Wikipedia

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 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 February 2007 from Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates.

February 28

Was the bombing actually directed at Vice President Cheney, or was it it just an incredible coincidence that the bombing occured while he was there? Because if it was directed at him, i definitely think an assasination attempt of someone like the US Vice President would merit ITN attention. Thethinredline 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC have reported: "The Taleban said they carried out the attack and that the attacker was trying to get to Mr Cheney, who was on an unannounced visit to the region." [1] CNN has reported: "The Taliban claimed responsibility and said Cheney was the target. Cheney was unhurt in the attack. ... The vice president had spent the night at the sprawling Bagram Air Base. He ate breakfast with the troops, and met with Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez, the commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. He was preparing to leave for the meeting with Karzai when the suicide bomber struck about 10 a.m. (12:30 a.m. ET), sending up a plume of smoke visible to reporters accompanying him." [2] And according to Al Jazeera: "Cheney, who was on a unannounced visit to the region, was staying in a room at the base where he had to stay the night after bad weather forced postponement of his trip to Kabul. "At 10 a.m. I heard a loud boom," Cheney told reporters. "They moved me for a relatively brief period of time to one of the bomb shelters nearby," he said. "As the situation settled down and they got a better sense in terms of what was going on, I went back to my room until it was time to leave." The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that the bomber was targeting the American Vice-President. "We wanted to target ... Cheney," Taliban spokesman Mullah Hayat Khan told Reuters by phone from an undisclosed location." [3] It might be bluff or propaganda conceived after they found out that Dick Cheney was at the scene. But if they are correct, it would mean a high-level leak/spy in Afghanistan or the US. AecisBrievenbus 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with putting this up if the plummet continues tomorrow. Afaik the stock markets in Asia are about to open, and Europe will open in about 8 hours time. The problem is that there's not an updated article yet. As far as the wording is concerned, I suggest: "Stock markets around the world plummet after rumours about illegal share trading and fears of accelerating inflation in China." Or shorter: "A slide on the Shanghai Stock Exchange sends stock markets around the world plummeting." In both cases the word plummet(ing) would contain the link to the updated article. AecisBrievenbus 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Even though I understand this to be the biggest drop on Wall Street since Sep 2001 - Until some appropriate source we can cite, records any notable effect on the global economy, and that information is added to a article that is more than a simple "it happened" stub; *breaths* we can't add it to ITN. --Monotonehell 11:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but Wikipedia would be a very good place to link all the stock market slumps around the world together, provide context, etcetera, all in one article. The slump seems to be continuing today, with the FTSE 100 losing 52 billion pounds off its total value in two days. AecisBrievenbus 12:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this global market sell-off should be listed. Also, it is just as worthy to be listed on the front page as a major weather storm (which we have had many on the front page in the last 6 months) 69.119.239.138 13:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
looks like 3 in favor, 1 against (ahh, gotta love consensus) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.239.138 (talk • contribs)
Perhaps, but please be reminded that this is not a vote, but a discussion, and that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Most important problem at the moment is the lack of an updated article about this event. As long as that is missing, the event cannot be added. AecisBrievenbus 13:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm suggesting this as an update to Romano Prodi's status (as long as it's still up):
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi and his goverment survive a vote of no confidence in the Italian Parliament. Lockesdonkey 00:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the lower house of the Italian Parliament won't be voting on this till Friday. I'd wait. --PFHLai 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then:
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi and his goverment survive a vote of no confidence in the Italian Senate.
It was the Senate that caused the problem, anyway. Lockesdonkey 02:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

Again, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This is an initiation of proceedings. The article has no real background information on the subject, the Ahmed Haroun article is a stub and the court hasn't made any ruling as yet. Reporting this development is the job of a newspaper not an encyclopedia. --Monotonehell 11:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you do make a good point about the newspaper-encyclopedia comparison, the Darfur conclict is quite signficant from an encyclopaedic standpoint, and this has to be considered a serious development. And i personally feel your comments fall kind of flat when when we have have a report of Martin Scorsese winning his first Academy Award and a flood in Mozambique that, while tragic is nowhere near as significant a humanitarian crisis as the situation in Darfur. Thethinredline 13:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a little too early when the accused are still suspects. The investigations might clear them of any wrongdoing. I'd wait till the ICC is ready to arrest/indict the accused. --PFHLai 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

