Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 27

Hidden comments

I was commenting on an issue and it occured to me that in future if we come to some consensus on the wording or timing for a definite future event, may it be wise to include it in a hidden comment a few days or hours before the event? I can't recall, we may have done this with Obama, but it seems a wise thing to do for most events where we have some clear consensus to me, since it's common we can come to some consensus or ideal wording only to have it thrown out the window when some drive by admin comes and adds the event when it actually happens. Nil Einne (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Status of death criteria

It's now been almost exactly two years since Ingmar Bergman died. Mention of his death was rather inexplicably refused after some fairly bizarre argumentation over inclusion criteria. Since since I noticed that Corazon Aquino became the top entry for today's ITN, I'd like to make an inquiry about the current inclusion criteria for the deaths of notable persons.

If for argument's sake some cultural giant like Bergman died tomorrow and the death wasn't overshadowed by a dozen other important events, would it make ITN or not?

Peter ^Isotalo 09:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading the three criterion of the current version of WP:ITNMP#Deaths, I believe there was consensus that Corazon Aquino qaulified because she "was in a high ranking office of power, and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region" since, for example, she was Asia's first female president. As for the question if Ingmar Bergman died today, the only one that would come close would, IMO, be that he "was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such", but that might also be debatable. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no valid reason for ranking Aquino considerably higher on the notability scale than Bergman other than if you automatically consider political influence more important than culturual influence. The criteria appear to be rather biased towards political influence while effectively barring the death of just about any cultural icon. If Pablo Picasso or Virginia Woolf died today someone would probably have gotten away with rules lawyering them out of ITN just because of how the current criteria are worded.

Just to check where we stand: has the death of any non-political figures except Michael Jackson and maybe Pope John Paul II made ITN?

Peter ^Isotalo 16:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the tricky thing about the cultural influence is that it is something very difficult to measure or define. Of course, Ingmar Bergman is a name that should be familiar to anyone who knows anything about old European films. But where do we draw the line? How about Jean-Luc Godard? Alain Resnais? Ken Russell? On the other hand, the head of state thing is not something they can easily argue about.

Let's say we decide to include film directors. What's the standard? The only one possibility that comes to my mind is award winners, but even the Palme d'Or winners are too numerous and include such figures like David Lynch, whose death will never make it to ITN. If you can come up with some definite standard, I am willing to listen (I can't speak for others though). --BorgQueen (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The section's purpose is to link to Wikipedia articles that have been newly created or substantially updated to reflect current/recent events.

Most deaths of famous persons, unless occurring under extraordinary circumstances, result in no prompt article updates beyond those simply indicating that the individual died, when and where he/she died, and possibly the cause of death.

Conversely, when a political or religious leader dies, this typically results in noteworthy memorial events and responses from prominent figures around the world. In the case of Corazon Aquino, "all Roman Catholic dioceses had started requiem masses for Aquino," "the government declared a week of mourning for her death," and public statements have been issued by Joseph Estrada, Juan Ponce Enrile, Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., Hillary Rodham Clinton and Robert Gibbs.

Compare this to Ingmar Bergman's article, which informed us that Bergman "died peacefully at his home on Fårö, in the early morning of July 30, 2007, age 89."

Do you honestly not recognize the distinction? —David Levy 17:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To emphasise David's point, this is also why we have the unexpected death part. If a relatively famous person dies a 'normal' or ordinary death, e.g. of old age, there's the similar issue of not being much to write about. If it's an unexpect death, there will often be a lot more to write about. To use an example, if JK Rowling was murdered by a deranged Harry-Hermione shipper tomorrow there's going to be a lot more to write about her death then if 50 years from now she dies after a long battle with cancer. To some extent, it also IMHO has to do with how notable the death itself is. Coming back to the JK Rowling case, in the first example, people will still look on he death as a said event, cutting down a brillant author in her prime. Even if it's a car accident for example. In the second case, people are going to remember (well depending on how her life proceeds) a brillant author with many notable works. They're not going to think much about her death. Going back to the earlier issue, there are a lot of more complicated cases, particularly with national icons. Luciano Pavarotti and Edmund Hillary both had public funerals attended by their national leaders and others and this is partially reflects in their articles. Neither of these lasted on ITN.

