published, but I don't see how that changes anything. Dragons flight 18:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was officially declared extinct today.Nwe 19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense? The IUCN hasn't (yet) changed their opinion ("critically endangered") and wouldn't go farther than "probably extinct" anyway since they don't declare anything extinct until it has been gone from observation at least 50 years. All that happened is that the formal report on a survey that was already described last December got published. Dragons flight 20:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I concede.Nwe 21:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

I'm waiting for this stub to grow. --PFHLai 02:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keeping an eye on this one --Monotonehell 11:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still a stub after 3 days. --PFHLai 03:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure of the international interest on this one, I'd say news of no one but Pinochet himself this amount of time after 'those events' would tend to be only of interest to those directly involved. Unless someone can educate me otherwise? --Monotonehell 13:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be supportive if the "rebellion against the Chilean state" amounts to at least a mini-civil war with a wikiarticle. --PFHLai 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me-ow lol --Monotonehell 11:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 5

I'm pretty sure this meets the criteria, but not totally sure if it's inclusion is noteworthy. Probably why these are "suggested additions" eh? -- Reaper X 08:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I wonder if the hog cholera epidemic at our place which is at national TV everyday has a chance :p --Howard the Duck 12:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Support - Britain has now banned all international exports of livestock, meat, and milk due to the outbreak. Kurieeto 14:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC) [6][reply]
See discussion below, we're keeping an eye on the situation and if it becomes of International concern it should be considered, but at this time it's one of several outbreaks of disease that happen all over the World more often than people realise. --Monotonehell 16:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that the closing of all livestock, meat, and milk exports out of a developed country is of international concern, it can greatly affect international trade. Kurieeto 16:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you'd be right. Sorry I must have missed that fact, it didn't appear on my local news a couple of hours ago. I'd say this qualifies for inclusion now. Also I now see that a research lab is under suspicion. --Monotonehell 17:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as
* An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom prompts the banning of exports of livestock and other animal products.
I'm avoiding the number of infected animals 'coz figures like that get dated quite easily. --PFHLai 19:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No humans dead = not international significance. I don't think the UK is that a big producer of meat and meat products. The Argentines and the Aussies produce more. --Howard the Duck 23:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy that "No humans dead = not international significance" argument. There's no need to kill people to be important. Furthermore, it's also a story about science (virology) and business/economy (food and agriculture). A ban by far-away countries like Japan and Canada, that's international enough, methinks. --PFHLai 02:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese and Canadians import most of their meat from the Americans, so what they get from the UK must be minuscule. I doubt if they even import from Europe, with the recent history of the mad cow outbreak (now that was news) And so what if there is an outbreak, we're now covering outbreaks of diseases of animals? What's next, the most recent plant epidemic? The article won't even be in the DYK if you'd ask me. Finally, this is just a plain old case of Britocentrism. --Howard the Duck 03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only a few infected cows would be enough to create havoc. So what if it's minuscule. The international response is part of the story. Without the bans, IMO, this is not (yet) ITN-worthy. And yes, a plant epidemic might make it to ITN. What if (I hope not) a viral outbreak wipes out a portion of mangoes / bananas / coconuts in Luzon and other countries like Japan and Canada start banning the fruit exports from the Philippines, and there is a well updated wikiarticle about the virus and the outbreak ? Would it be Philippinocentrism if such an item gets on ITN ? --PFHLai 05:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, when the Japanese banned American beef on the early 2000s, was that posted at the ITN (I understand there's absolutely no precedent on ITN), considering there even protest since the price of oh-so-yummy gyudon will rise? As for plant epidemics, Americans (perhaps other Western countries too) are very picky, they impose all kinds of trade restrictions, quotas, etc. The only Filipino mangoes you'd see on American shores came from Guimaras. As for Filipinocentrism (:p), there's no such thing as that, only Britocentrism. Even we are used to Americancentrism that is plastered everyday. --Howard the Duck 05:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out my spelling mistake. I never knew when to use 'Ph' and when to use 'F'.... I dislike AnyCountry-centrism, and I don't think news from the UK or the US should be excluded.... Why did Japan ban American beef on the early 2000s ? I forgot. It might get on ITN, depending on the reason for the ban and many other things, such as whether it was a slow news day that day.... --PFHLai 06:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Twas about mad cow. And the oh-so-yummy gyudon didn't hike prices, it was removed from the menu! It was like McDonald's removing the Big Mac from its menu, highly probable for ITN if it (Big Mac off the menu) happened you ask me, but with the oh-so-yummy gyudon, I don't think so, since they're not made by people who are both Christian and white.
IMHO, this (the British FND) is still not that big, several animal disease outbreaks happen everyday, and for the British meat industry, which is not that of a big meat producer, it baffles me to no end why it is posted. If Argentine or Aussie meat is compromised, it can be posted, but for British meat... --Howard the Duck 06:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the govts of those countries that have banned the UK exports over-reacted a bit, but we can't blame them for trying to be safe than sorry, as it was estimated to have cost Britain £8bn in the previous outbreak. Thanks to them, there is an excuse to put a fairly good wikipage on ITN and push the item on the Minny bridge down. --PFHLai 16:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a topic claimed not to have international significance, it's odd that it's already on the German Wikipedia's front page (third bullet point down) -81.178.104.145 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at the Spanish Wikipedia main page. (Moral lesson: Don't use other Wikipedias as a comparison of ITNs) --Howard the Duck 08:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And why isn't this on ITN? The article looks well-founded and the story is definitely of international significance. I SUPPORT it entirely. The great kawa 09:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. It's been on our ITN for quite a while now which is why people are discussing whether or not it should have been posted. Did you miss it on ITN and the above discussions or are you complaing to us the English wikipedia about it not showing up on the Spanish wikipedia ITN? Nil Einne 00:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be updated has there's been a second outbreak in Surrey -81.178.104.145 09:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be on the mainpage because this record is probably the most renowned in baseball. Most baseball fans know 755 but coudn't tell you how many hits Pete Rose had, for instance. It is of international interest because baseball is popular throughout latin america and east asia and there are many baseball fans in these areas who don't follow the mlb. I don't care if we put this on the mainpage now or when he actually breaks the record, but it should be on there. Warhol13 15:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was pre-discussed on the talk page. It seems that the general conclusion was if and when the record is broken (756 homers), and the article demonstrates his career long achievement then we'll consider it for inclusion. --Monotonehell 16:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. When he hits his next one- assuming the article is adequately updated, which I'd imagine it will be- then I fully support the inclusion... even though it's discussing an egotistical cheater. -- Kicking222 17:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get too excited. Post it at his next HR. --Howard the Duck 23:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A link to Steroids in baseball may be included -- when the time comes. --PFHLai 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they don't care what drugs you're on for baseball? Nil Einne 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I support the inclusion per the previous consensus, as far as I'm aware, baseball is only popular in Japan and South? Korea so I don't see how you can claim it's popular throughout East Asia Nil Einne 00:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Ooops um maybe I was wrong, nevermind Nil Einne 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