Support, but a shorter version. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've gathered, the verdict is a little different from what you say. The court has ruled that the events in Srebrenica constitute genocide, that the involvement of the Republic of Yugoslavia in this genocide cannot be proven (i.e. found not guilty instead of found innocent), that the Republic of Yugoslavia had not done enough to prevent the massacre and that the Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia-Montenegro and Serbia had not done enough to bring the perpetrators to justice. Through these actions, Yugoslavia, Serbia-Montenegro and Serbia are found to have violated the Genocide Convention. The court also decided that it could not rule on the claim for damages. AecisBrievenbus 14:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is correct. You can freely rephrase yourself. However, I did not know that the court decided it could not rule that. As far as I understood, it ruled that it shouldn't pay. --PaxEquilibrium 14:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the official wording of the verdict related to the issue of innocent v not guilty is: "The Court finds that in the light of the information available to it, it has not been established that the massacres at Srebrenica were committed by persons or entities ranking as organs of the Respondent. It finds also that it has not been established that those massacres were committed on the instructions, or under the direction of organs of the Respondent State, nor that the Respondent exercised effective control over the operations in the course of which those massacres, which constituted the crime of genocide, were perpetrated." Regarding the reparations, the court decided: "However, the Court clearly cannot conclude from the case as a whole and with a sufficient degree of certainty that the genocide at Srebrenica would in fact have been averted if the Respondent had acted in compliance with its legal obligations. Since the Court cannot regard as proven a causal nexus between the Respondent’s violation of its obligation of prevention and the genocide at Srebrenica, financial compensation is not the appropriate form of reparation for the breach of the obligation to prevent genocide." The way I interpret this (correct me if I'm wrong), the evidence presented to the ICJ is not sufficient to warrant reparations, since a "causal nexus" cannot be regarded as proven. In other words, the court has decided that it does not have enough information to warrant reparations. It did not dismiss it altogether though. AecisBrievenbus 14:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I support putting this up, but I have no idea how this could be worded properly, without having to resort to a 50 page essay. Perhaps something to the extent of: "The International Court of Justice rules that the Srebrenica massacre constitutes genocide, but that the involvement of Yugoslavia cannot be established." AecisBrievenbus 15:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about something along the lines of "The International Court of Justice has passed its verdict on the Bosnian genocide case." and leave those who are interested to read the article for the complex details? --Monotonehell 15:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing an article in The Guardian: "The International Court of Justice finds Serbia guilty of failing to prevent genocide in the Srebrenica massacre, but clears it of direct responsibility and complicity in the case." - dcljr (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think "The International Court of Justice finds Serbia guilty of failing to prevent genocide in the Srebrenica massacre, but clears it of direct responsibility and complicity." reads better. AecisBrievenbus 18:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this wording. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is to my opinion that the order of the wording should be the other way around. For example, "not guilty" was concluded for most of the dots, including the most relevant ones. Belgrade already celebrates victory (as a result the Serbian President already petitions the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia to pass a resolution publicly recognizing and condemning the Srebrenica massacre as and act of genocide), while Sarajevo is heavily disappointed. Also, I'd advise inclusion of Montenegro. Although the court decided to leave out Montenegro from the verdict, the whole trial was relevant to it (as judged by ICJ itself). This text shows rather that Serbia and Montenegro lost the case, but weren't sentenced for all dots (and it's no such case). --PaxEquilibrium 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the wording as you suggested, even though I'm unclear on some of what you're saying here. (What do you mean by "dots"?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is way too stubby for ITN inclusion, the claim is only supported by a discovery channel "advert" for a TV programme. I'd like to see much more information in the article as well as references from other credible sources. --Monotonehell 15:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
article hasn't been updated and is pretty light on detail. The Tom 05:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, freestyle skiing isn't nearly a prominent enough sport to merit ITN consideration. Thethinredline 10:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Daanschr, please scroll up and read the instructions. Thank you. --74.14.22.50 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for forgetting my signature.--Daanschr 15:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have too little time at the moment to write an article. someone interested in it could use the article of CNN. It is full of useful information. The funding of Al Qaeda is mentioned twice near the end. I saw a television coverage of this yesterday on CNN. I hardly ever watch it, but was amazed to hear this coming along suddenly. Imagine the consequences, or would it just slip away from the attention?--Daanschr 15:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything in the news will be shown on "In The News". Please be reminded that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and is not a news site. To simply post news headlines and external newslinks, please go to Portal: Current events. Thank you. --74.14.22.50 15:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

It was a joke. They cut him off deliberately. Wow. --Golbez 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damnation. I actually thought it was unintentional... Of course, I'm a democrat and was quite hoping to see him run, so I jumped at the chance. Sorry 'bout that. Andrew Morritt 03:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, we've not mentioned any other "hopefuls" and we wont start now. Once the election is over and someone "wins" then it would be unbiased and ITN worthy. --Monotonehell 06:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine this one will be contentious.
My personally-favoured draft policy on professional team sport scores is one club championship per sport per year, with only the league/annual tournament that represents the highest level of play in that sport being eligible. That's heretofore lived only inside my head, so by no means should anyone feel the slightest bit bound by it... I just thought I'd get it out there. So, for example, for ice hockey we'd go with the Stanley Cup, not the Russian superleague championship.
I'd make the case that the UEFA Champions League is broadly held to be the top competitive tier of professional football, and that the annual winner there should get the football nod, not the South American club winner or any particular national championship. I mean, admittedly winning the English Premiership is a big deal, but there'd be a pretty strong argument to have to include the Bundesliga and the Italian league and so on along the list in a hair-splitting fashion if we posted it. (i.e. is the Brazilian club championship notable enough?, How about the Mexican? The Croatian? And so on.) The Tom 21:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule we've been applying, not completely successfully, is only the highest level of competition, and then only the absolute final competition. The problem then is over the arguments of what is the "highest level". Especially with sports like US Basketball where some seem to rank the college basketball above the professional. --Monotonehell 06:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

  • "Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi tenders his government's resignation after its foreign policy statement fails by two votes in the Senate." This news should be updated, since the resignation has been rejected, and Prodi has been sent to seek a new confidence vote of the parliament. --Twilight 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated — thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 22

Why are we creating all these "2007..." articles, that simply list events? They're tantamount to newspaper articles. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. --Monotonehell 14:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First Chemical warfare act since Iran-Iraq War--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, since the Second Battle of Fallujah --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question. Why are we creating "newspaper articles" about every event as they happen, instead of updating a more holistic article about the Iraq experience. Most of the articles in Category:2007 in Iraq are specific one day events and all read like newspaper articles. This is an encyclopedia not Wikinews. --Monotonehell 05:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Monotonehell: not encyclopedic 69.119.239.138 11:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The updated article is too short to make a Main Page appearance. -- tariqabjotu 01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 
Cyclone Favio made landfall on 22nd Feb., 2007

Why is there such an inordinate amount of ITN articles featuring Dutch politics and Mr. Balkenende? There may be many wonderful people from the Netherlands who use and enjoy Wikipedia, but I'm quite certain that other countries and governments are not being included quite so much. Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismelito (talk • contribs) 06:59, 23 February 2007

Doesn't matter what we put on ITN someone will bob up and perceive a bias. Sometimes there is a systemic bias, but most of the time it's just lady-coincidence being herself. Maybe there's a lot happening in that part of the World right now? --Monotonehell 09:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm a bit biased, as a Dutchman, but have we posted that much about the Netherlands? We've had the election result on November 22, the conclusion of the cabinet formation on February 7 and now the government being sworn in. AecisBrievenbus 11:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

Is there an updated article for this? AecisBrievenbus 18:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the Iraq War article has been updated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Recent_History —Jimmmmmmmmm 10:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should be featured, but the article needs updating... How about
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi and his government resigns after losing a vote in the Italian Senate.
for the headline? Thue | talk 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about "The Italian cabinet led by Prime Minister Romano Prodi resigns after losing a vote in the Italian Senate." AecisBrievenbus 19:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of stuff is oddly common in Italy politics, but I'll grant it's quite postable, provided there's a more substantial article update. Couple of nits, though. Prodi's tendered his resignation to the President but we don't know if he'll actually end up leaving office or not... there are various ways of patching this over. Berlusconi, IIRC, "resigned" a couple of times with no real effect. I'd suggest:
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi tenders his government's resignation after losing a vote in the Senate to approve his foreign policy.
Still a little clumsy, admittedly, but I think we should get some of the political context in there. The Tom 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. But we still need an updated article. The two lines currently in the Romano Prodi article isn't enough. Thue | talk 19:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could use The NY Times or the BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witty lama (talk • contribs) 22:10, 21 February 2007