BTW, I don't personally believe all political leaders belong on ITN. But if you think of Corazon Aquino as just another leader, to be blunt you have no idea what your talking about. She lead her country out of someone widely considered autocractic dictator and was frequently mentioned as a champion or icon of democracy. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail in Malaysia for example has been compared to her. And political leaders, particular one who lead at such a key time as her, are unsurprisingly usually considered to be a key part of what their country is today (whether in a good or bad way, in her case largely good I expect). I suspect there are many who think the Phillipines would not be what it is today, without her. (Would HtD be editing wikipedia?) Political leaders can make their country great, or bring them to the brink. Cultural and other icons, while they can have an immense effect on the world with their works, and can also have a great positive effect in their charity work, are not generally considered in the same steed. While I'm sure many would argue if MJ never lived, the world would be worse of culturally, far fewer would argue that some countries could now likely be very different then they they are now.

In other words, there's a reason why Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, Stalin and Hitler will always be remembered in a very different way from Beethoven or Leonardo Da Vinci. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Different" is the key word here, not necesarily "more important". Focusing on fame through political achievements is still a conscious, if comfortable, choice. Even though the current guidelines explicitly allow for the death of non-politicians to be featured, it seems to be a bit too easy to refuse other requests when they are suggested. So while Aquino isn't "just another leader" (which I don't recall anyone claiming in the first place), any cultural figure who isn't Michael Jackson is indirectly categorized as being just that. Bergman's death was uneventful, but still got headlines (someone back in 2007 mentioned considerable frontpage coverage in the New York Times), and not just from the perspective of people thinking fondly about all the "old European films" he made. A question that is nagging me right now is: would even someone as famous as MJ have made it to ITN at all if hadn't died an unexpected death? So I ask again, do we have any other examples of deceased cultural icons making it on ITN? If not, it seems as if we could just as well be blunt and remove criteria #2 for deaths altogether.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bergman's death made headlines. And if Wikipedia were a news outlet, it would have done so here.

You said it yourself; "different" is the key word here, not necessarily "more important." The death of a political/religious leader differs from most other notable people's deaths in the respect that its aftermath leads us to substantially update the deceased individual's Wikipedia article. You aren't addressing that point. —David Levy 23:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to make Bergman the only case to argue here. I agree that the updating of Bergman's article concerning his death wasn't particularly satisfying, even if I would hesitate to call it insignificant.[1] To me it was mostly an interesting example of a leading figure in film that could have expected a bit more leeway. That certain topics simply don't get immidiate attention despite being of very high notability is of course not the fault of ITN, but that they are consistently argued against by referring to irrelevant and/or bureaucratic nitpicking is.

A reasonable amount of updating didn't allow either Luciano Pavarotti or Edmund Hillary to get on ITN and when James Brown got on the list, the article was removed in just over an hour. I know that the "unexpected and tragic" criteria that are now removed were technically against these nominations, but when I looked at the dicussions and compared with the updates they did receive, I get the distinct feeling that the bias towards political fame over other achievements was very real. That a legend like Brown was denied while Saparmurat Niyazov appeared to be a given choice looks nothing short of suspicious. The amount of updating wasn't exactly worlds apart.[2][3] And as far as I can tell, political deaths appear to have always merited more or less automatic inclusion. In the case of Gerald Ford (who died only a few days after Brown) he was put on ITN with the barest minimum of an update.[4] To me that seems almost a bit embarassing because Ford is probably one of the least notable of American presidents of the late 20th century while Brown was something of a world famous cultural icon, and still active right up until his death. Ford's article was properly updated after the inclusion, but one can't help wondering to what extent the ITN listing helped in that department.

But debating over what type of merits is most notable is not my point here. What I'm getting at is that all of this indicates that the resistance to inclusion of non-political deaths is deeply ingrained in ITN. So the next time a notable non-political death gets nominated (even if it's not another MJ), it would be nice if all of you who are running ITN could try to display just a little more flexibility than we've seen so far.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, premature updates sometimes occur. This is part of the same issue, not a mitigating precedent.

2. Also note that it's common for an event that otherwise would qualify for inclusion (under the other criteria) to be omitted because the requisite article update/creation has not occurred. I would argue that this is the section's greatest problem, as it often reflects systemic bias.