 
Phoenix Mars Lander
Sounds good to me, actually. —Nightstallion 11:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another science item? Unheard of! endorse --Monotonehell 12:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Will look for a NASA/PD photograph of the launch. --PFHLai 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 
Launch of the Phoenix spacecraft aboard a Delta II rocket
Posted as
--PFHLai 19:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

See also /July 2007#July 30. --PFHLai 07:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still only one ref on the death, but it's a good one and the article has been expanded with a load of pictures. We should probably put this one up now. --Monotonehell 17:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai 19:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support this one. —Nightstallion 01:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article could be more explicit about dates though.-gadfium 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added it. —Nightstallion 08:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mir front.jpg cannot be used, as fairuse pics are not allowed on MainPage.
Can the 2007 Russian North Pole expedition article be expanded ? Or shall we bold the link to MIR (submersible) for now ? --PFHLai 01:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although the controversy surrounding this is not really reflected in the article.-gadfium 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it once the controversy is reflected in more detail. —Nightstallion 08:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some details on this. 86.100.231.115 10:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit more, and made it main pagey. —Nightstallion 11:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, nothing much seems to have changed from the below discussion Nil Einne 06:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second this, albeit with a link to 2007 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak. -81.178.108.106 22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. —Nightstallion 01:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeap. Nick 01:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ain't sure if one outbreak at one farm would make a crisis yet. Perhaps we should keep an eye on this developing story. --PFHLai 02:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with PFHLai, needs watching.-gadfium 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, we'll wait on this one. —Nightstallion 08:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outbreaks like this occur more regularly than most people realise. Unless it isn't contained and becomes a problem outside of the region then it's probably not ITN material. But definitely something to keep an eye on in case the lid comes off and the sh!^ hits the fan (I've run out of metaphors...) --Monotonehell 07:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2