February 19

Hahaha... can we BJAODN this? -- Kicking222 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the time would be better spent reading over WP:CIVL.
To actually answer the request, it seems to me the NBA All-Star Game isn't of sufficent international interst to warrant inclusion.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


May I ask why this is not worthy of addition? Feel free to choose a better headline, but isn't it news when a spiritual leader who has immense political influence causes a political furore? Ekantik talk 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily opposed, but I'm not clear on how much coverage this is getting outside of India. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the article is a mess of disputes and suggested moves, it doesn't present as a relatively stable and concise background article and so isn't in a state that ITN could comfortably link to. (All IMHO of course)--Monotonehell 05:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BBC is suggesting "a series of blasts" rather than specifically two bombs [4], but yes this is deserved candidate for ITN --Steve (Slf67) talk 07:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Thue | talk 13:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATED:

--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

Can you restate that in a simpler and clearer manner? I can't make sense of it as it stands. --Monotonehell 02:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A key witness to the prosecution in the case against former Kosovar prime minister Ramush Haradinaj has died under suspicious circumstances. I'm not sure this is notable enough in and of itself, much of it is rumour and unverified, and the victim, whose name should be bolded, does not have an article and is probably not notable enough for one. AecisBrievenbus 10:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a notable news, considering the bizarre nature of the case. The tribunal let go Ramush Haradinaj because they were gathering evidence, having difficulties to find any witness; Kujtim B. was one of the rare (if not only) witnesses (as per being a victim subjected to brutal torture) and now he's been killed under suspicious circumstances, right when the trial for Ramush is beginning again. I think that "shocking" news enough. --PaxEquilibrium 00:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 
Flag of New Zealand
Rather large cricket news seeing as Australia has never not been number one untill now!!! Would understand most objections however.--HamedogTalk|@ 06:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, never?
I know nothing about international cricket rankings — are you saying that Australia has always been #1 until now? (Didn't England win the Ashes a few years back?) How far back do these rankings go? If you're talking about the ICC Test Championship, the records here show South Africa at #1 for the first four months of 2003. Or is there some other ranking system that shows Australia always at #1? If so, where is its Wikipedia article? Plezz to explenn.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the item, but it needs more explanation for cricket ignoramuses (ignorami?) like me (and most of my fellow countrymen). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's for one day games. There is a ranking for one dayers and a ranking for testss. This is for one day matches.--HamedogTalk|@ 08:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The additional link and context clear things up substantially — thanks. I'm neutral on inclusion, though, as I'm not clear on how significant this is — for example, how widely are these particular rankings followed? Will this be big news in all cricket-playing nations, or only for Australia, New Zealand and South Africa (who apparently make it to the top now)? I'll yield to the judgment of editors and admins from cricket-playing countries. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rankings go back to 2002, so it has been 5 years and this is the first time that Australia have not been number one. Batmanand | Talk 09:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

Topic is worthy, but article is a bit too stubby. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly reworded and added. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since several sources are doubting the claim, I think we should hold off on this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 14

I'd like some feedback on this one: al-Sadr is an important figure in the politics of Iraq, but the reports that he's in Iran are uncertain. The Bush administration has said that he's there [5], but Iraqi sources say it's just a rumor [6]. Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have any thoughts about this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be a bit more comfortable with phrasing such as "al-Sadr is reportedly in Iran", "Some sources say al-Sadr is in Iran", or similar wording if space permits. As you say, the reports are uncertain; I'd want to be sure we let readers know that they are conflicting reports, as well. -Fsotrain09 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about crediting it to the most recent named source, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell? Something like "US military spokesman William B. Caldwell states that Iraqi Shi'a cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has fled to Iran in advance of a planned security crackdown in Baghdad."? It's a bit wordy, and it still doesn't explicitly acknowledge that al-Sadr's aides say he's in Najaf [7]. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the claim is an unverified and denied rumour/claim. I suggest holding off on this one for now. If it is established that al-Sadr has indeed gone to Iran, I'm inclined to endorse putting this up. AecisBrievenbus 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know the notability guidelines for ITN are somewhat diffuse...but why is this actually an interesting story? His article barely mentions this rumour. I would certainly say that this has less substance than the "Iranian Bombs" story a few days ago, which I don't think went up on ITN (although in fairness that also had little substance either). Seems like a bit of non-story to me.... Badgerpatrol 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the US military has been working pretty hard to portray al-Sadr as a bogeyman, and the crackdown is focusing on his power base (Sadr City), al-Sadr's absence from the country would presumably make a difference in the dynamics in Baghdad. But since the facts are still unclear, we may as well not put it up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I suggest "[name] is elected president of Turkmenistan", or something to that extent. AecisBrievenbus 00:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
International observers have said that the election was "neither free nor fair" (as might be suggested by the fact that Berdimuhammedow won 89% of the vote). Can anyone suggest a succinct way to indicate this in the item? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added, with a note about the ICG's condemnation of the election process. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 13