3. Your reference to "irrelevant and/or bureaucratic nitpicking" indicates that you either don't understand or don't care about the section's function. We are not operating a news wire. It is not appropriate to include a death on the basis that the deceased individual was a "legend." If we're directing readers to an article that contains little or no significant information about the event beyond what is stated in the blurb (and note that unrelated updates don't count toward this), we're failing to provide the intended service.

4. As I've noted, it's perfectly reasonable to propose that the section's nature be modified (or that a subsection for deaths be created, as I previously suggested). But at the moment, you're simply ignoring the current format because you dislike it. —David Levy 12:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would you say that I'm ignoring these things? It's just uncalled for. I've understood perfectly well that ITN requires featured articles to be updated and I commented that very fact in the previous post. What I'm saying is that I believe that the requirements might have been applied excessively stringent at times, and that I think it might have actually served to make systemic bias worse without it actually being necessary. It's not an attempt to play out the ignore all rules-card, just a complaint about implementation. I simply don't see exactly what you're seeing in those criteria. Changing them might be the best solution to this, but it might also be a good idea to look over exactly whose interpretations you're acting on and defending so vigorously.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You've acknowledged the article update requirement, but you've downplayed it (by arguing that we should settle for edits far below the consensus threshold and citing edits that are unrelated to the individual's death) and opined that we should set aside or significantly relax the requirement to accommodate the inclusion of a "legend."

All of this reflects your belief that when it comes to deaths, ITN should serve as an obituary section for persons who achieved great cultural impact in life. And I'm not saying that this is an unreasonable position. But it doesn't reflect the section's current format.

You certainly are entitled to challenge this interpretation, but please realize that it isn't mine alone; this issue has been raised many times, and the outcome has never changed. The only discussions in which ideas to modify the section have gained any traction have been those in which change was actively proposed, not those in which editors disputed the section's current nature.

In other words, if you can simply accept that the section isn't what you want it to be, you might have a chance of convincing the community to make it more like what you want it to be. But arguing that it already is what you want it to be (and that claims to the contrary amount to "irrelevant and/or bureaucratic nitpicking") probably won't get you very far. —David Levy 20:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Les Paul's death making it to ITN with only this "Death"-section update makes our discussion a bit more interesting. In the light of this, do you still believe that what you've said to me in this discussion about current consensus on deaths in ITN is valid?

Peter ^Isotalo 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Les Paul clearly was a very important figure in his field of expertise, and the article was updated to include information about his death's impact (as I requested at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#ITN candidates for August 13). Where is the contradiction? —David Levy 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Throughout this discussion, I got the impression that for recent deaths, especially non-political ones, substantial updating was required. But if the absolute minimum (a few sentences on the circumstances of death and a some condolences from notable colleagues) is all that's required to get someone like Les Paul on ITN, then I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Les Paul, the fact of tributes being paid seems to have been taken as out-weighing the fact that he does not apparently meet the usual death criteria of unexpected death of somebody still active in their field of expertise, whose death affects progress or enactment of that field. The death of any notable figure will elicit such comments from colleagues and public figures: I'm sure that many plaudits have been paid in the last few hours to Florin Bogardo, Jim Dickinson and Shūe Matsubayash: that cannot overrule the agreed criteria. Kevin McE (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay, that makes a bit more sense.

However, why would how a person died be relevant in any case? That criterium appears to have been thrown out with the old criteria. As for whether the deceased should have been active or not at all, I can't find anything.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The insistence that "The section's purpose is to link to Wikipedia articles that have been newly created or substantially updated" seems to me to be a mandate for recentism. I am assuming that no-one will doubt that the death of Elizabeth II will merit a mention in ITN, but it is likely to be of an unspectacular, age related illness. So exactly what substantial update will be appropriate, that will not be pure recentism? There will be lots of comments from dignitaries, but I would really contest that they would be encyclopaedic in any meaningful way: we could write now the type of quote that will be churned out; most of the soundbites have probably already been written and are ready to push into the hands of various world leaders. So what "substantial update" will we be left with? A wait of a week or more will be necessary if we are to wait until a state funeral takes place: interim comments on the planning of such a ceremony is unlikely to be of lasting encyclopaedic relevance. I would suggest that this requirement will either be ignored, or will encourage unencyclopaedic damage to the article. So what is the benefit of a requirement that has such effect? Kevin McE (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to formally propose that ITN's format be changed. Until then, the section's purpose is to link to Wikipedia articles that have been newly created or substantially updated to reflect current/recent events. (This is a "mandate for recentism" in much the same way that the section directly below it is a mandate for non-recentism.)