 
The Unknown Child
 
RMS Titanic sinking
An odd story for a change. This item seems to meet all ITN-rules, including rule nr. 5.... --Camptown 21:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMPOSSIBLE! Crit#5 is designed to exclude any non-sports item from ITN. ;) It's a scientific item and even considering the age of the article it's in better condition than most mainstream articles people nominate for inclusion. (endorse) --Monotonehell 09:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Amazing story! --Bondkaka 13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as
using as much of the wording on his gravestone as I could. --PFHLai 01:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism! lol --Monotonehell 07:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use !  :-) --PFHLai 07:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Minneapolis, and I don't think this should be up there. It's not really internationally noteworthy, as there is no terrorism involved. Its certainly a huge local event, but I don't think its huge enough.
If you don't mind me saying, this is rather minor compared to, say, the news on the UN and Dafur below. No matter, though, it doesn't hurt anyone. It's nice to see it on, and hopefully there will be a few more details revealed soon. --Plasma Twa 2 05:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
International interest is only one of the criteria. The article has been expanded nicely and is a major story in the U.S.A. at the moment as this event (a full collapse of a major bridge) hasn't happened in recent history. Sectional fighting and events like this are occasionally posted on ITN, especially when the articles are updated substantially and have a variety of sources. The great kawa 20:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Neil, where's the article on Wikipedia that you are suggesting.? --Monotonehell 11:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably 2007 in Iraq. Neil ╦ 13:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has had no update regarding this. --Monotonehell 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there are actually several bigger news stories, IMHO bigger then the 67 in Iraq even like the Darfur thing and the various natural disasters in the world, but they don't have articles up to scratch yet Nil Einne 12:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Existence of an article is hardly the most important criteria. Its absolutely absurd that these American/British "disasters" are given so much weight. A train just derailed in the Congo, killing over 100 people. Why isn't that ITN, far more than 4 people were killed (the current estimate in this), and the disaster was similar. It's obviously impossible to rid English-language wikipedia of a western slant, but in this case it's fairly obvious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.45.5 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 2007 August 2 (UTC)
24.118.45.5, if you like news, please see Portal: Current events or Wikinews. ITN is a place on MainPage to feature articles well updated with news-related materials. There must be an article in Wikipedia first, at least a decent stub with references. --PFHLai 21:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A decent stub, no matter how decent won't make it to ITN... --Howard the Duck 02:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Won't ? Stubs shouldn't, IMO, but some do make it to ITN. --PFHLai 00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it this way for all you dissenters. The bridge collapse article is now a fairly large article with both pictures and over 50 sources. As a comparison, these other events you people are mentioning either have a stub in some obscure article or absolutely no article at all. If you want those events posted they NEED a well-founded and updated article. The more sources and info, the better. The great kawa 03:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the substance of the point your trying to make, I don't quite agree with the way you've put it. Generally, we expect an article be substanially updated and be of resonable quality before we put the item on ITN. If we take a look at the version when it was added, the article probably qualified on both counts. Sadly this is not the case for a number of other arguably more importants events, some which don't even AFAIK have articles yet. The current quality of the Mississippi bridge collapse article is IMHO irrelevant. While it was fairly obvious given the nature of the event and the fact it affected the US it was going to be very substanially updated, we should not put an article on ITN just because we expect it will receive substanial updates because it's affected the English speaking developed world. Nil Einne 09:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My take on this... Most events in the developed world have many sources for information (data/pictures). This does not necessitate/call for an entry in ITN. Agreed, if there is not a good WP article present on other more significant events (train derailment, Iraq bombing etc), we should not post them in IHL. At the same time, insignificant/events of local importance which have better articles does not deserve to goto ITN. IMHO, this news should NOT have been posted. Whats more, even a friend from MN agrees to this. --Natrajdr 08:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still at the top of the list several days after its been added? 85.210.11.57 11:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to suggest new items to displace it. --PFHLai 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why, for example, the stories about the unknown child being added after but being underneath this item. -81.178.104.145 03:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Items on ITN are listed chronologically, with more recent news on top and older news at the bottom. By the time the item about the unknown child was added, it was already old news. So I added it to the middle. --PFHLai 07:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 1

(This stems from him lying about his health, and then allegedly playing soccer in his native Mongolia.) JRHorse 13:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule about sports is to only mention the results of the final of the top level of international competition in any one sport. Or if there's significant International fallout from a scandal. In the past it has been argued that things like US Basketball qualifies. Now if that holds true then Sumo should also qualify since competitors come from all over the World to compete in this top level sport. However I'm unsure if this scandal event qualifies the second guideline. --Monotonehell 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The above fact has since been challenged in the article. --Monotonehell 13:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would still qualify as significant because of the circumstances. In any case, how about this for clarification, per the updated article: Sumo wrestler Asashoryu becomes the first Yokozuna in history to be suspended from competition. JRHorse
It's hit the wire services, I've even seen reports locally (Australia). Seems to hit a bit of International interest. Still not sure if there'll be any significant international fallout. Seems like a minor incident outside the World of Sumo. --Monotonehell 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he really is the first sumo wrestler in history to be suspended, I support it. Even if it is only modern history, too. It sounds like it is a pretty big story, although I don't know how they are handling it in Japan. --Plasma Twa 2 17:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the {{Refimprove}} tag atop the Asashoryu Akinori article should be taken care of first, before the article gets featured on ITN. Is the tag ready to be removed ? --PFHLai 17:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/August_2007&oldid=1074858290"