Added. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this; the Dixie Chicks are fairly famous but not terrifically so, and five Grammy Awards is neither a record nor extraordinarily high. We could have a piece on this year's Grammy Awards as a whole, but the Dixie Chicks alone are not notable enough for this ITN. —Cuiviénen 02:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Peta 02:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; the item was about the Grammys. We can't just put The Grammys happened.; there's got to be some substance and the Dixie Chicks were it. Perhaps you could reword the sentence – putting Grammys closer to the beginning of the sentence – but ultimately I think it will be hard to avoid mentioning the Dixie Chicks as the biggest winners of the night. -- tariqabjotu 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this news item is notable for the broader political issues pertaining to the Dixie Chicks, the songs they won awards for, etc, in addition to the number of awards won. I have added mention of this to Grammy Awards of 2007. --Aude (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my recollection the Grammy's have not appeared on ITN in the past. It's just one of several American music awards. The SAG awards and the BAFTAs weren't on ITN a week ago, what makes this snippet of pop culture of particular relevance. --Peta 02:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on the Grammy Awards says, "the Grammys, usually held in February, are considered to be the U.S. record industry's equivalent to the Academy Awards (or Oscars) for motion pictures", so it's the top award in the field of music. And as Aude points out, there were political overtones to the Dixie Chicks being the lead winners. I don't want to wheel war, but I think that the removal of this item is part of a general prejudice against cultural items on ITN. This is clearly noteworthy and of international interest (see related discussion at Template talk:In the news). I'd like to restore the item. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the comments by Tariqabjotu and Josiah Rowe above - while the success of the Dixie Chicks might not be hugely spectacular or record-breaking, the Grammys are probably the most notable celebration of popular music in the world. The above comments by Peta also make sense, but in future, perhaps someone should suggest the addition of events like the SAGs and the BAFTAs as well. I for one would be happy to see recognition given to these events. I cannot see the rationale behind excluding major pop culture news, while political events, scientific discoveries and sporting achievements seem to almost walk unopposed into ITN. Some people might suggest that the Grammys, Oscars, BAFTAs etc. are regular events, so therefore they are not newsworthy unless something particularly spectacular happens. The same argument could be applied to the Superbowl, which I note has been a fixture for quite a long time on ITN this year.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 04:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to other important international news, the Dixie Chicks (and frankly the Grammys as a whole) are not noteworthy enough to be placed on the Main Page. Having news of North Korea shutting down its chief nuclear reactor right next to the Dixie Chicks seems quite strange and out of place. I also tend to think that mentioning the Grammys and specifically the Dixie Chicks on the Main Page would be unwise because of their political comments and the wrong ideas about Wikipedia some people might receive. I agree with its removal. The great kawa 04:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong ideas? We wouldn't be advocating or opposing the Dixie Chicks' political beliefs, but the fact is that their political stance has had a major effect on their careers, and is a matter of international interest. Should Wikipedia self-censor against mention of otherwise newsworthy people who have criticized the Bush Administration?
But that's beside the main point — major cultural awards such as the Grammys and Oscars are at least as ITN-worthy as sporting events, if not more so. Perhaps in the upcoming discussion Monotonehell mentions below we could consider reserving one slot in ITN for a sporting or cultural event? Politics is not the only matter of international interest or significance. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After an edit conflict, Josiah Rowe has almost taken the words out of my mouth - I agree 100% with the above.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 05:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ITN has criteria, one is that the even should be of international significance - the Grammy's is only really relevant to the US. ITN is supposed to reflect encyclopedic goings-on from around the world; the fact that some anti-US Administration country group won a bunch of American music awards, is of little relevance to most of the world. --Peta 05:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users at Template talk:In the news have provided links to coverage of the win from the UK, Australia and Germany. A quick Google News search also shows coverage from Israel, Taiwan, New Zealand, Bolivia, Canada, China, Malaysia... need I go on? That's not international interest? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Grammys are the most important award in the music industry, and as such are highly notable. The fact that they are awarded by an American organisation is immaterial. The political stance of the Dixie Chicks is also immaterial. They have won the most Grammys of this year by far, and they were acknowledged as such by a large number of independent third-party sources. Putting them up is in no way an endorsement of their political stance, nor would mentioning a Republican election victory be an endorsement of the Republican candidate. AecisBrievenbus 09:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has replied to the above demonstration of international interest in the Grammys (and the Dixie Chicks as the lead story for the Grammys this year), I've restored the item. I'm open to suggestions for rewording, if people think that the current phrasing places inappropriate emphasis on the group, but I feel fairly strongly that this is a cultural item of international interest that meets the ITN criteria. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You managed to miss the point entirely. It wasn't the Grammy Awards that were the problem, it was the Dixie Chicks. Their winning of five awards was entirely unworthy of the Main Page. You could have reworded it to discuss the Grammy Awards, but instead you restored the exact version that this discussion at least condemns. —Cuiviénen 14:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agreed with tariqabjotu that the Dixie Chicks are the story from this year's Grammys — you'll notice that all the news coverage leads with their wins. I think the current version is needlessly bland, but it's better than excluding the Grammys altogether, so I'll let it be as a compromise. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Josiah Rowe on this one. The current blurb is needlessly bland, but it's better than leaving it out altogether. Fact is that with five Grammys, including three of the most important ones (Song, Record and Album of the Year), the Dixie Chicks are the clear winners of this year's Grammys, like U2 were the winners last year (they won five Grammys as well) and Ray Charles the year before. AecisBrievenbus 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too stubby at the moment, IMHO. The Tom 04:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Length is not considered to be disqualification, or mentioned in the criteria. The event/article covers all the criteria there, and is likely to expand with the attention mainpage featuring gives. More media reports are still flowing in, and the article in it's present state covers current information well. 222.153.186.221 06:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, ITN's purpose is to provide background, encyclopedic information to items that are currently the attention of the news media. Allowing stubs into ITN is ostensibly news reporting which is the purpose of our sister project Wikinews. There are a lot of news report type articles being added to Wikipedia that should not be. This article for example should be an expansion on an article regarding the entire situation in Iraq, not a stand alone article. --Monotonehell 18:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so stubby now. I remember starting the 2006 transatlantic aircraft bombing plot article, and then having it listed in ITN, when it was still quite short. The excitement of editing something that was almost live meant it became reasonably long very quickly. If ITN candidates are to be excluded for length, then a community consensus should be obtained and the criteria made explicit, so stubs aren't wrongly listed as candidates. Mostlyharmless 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not listing stubs is established consensus, the current criteria shouldn't be read in isolation from the rest of the criteria and practice that has been established since. This does make it difficult for editors who haven't been involved in the process for a while to understand. Next week I'm going to re-establish the discussions we had before Christmas about redefining the criteria to include both established proven practice as well as consider the recent change in attitudes as to what ITN is. --Monotonehell 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wasn't aware of the history, but it makes a lot of sense in that context. Could you have a look and tell me whether the length and level of detail is sufficient (given the context of the story), and if there's a threshhold. I'd say that events of high importance should feature even with less detail (although I'm not necessarily suggesting the bombings article fits this criteria) Mostlyharmless 06:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The judgement doesn't have an objective measurement. The question you need to ask yourself is 'does the article give enough background material to inform the average reader?' The idea of ITN is to give much more background information to items in the media spotlight than the media generally gives. So a brief article that reads much like a news report is not ideal, nor is a dry list of statistics. The article should give background to the situation, history, key players, that kind of thing. The concept is Jill Everyday sees X in the news and wants to know more about it. Where do you go? An encyclopedia. --Monotonehell 11:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 12