Alternatively, perhaps we should revive the proposal to handle deaths separately. —David Levy 10:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested format change

Hi folks, I created a sandbox example for this proposal. The changes are relatively simple:

1. Links to Wikinews (when available).
2. Use of a customized {{*mp}} template, located at {{*Itn}}.
3. (optional) Dates alongside the listing (note: this can be included in the proposal or not... I'm not at all attached to the dates being added to the listing. I noticed that they're being included anyway is all, so I threw them into the *Itn template.)

Feel free to muck around with the sandbox if you'd like, I just now threw it together for this proposal so I'm not particularly attached to the overall formatting or anything. The main point of this proposal is linking wikinews.
— V = I * R (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be an unnecessary waste of precious MP space. Wikinews is already linked at the bottom, and that should be sufficient. We don't have to provide a Wikinews link to every single item, it is just a sister project. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. No wonder ITN is considered to be actual news rather than what's in it as the title says. I like the date thing though but maybe that's just my first opinion on seeing it and it won't prove worth pursuing but who knows... --candle•wicke 19:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The dates do look useful (though I'd abbreviate the month names, eg. Aug 23), but we'd inevitably have arguments over month-first or day-first. The wikinews links are just clutter. Modest Genius ^talk 11:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Move item on Rafael Correa to the top, so that it is beside his picture

As it is now, at first glance, it appears as if the picture belongs with the top item about Gregoire Ndahimana. I think moving the Rafael Correa item to the top would be more clear, and the Gregoire one is not harmed by being placed second in the list. Kavri (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 14:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mauritania

Can someone check 2009 Nouakchott suicide bombing for consensus again under August 8? I'm not really sure what else can be done for this one to be posted but maybe I can help if anyone has any suggestions. --candle•wicke 21:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, but if that suicide bomber does go to the place all suicide bombers go after death, he'll be ridiculed for eternity for killing no one other than himself. –Howard the Duck 10:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Could an image of Yousaf Raza Gillani be posted? The present photo refers to something quite far down the list.  Cargoking  talk  23:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 02:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A picture of Usain Bolt is much more appropriate than one of a boring politician. Especially after this historic world record. --84.227.168.188 (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

He broke his own record. Again. This is admirable of course but don't get carried away with the news headlines. --candle•wicke 19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he did break it by a big deal. Last time it was 1/100th of a second, now it's almost 1/10th. –Howard the Duck 07:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Romania crash punctuation

I've got fed up of seeing the bad punctuation lying on the front page for days.

"Romania's deadliest road accident for fifteen years, a bus and train collision, kills at least 13 people in Scânteia, Iaşi County." There should be no comma after "collision", and the comma after "years" should be a colon. Alternatively, keep the years comma but add "In" to the start of the sentence. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noticing. --Tone 09:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It was absolutely fine, now it is badly punctuated. Enclosing "a bus and train collision" in parenthetical commas means that the clause should be able to be removed from the sentence without changing its meaning; it should be clear to most that the sentence would be left without a subject for the verb kills. Put it back as it was. Kevin McE (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrator to-do list

2009 BWF World Championships, ready to post I think. --candle•wicke 19:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And it looks like Mexico–Uruguay relations has been waiting for 16+ hours as well... --candle•wicke 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also going to clarify that it is OK to ass the 2009 BWF World Championships to WP:ITNR as the badminton entry? --candle•wicke 19:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And there has just been a complaint about Y.E. Yang's absence from the Main Page. --candle•wicke 20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And if anyone sees all this it might be worthwhile to sort out this error as well. :) --candle•wicke 20:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And check the August 2009 Egyptian hostage escape nomination before it gets too old as well. --candle•wicke 20:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, oppose and update 2009 Kuwait wedding fire which is now apparently arson. --candle•wicke 23:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Another request for the golf entry to be added. --candle•wicke 23:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A misleading error which needs to be fixed. --candle•wicke 00:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification sought so I can tidy up. --candle•wicke 01:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Link needed. --candle•wicke 01:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Another link needed. --candle•wicke 01:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