First brought up on February 7, but now there is a verdict: "Former Red Army Faction member Brigitte Mohnhaupt is released early from prison, almost 30 years after the 1977 German Autumn." AecisBrievenbus 11:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, interesting story, defintely worthy of main page inclusion. Have just checked a few major online news outlets and all of them have at least a mention of her release on their front page. May i suggest removing the Baghdad truck bombing from the main page to mae way for this, as that would give a nice flavor and variety to ITN. Thethinredline 11:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now that there's resolution it can go onto ITN. --- BTW this whole "let's remove such and such and replace it with this and that" attitude of late is not how ITN is supposed to work. Items should be added to the top of the list and drop off the bottom in a natural and non-subjective manner. The Iraq item and the Climate change item will slide off the main page when two more items are added to the top. --Monotonehell 12:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the word "former" to the blurb proposal, since the RAF has been disbanded. AecisBrievenbus 12:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Item put up, but I'm not quite happy about the wording. It says that she is released early from prison, but she hasn't been released yet. A court has ruled that she will be. "Former Red Army Faction member Brigitte Mohnhaupt will be released early from prison..." doesn't read very well. Perhaps it should say "A court in Germany rules that 'former Red Army Faction member Brigitte Mohnhaupt will be released early from prison, almost 30 years after the 1977 German Autumn? AecisBrievenbus 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 11

 
Anja Pärsson
I'd say NOW she is. However the bolded link should be Anja Pärson as the other articles have no prose - tables of results aren't background information enough for ITN. Her article on the other hand has a bit of background info. --Monotonehell 19:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support. Especially a day when ITN includes two bomb related items. Bondkaka 22:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted.--Pharos 00:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm haveing second thoughts... Slalom and Giant Slalom (the two other areas of competition) don't count?--Pharos 01:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anja Pärson has become the first person to have won all five titles in her career. See the infobox in her article. Noone has ever won all five medals in one championship. AecisBrievenbus 01:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The topic was already on the main page. Why put it back on? I mean, what's the point. The results are similar to the previous results. --Crna Gora 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, these are the news; I already noted that nothing large changed, but it's the news; those previous results were only preliminary, and thus unofficial; essentially worthless - these are the only that count (the 3-month deadline starts now). So there would be nothing "putting back on", since since its actually a news. --PaxEquilibrium 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In The News is not a news ticker, ITN provides substantial encyclopedic background information to subjects that are currently in the international news. If the first results were unverified the item shouldn't have appeared the first time. There's not been a substantial edit to that page since, there's no more background information to the event, other than the counts. It's not really the kind of item that ITN is about. --Monotonehell 15:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This one's too lean on the actual verifiable information stakes. Reading the links, it's more of an aside to an article about the devices than an actual topic in itself. --Monotonehell 19:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 10

Barack Obama
Barack Obama
Same as with Hillary Clinton a few weeks ago: he has only announced that he will be one of the candidates to become one of the candidates for the elections. I don't think that's enough for ITN. AecisBrievenbus 18:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If and when either Hillary or Barack obtain the office of president, then having either a woman or a "minority" in office would very much be ITN worthy. (Yes I'm on first name terms with both them ;) --Monotonehell 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, the US president election is ITN worthy by itself. 203.109.174.60 07:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion in ITN. Announcements by notable candidates such as Rudy, Hillary, and Barack are plenty enough for ITN. The rationale against inclusion when Hillary came up, when Rudy came up, and now for Barack, seems very thin. Opposition to Hillary's announcement making ITN was composed of Aecis and one anon IP editor, it looks. I would further posit that it is more notable than the days-old letter bombing and truck bombing currently listed in ITN; it qualifies in every way for inclusion by the criteria, as did announcements by Rudy and Hillary, and not including them was a mistake. I don't see a coherent reason behind the "oppose" votes at Hillary's ITN candidacy, and I'd like to see a better explanation this time around. Italiavivi 19:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three edit conflicts later... An announcement of candidacy isn't of international importance, nor interest. But if elected it would be. --Monotonehell 20:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An announcement of candidacy for President of the United States is of just as much, if not more, international importance and interest than letter bombs and violence in Iraq. In support of my position, Obama's announcement is currently the BBC's main story. I am reading the seven criteria for ITN inclusion, and each guideline is fully met by Obama's (and Clinton's, and Rudy's) announcements. Italiavivi 20:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's around 50 candidates and potential candidates for this election. If we mention one on the front page we'd have to mention them all. The process to actually get listed is a long and complex one, with many candidates dropping out, dropping in etc etc. To mention any person at this time would be out of an encyclopedia's scope (WP is not a crystal ball). Perhaps when the absolute final list of people who are actually on the ballot is announced then perhaps we could mention them all (both?). But at this stage any mention on the main page of any candidate could be interpreted as endorsement by WP. --Monotonehell 20:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, Monotonehell, I agree wholeheartedly;I was just about to make that point.--Pharos 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, are you or are you not conceding that the announcement itself does in fact qualify for ITN inclusion per ITN's criteria? Secondly, your slippery slope argument aside, are you still denying that this candidate's announcement in particular is of both international importance and significance? Thirdly, the notion that mentioning a candidate's announcement of candidacy for President of the United States in ITN would be interpreted as endorsement is absurd. It's like saying CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and France's Le Monde could be mistaken as endorsing Obama due to their all having his announcement as their main story.
Notable candidates' announcements appearing in ITN in no way violates WP:NOT (a crystal ball) when the announcements are noted for what they are. Italiavivi 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my first statement that this is not of international importance or interest, in an encylopedia. This is the fodder of wikinews. Blow by blow accounts are not what ITN is about. We are to give background to subjects currently in the news, a simple statement of candidacy is not a substantial enough addition to an article to warrant a front page mention.
I also stand by my assertion of endorsement. It's a mention one, mention all situation. Otherwise POV issues arise.--Monotonehell 20:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above: I will probably endorse putting up the official candidate for either party, when they become known. These two candidates for the two dominant parties will definitely influence and define the way the campaign is waged, and the American presidential campaign definitely is notable and relevant. But an announcement of a candidacy for this candidacy imo is not enough. AecisBrievenbus 21:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with Aecis. I could not have possibly said it better myself. Next year, when we have actual party nominees, put them up, but don't put up any of the dozens of candidates, no matter how notable an individual candidate may be. -- Kicking222 21:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that sentiment. Boiling down to final candidates from each major party would cross the threshold, until then, nada. The Tom 22:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

 
Anja Pärsson

February 8

Is there a single article on the move toward unity? --Monotonehell 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of, although its related to the [Hamas-Fatah conflict] as well as things like general governance about Palenstine etc. (Madrone 00:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Well if we can find an article that gives the background and discusses this new development then I think it's a go. Otherwise it doesn't meet the purpose of ITN. --Monotonehell 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was almost tempted to say yes, possibly because I'm only just hearing the news on the TV right this second. But I don't think she does...
5. A death should only be placed on ITN if it meets one of the following criteria: (a) the deceased was in a high ranking office of power at the time of death, (b) the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically, (c) the death has a major international impact that affects current events. The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets the third criterion.
The closest one would be (b) but I don't think she would qualify as an "expert in their field". As tragic as the news is. --Monotonehell 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll echo that thumbs-down. The Tom 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but isn't there something going on in the world recently of real note? The Super Bowl has been sitting on top of ITN for ages. -- tariqabjotu 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got a bit of freshness on it. The Tom 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely doesn't meet the criteria IMHO. In fact I would argue Alan MacDiarmid's death was more noteable (flags flew at half-mast for MacDiarmiad for example) even if Smith's death may have received more coverage and Alan's death wasn't that unexpected given his age (although he wasn't AFAIK in poor condition). Neither meet the criteria of course and I don't suggest we add either of them 203.109.240.93 11:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Anna Nicole Smith's death gets on ITN, while Milton Friedman and James Brown had to slog it out (and largely lost) I'll probably never have faith in Wikipedia again. But she so clearly doesn't satisfy the criteria (unless being Playmate of the Year makes you an expert in the field of being attractive or something). Two thumbs way down on this. Thethinredline 12:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Alan MacDiarmid being a recent Nobel winner was an expert in his field and although he was 80 he was still teaching about 5 years ago. So I guess it wasn't really "unexpected" but if ITN ever leans toward obituaries that's the kind that I'd see in, as opposed to Smith. --Monotonehell 12:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A death should only be placed on ITN if it meets one of the following criteria: (a) the deceased was in a high ranking office of power at the time of death, (b) the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically, (c) the death has a major international impact that affects current events. The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets the third criterion.

I believe she qualifies. She certainly was a key figure in the modeling industry. She probably was the richest. She had also had a case reach the supreme court. And her death is very tragic. As for part (c) she has had an effect on eBay and eBay is international. (how do you like that logic, lol) Anyways, her wikipage has been edited heavily and the ramifications, legally, of her death are still not known. I heartily believe she should be added to the ITN. Preferably replacing the super bowl stuff. --Lincoln F. Stern 20:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, CNN said on live feed that the baby is still in Bermuda. and Bermuda is a UK thingy. --Lincoln F. Stern 20:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Lincoln, you feel she qualifies under which criterion? B or C? Thethinredline 11:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the guideline should be modified to include death reports of "notable" celebrities (or otherwise "famous people") in the case of wide and international coverage. I'm disappointed by the above comment about how even James Brown didn't get mentioned. Wikipedia shouldn't be snooty in its selection or definition of news for the ITN template, so perhaps the guidelines needs to be modified to allow the inclusion of "notable deaths". I can see how this might be open to abuse (of course not everyone "notable" who dies should be mentioned) but it seems awfully narrow to limit it to mainly political figures. Ekantik talk 01:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just restate that I'm firm in my belief that Smith doesn't meet (b) by the present guidelines, and such a distinction is appropriate. FWIW, criteria (a) exists because the sudden and unexpected vacancy of high-ranking offices is a notable ramification in and of itself. The Tom 02:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholeheartedly with the alterations to the guideline proposed above by Ekantik. I have long thought that this policy restricts ITN to the scientific / political realm, while making it difficult for notable deaths in the artistic / cultural / entertainment fields to qualify for inclusion. After all, this section is titled "In The News," and Anna Nicole Smith's death is undoubtedly in the news around the world. If we are going to apply such a rigid criteria to every death, then perhaps the section title should be changed to something like Selected Headlines, Which May or May Not Reflect What Is Actually Making Global News--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 02:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Vints 15:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think Nicole's death is incredibly notable, the ITN criteria disputes have made ITN so conservative (as in non-updating) that half our ITN entries right now are no longer in the news! The Super Bowl was on there for a week, when it wasn't in the news anywhere except maybe on ESPN and some local Indianapolis news channel. The Italian football thing is old news (it could theoretically be updated to read "limited play has restarted", but still... -newkai t-c 22:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

A link to an article that has received significant updates due to the event needs to be bolded within the sentence. -- tariqabjotu 10:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is less than a stub. Not really enough to provide the kind of background an ITN item requires. --Monotonehell 11:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now posted. It's grown in the interim to a level that I think it just ducks in under the substantiveness wire. Admittedly, said wire is somewhat contingent on the general staleness of the template over the last few days. The Tom 22:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - on staleness and almost not-stubbyness. --Monotonehell 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 2007 United Kingdom letter bombs article is a bit too short for a Main Page appearance. -- tariqabjotu 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd agree - but the template is suffering from no new news (is that good news? lol). --Monotonehell 23:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty substantial article, though, and this does effectively mark that whole particular story coming to a conclusion, so I suppose we could let it by in a bit of a push. I've posted it, worded slightly differently. Mostly glad we get a nice PD image of Balkenende to post. Harry Potter indeed. 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-- (This is big news in Germany and the English article has been slightly updated during the last few days [9]. The New York Times has (Feb 7) a front page article about her petition and the anniversary of the terrorist group etc.) nom by Camptown 09:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is notable enough. Maybe if she is pardoned it should go up, but not mere consideration of a pardon. Mikker (...) 10:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right. I think, though, that this news miight acutally be more notable in the uprun to the release, than after. Probalby, thats why NYT chose to put the news on its front page. This is a phenomenon that usually occurs when countries go to the polls, where the campaigns are considered more notedable than the outcome of the elections. Camptown 12:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, she's being released on probations. See [10]. RHB Talk - Edits 12:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal has been brought up on today's list (February 12). See above. AecisBrievenbus 13:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 6

The above text was added between 19:06 and 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC) by Osgoodelawyer without any discussion on this page. Why? Also, it would help to wikify "astronaut".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been removed. Wikipedia is not a news service. —Cuiviénen 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur; the item does not belong regardless of the attention it has received in some parts of the world. -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi gunmen dressed in military uniforms kidnapped an Iranian envoy on February 6, 2007 as he drove through central Baghdad, with the Iraqi government stating that the abduction occurred at the hands of a special army unit that reports directly to the US military command. Iran's Foreign Ministry has condemned the kidnapping and pins the blame on the US, while American military officials deny any knowledge of the event. [11] [12]

Updated article: Iran international crisis#Iranian envoy kidnapped by Iraqi gunmen.