With all these problems, I think you should go up for adminship. You are nearly always here in time of need, but sit hopelessly waiting for some admin the appear from the darkness.  Cargoking  talk  23:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Gah! This would nearly drive me to that very process! :P But impatience and frustration gets absolutely nobody anywhere (especially here). I feel, in a further irony, the bigger this list gets the more likely no one will want to come near. We'll have the nominations sliding into the archive next. Except who would do the archiving... --candle•wicke 23:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, now several IP vandals are targeting ITN/C. --candle•wicke 23:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

i think the pga championship should be priority since its ITNR. few of the above are already old news :( some of the newer ones have also already been updated and are sitting there -- Ashish-g55 01:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The PGA was eventually added (although, further irony, it produced three more error requests which I added above). I'm hoping they'll deal with the old ones first and not create another situation like the Chinese language one earlier. Do you think I should add a similar list to the top of ITN/C as nobody appears to be checking here either? --candle•wicke 01:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ya go ahead. this page is almost dead. only ppl like us come to it lol -- Ashish-g55 01:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I added an alert notice. It's enough to have to be editing this list without doing it twice as well(!) :D It nearly needs its own template. --candle•wicke 01:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm very glad that you're so enthusiastic about this, Candlewicke; however, as I've said before, not every item that is newsworthy can be posted sometimes. Also, there is far more to adminship than just updating ITN (I know that everyone knows this, but I'm just saying). I'm removing the backlog tag if you don't mind; I'm not quite sure administrators will appreciate being given a list of to-do. :P Thanks, though! I really do appreciate it :) Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this enthusiasm has increased or come about suddenly. I have been doing this for some time and right now I'm just scratching my head at how I used to not have enough time to add many items to P:CE (now I can't find any time at all). Perhaps that is the issue though, ITN needing several admins who are interested enough to ensure it is running smoothly. May I ask why you're not posting them though? You left a vague "needs a lot of work" under August 2009 Egyptian hostage escape which it never did from edit one and three days later I've just apologised to the first-time ITN user who has been asking me what to do as I don't know. You disapproved of posting an item listed at WP:ITNR and it took two IP complaints for someone else to post it. You compared Romania's worst road accident since 1994 (which involved a bus and a train) to "drunk-driving incidents" which weren't exactly "far-fetched". Yesterday I produced Mexico–Uruguay relations which I made certain was ready before nominating, yet 24 hours later it is waiting due to a slight issue you had with one word which I solved several hours ago. On another occasion you said you would post an ITN and even after reminding you the next day it went out-of-date. I know reading this it must seem like I'm being nasty but you seem a nice person and actually I'm just quite a bit curious and puzzled about all of this. --candle•wicke 03:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't take offense or see it negatively, no worries. I'm trying to use my best discretion, and also give other administrators time, in posting topics. ITN is (or at least has been) mistaken for a news ticker many times; and, if that's what it is now, I wasn't informed. But ITN isn't CNN, nor is it WikiNews; as you can see on the ITN/C page, if we were to feature every good entry, we would be changing topics every few hours. A lot of people work very hard on those, and it isn't really fair if we just keep shunting topics away because we've got new ones.

Also, I'm worried that ITN will run dry. There was a period a while back where we would be lucky if we'd update three times a week; there were very few contributors (or maybe there wasn't any news). Some of us may have to take a leave because of real-life obligation, as I'm a prime example of; others may just get bored and tired of updating articles which they may not be interested in and probably don't get much recognition for.

This is all opinion, of course. I'm fully OK with working on three articles a day and posting them all at intervals and keeping the flow going. However, ITN is very different from the other mainpage sections. Featured articles have hundreds of editors behind them and carry great bragging rights, are rigorously policed, and have a regular schedule. DYKs can be pulled from pretty much any article, and can be updated as often as one wants just due to their sheer number. ITN relies on two very unstable variables; the contributor, and the news. We've got sparse contribution (the ITN admin team is basically composed of 3-4 regulars, and if you look at ITN/C you'll note that most of the contributors are regulars as well), we can only write things about recent happenings, and we're only human. I know that I can only take so many sports updates before I start twitching and speaking in references.