From the article you linked (Forbes) it looks like the Iraqi government source said that on SUNDAY the diplomat was Detained by US forces. However the kidnapping occured on TUESDAY. The way its worded omits that and makes it sound like the Iraqi source was for sure putting blame at the US, instead of saying there was a connection that occured prior. - Its important in situations like these to not engage in yellow journalism and jump to conclusions and misconstrue events. - Hey it might be true that the US was behind it, but lets wait until more facts are out... (Madrone 17:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

February 5

 
Boris Berezovsky

February 4

Iranian Nuclear Scientists murdered by Israeli Intelligence Agency

I propose the following news which still hasnt hit the mainstream media, except for the Sunday Times. It may be the first step toward an escalation of a war:

[13][14][www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1773860/posts][15]

Please consider.--Zereshk 00:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines on this page.. Where is the updated article?? JACOPLANE • 2007-02-5 00:09
The main updated article is at Nuclear program of Iran (listed at Portal:Current events#Ongoing), and other articles reflecting the updates are at Iran and weapons of mass destruction, Plans for strikes against the Iranian nuclear program, and Ardeshir Hosseinpour.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When the war starts maybe. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.Geni 02:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing the updated articles, Jeff G. I agree with Geni that any speculation about what this may portend is out of bounds, but I think this might meet the criteria. That said, I'm concerned about wording. The Sunday Times article is careful not to state unequivocally that the Mossad was responsible, and we should be as well. Perhaps something like:

Private intelligence agency Stratfor reports that Ardeshir Hosseinpour, a scientist involved in the Iranian nuclear program, was killed by the Mossad.

Opinions? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that, I mean that I approve your language, Josiah Rowe, and thanks for taking the time to review the new information. By the way, there are currently 6 bullets on ITN, there should only be 3-5 per the first sentence of Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page#Criteria_for_adding_entries.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added, and old entries removed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin add "Israeli" before "Mossad"? --Howard the Duck 06:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there another Mossad? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone knows what a "Mossad" is. --Howard the Duck 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those who don't know what it is can click on the link. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One report from Stratfor -- whose evidence for the claim only Stratfor subscribers can read -- seems rather thin substantiation for a claim of this nature to be placed on Wikipedia's front page. Verified: the guy died... but the article itself mentions a number of potential and alleged causes that are ultimately outside Wikipedia's ability to independently verify and endorse. I think it would be better removed from ITN. 61.7.3.219 23:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things featured in the front page should be more confirmed, imo, not something that is suspected, unless of course the person making the accusation is newsworthy. (IE if Iran accused Israel of assinating its Nuclear scienctists, that should go to the front page, but not this imo, (Madrone 23:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I couldn't agree with you more; I have removed it. -- tariqabjotu 00:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing this. One report by an intelligence website (even a highly regarded intelligence website) does not an assassination conspiracy make. There is a reason this has been avoided by the "mainstream media".--Pharos 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be added back in for the following reasons:
  1. Here is the original Stratfor report which cites "sources close to Israeli intelligence."
  2. A similar pattern of assassinations occured prior to Israeli strikes on Iraq's nuclear program, read the original Stratfor report.
  3. Pharos is misinformed that it has been ignored by mainstream media. It has been covered by Fox News [16], all three major Israeli English papers (see [17], [18], and [19]) as well as the UK's Sunday Times.
--64.230.120.79 01:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Wikipedia and "In the news" are not a newspaper. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Unsubstantiated claims have no place in an encyclopedia. If you want this item featured as news go to wikinews.
Secondly, I could see this being featured in ITN if, there exists a verified and properly sourced article on Wikipedia that discusses the whole situation (not just this sole claim but the history mentioned above) that can be pointed to and the item is reworded to read something akin to: "Allegations of assassination add further to speculation about blah blah..." BUT this article would have to be of an exemplary quality standard. --Monotonehell 11:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl XLI

Since this is one of the largest sporting events around the world (at least TV wise), shouldn't it be mentioned on the front page today? I think it should. --RobNS 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

I say no. The NFL is a national championship, in a sport that only has a following in one country (well, maybe Germany too) and whose players by and large all hail from that country. This is an event of local, rather than international significance. Borisblue 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to this one, since the Super Bowl afaik is the biggest one-day sporting event in the world. However, the blurb should go beyond the simple sports ticker blurb "A beats B to win X." So this is probably a provisional endorse. AecisBrievenbus 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the Champions League is bigger :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. not global enough at all. A domestic tournament. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a European with no interest in American Football whatsoever, I say we include it since it's the largest sporting event in the world after the World Cup (real football) and the olympics. JACOPLANE • 2007-02-4 23:18
Biggest sporting event in North America, one of the biggest sporting events in the world, and the highest level Football championship. Support once the game is over. Preston 00:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line is that this event is being broadcast in close to 200 countries (including Russia and PRC). It's of course mainly an American thing, but it's a one time sports event that seems to get a worldwide audience. The rest of the time, few people outside the USA (and even many in the USA), care that much about the NFL. However, the celebrities and famous commercials make this an event worth noting. Check out our own wiki page here Super Bowl XLI. --RobNS 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I see it like he World Cup/World Championship of American football. So you'd mean that the World Bowl is bigger? Now that's something... --Howard the Duck 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been added, well done people!--RobNS 01:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support it being added, but not like, right now. :p --Howard the Duck 01:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Howard, the game will be over very soon, as it's nearing the end of the third quarter. Now we can move on to bigger things, like wiki vandalism and climate change. I think you are just upset because you are a Green Bay Packers fan  ;-).--RobNS 01:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not because of that (OK, partly because of that :p) but the U.S.-bias people will flood every available page screaming "U.S. BIAS!!!" since the game's not finished yet, not to mention the comments above. --Howard the Duck 02:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be added once the game is actually over. Not news that it's simply being played at the moment. Let's not bicker over this yet again, we've added Super Bowl / World Series games before many times, biggest US sports news stories of the year. "Super Bowl" gets 66k results on google news, "Roger Federer" gets 12k, just for what it's worth. --W.marsh 02:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colts win. Can it be posted? --Howard the Duck 02:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just has been. --W.marsh 03:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ay once it is over replace that tennis thing with superbowl.Geni 02:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add Peyton Manning being named the MVP and/or Tony Dungy being the first African-American head coach to win the Super Bowl. Preston 03:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point: It's just "Dolphin Stadium," not "the Dolphin Stadium." Here's my proposed wording:
The Indianapolis Colts beat the Chicago Bears 29–17 in Super Bowl XLI. Peyton Manning is named MVP.
I think it is a complete and utter joke that the Super Bowl is In The News. It is of significance in one country. So what if it is shown in x many countries. It was shown in the United Kingdom, but I bet you could still count the amount of people there that actually watched it on one hand. This is a complete joke. Codu (t)⁄(c) •  14:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think complete and utter joke is an extraordinary exaggeration. The event was shown in two hundred countries around the world and although you may not care much for the Super Bowl, the international audience certainly could not be counted on one hand. -- tariqabjotu 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say it was shown in 200 countries. Maybe it was, but I'd bet my arm the majority of people watching it outside the US were American Nationals living outside the US. I stand by my "complete and utter joke" statement. Codu (t)⁄(c) •  20:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how the Superbowl, is less worthy of "in the news" than Italy closing down futbol (soccer) for a few days. Not that I think it should be removed, just think people are resent the fact that its American, not that its not worthy of being ITN. - However Superbowl was on Sunday, its Thursday, should be replaced pretty soon (User:Madrone 08:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
And it will be, as soon as someone suggests an appropriate candidate. --Monotonehell 21:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 World Men's Handball Championship

  • Germany beat Poland 29:24 in the finale of the 2007 World Men's Handball Championship, becoming new world champion in handball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Zimmermann (talk • contribs)
    • I would oppose this one. While the event obviously is notable in handball, and while handball is obviously a big sport in some countries, neither the event nor the sport are notable enough for ITN. AecisBrievenbus 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I see your point in that there are some countries in which handball isn't that popular. However, this is about the world championship with participating countries from all over the world. – With your argumentation, Federer's win of the Australian open shouldn't have made it into ITN, because it's just a regional tournament and Tennis lost much of its appeal as a broad sport in many countries. - So, of course I support my suggestion here. :-) Cheers, MikeZ 17:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the case of handball, it's probably a large part of the world. That's not a problem though, tiny sports can be wonderful. But ITN is not a news ticker or a sports ticker. AecisBrievenbus 18:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I don't like your exaggerating comparison of handball with floorball, but I completely agree that ITN is not a sports ticker. However, we are not talking about the everyday's result of some game in a league of some arbitrary sport, here we are talking about the world championship, in a major sport that's part of the Olympics (so much about floorball). If the Australian open made it into ITN, this news is at least as much justified as well to get into. MikeZ 18:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't worry, I only used floorball as an example because that's the sport I play and love. I never meant to compare handball and floorball in size, since handball is infinitely more popular. AecisBrievenbus 18:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its just full of tables, there's not enough prose. --Howard the Duck 12:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

This shows the phrase "violent clashes between police and demonstrators" is completely inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davdavid (talk • contribs)

  • Suggested correction to current "In the News" The blurb on the strike in Guniea suffers from a POV error or journalistic style oddity that is common in US media, but rare in the rest of the English speaking world. Its says "violent clashes between police and demonstrators" leaving a disingenuous impression that both parties are equally responsible in initiating and maintaining altercations. This ambiguous phrasing is often used when no reporters were on hand to confirm actual events, but it is a sloppy style of reporting and should not be taken up in Wikinews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davdavid (talk • contribs)
  • Outbreak of the deadly strain of avian flu, H5N1, is confirmed at a Bernard Matthews turkey farm in Holton, in Suffolk. It has been confirmed that over 150,000 turkeys have been affected and will have to be culled. (BBC)

At least 102 people have been killed and 215 injured in a truck bombing at a market place in Baghdad, Iraq. (BBC) --Edcolins 16:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The deadliest single bombing in 2007 it seems. Still needs an article though, I know. --Edcolins 16:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article created. Seems to be a significant event. Any opinion? --Edcolins 16:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think truck might be better than lorry. Also, Baghdad is spelled incorrectly. -- tariqabjotu 16:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done. --Edcolins 16:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll go ahead. Anyone opposing? --Edcolins 17:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Edcolins 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested that a cropped copy of Image:Sadriyadistrictbombings.jpg could accompany this story, but I realize that might be controversial and I don't have time to do it myself right now. Discussion at Template talk:In the news#Image suggestion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

All Italian football matches are blocked amid match-related violence in Catania, Italy. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it hits the criteria... --Monotonehell 14:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The news is featured in almost all major world news, including BBC [20], CBC [21] and CNN [22]. I think it's good enough for a spot in the main page. --Angelo 18:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why hasn't anyone added this piece of news to the template yet? --Daĉjoпочта 18:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because nobody had gotten around to it yet. It's added now (with slightly tweaked wording). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Daĉjoпочта 00:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is out of date. Italian football has restarted on a limited interim basis- see e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6352301.stm Badgerpatrol 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

I'm putting this up for discussion, because I'm of two minds here: on the one hand, the report meets all the ITN criteria, and is an obvious candidate, and all the linked articles have been updated (by me). On the other hand, the actual report isn't scheduled to be released/published until tomorrow (February 2), and it's just possible (although extremely unlikely) that the wording of the published report could change. The BBC report which I've used as a citation in the updates seems to say "this is the final report", so it's not really crystal-balling — but since the formal publication date is tomorrow, I can see how others might view it that way. Although I think it's a good candidate, I'll go with whatever consensus develops here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly four hours and no comments, so I'll risk it. (It's February 2 in UTC and in Paris, where the IPCC is meeting and where the report is being published anyway.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's on BBC, so it's "In The News". I'm okay with it. --PFHLai 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops ! We forgot about ITN Guideline #1. Now it's okay. Someone has just posted it on Portal:Current events. --PFHLai 13:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is proven responsible for anything bad yet, so I'll pass for now. Speculations by some unnamed US officials shouldn't be on MainPage, IMO. --PFHLai 00:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2007&oldid=1136451745"