I let myself ramble for too long, but I hope you see what I mean. As for the IP complaints, they don't really factor; the main page is viewed hundreds of times a minute, and if we updated based on the demands of the masses it would be chaotic. As for my forgetting to post that, I apologize; as I've stated before, the hour-or-so of Wikiwork I manage to smuggle in a day is usually at the expense of my sleep pattern.

I can only hope I made sense and didn't come across as a lunatic/fool. And again, this is all opinion. I am by no means responsible for ITN by myself. I'm sure Tone, BorgQueen, Spencer and co. have different feelings. Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

u got spark notes for that? :P -- Ashish-g55 12:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

@ Master of Puppets. I am going to try to construct an answer to all this that is not intended to be negative or an attack or anything so I apologise in advance if it comes across that way. You are talking about things which have always been the case. There have always been issues with administrators and contributors. I have never claimed that ITN is a news ticker, CNN, WikiNews (where is this coming from?) I have been doing the opposite in the past. "A lot of people work very hard on those, and it isn't really fair if we just keep shunting topics away because we've got new ones"? I don't understand this either. I and anyone else have worked very hard on ITNS, DYKs, GAs or featured content etc. TFA only gets 24 hours but that may (must?) have taken more work than the DYK and ITN sections combined. ITN is is no danger at present of running dry. "We can only write things about recent happenings"—we are and this has always been the case, hasn't it? Again, I haven't denied this or even raised the point.

Alienating one or two IPs who ask a good question is not updating ITN based on the "demands of the masses"—the item had been nominated, it was listed at ITNR, and, judging by the fact that someone eventually decided to post it, it was updated (I didn't check it, somehow there wasn't time). However, your point about your limited time online is fair enough and this can't be helped in anyone's case—but why then have you, for example, said one item "needs a lot of work" but several days later there is still no further explanation despite me feeling a pain to myself at this stage for requesting it? This too is proving difficult because if someone else comes along (who may otherwise post it) sees it needs a lot of work (yet you haven't specified what exactly), it can be misleading. That wasn't my nomination, I have neither anything personal for or against it nor any agenda to get it onto the Main Page, but I can't help the user who wants to know what to do and I'm just using it as an example of the issues I am questioning. At the moment, few contributors as ever but new users and IPs being given a more difficult time than I would have thought necessary. How does this make sense? Add to that, users and IPs or users who have spoken their mind about issues such as too much death on ITN (I disagree with them but that is my opinion). There are also regularly several elections at once. I am neither Asian nor a golf enthusiast but I can see why Asian golf enthusiasts would wonder why Usain Bolt breaking his own record again was preventing their golf victory from featuring on the Main Page. I have never experienced "twitching" or anything like that when it comes to sports ITNs so I guess it is another different experience for me to hear of someone who does. But what do you suggest we do with ITNR if items listed on it have so much difficulty getting posted when updated? When the list was made someone must have known several sports would happen at a certain time of year and that at other times there would be none at all? Again, these are several questions which are not anything personal or intended as an attack. I skimmed through your comment when I was previously online (but just about to leave) and the point which most puzzled was the IPs = chaos bit. I was always under the impression that many were quite helpful and sensible and I would be disappointed to think that they would all be regarded as some sort of lower-class disruptive mob. --candle•wicke 14:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to comment on MoP's comment. I agree mostly except the recognition part. i doubt that the "regulars" who have managed to stick around ITN care how long the item (that they may have nominated/worked on) stays up on main page. yes i agree that the updates should not be made too fast as this isnt some news ticker. but, that shouldnt stop us from making updates if the news items that have been deemed noteworthy (via consensus) and have proper updates are available. the update time should not play a role if we have something updated sitting around. and except in rare cases we do not have both proper consensus and updated article available for too many items anyways. -- Ashish-g55 15:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Two items were posted from today despite a backlog going back several days and the idea being raised that ITN is not a news ticker, etc, which it isn't supposed to be but is still contradicting this by posting today's in a hurry and ignoring the others or not offering further on how we can proceed. The backlog tag was removed from ITN/C by Master of Puppets which is fair enough but it means anyone who may want to assist is missing how to do so. And I have noticed that Master of Puppets, having suggested it wasn't a good idea to post several at once, has done exactly that on several occasions when they are his own nominations and work (2009 NATO Afghanistan headquarters bombing, Turks and Caicos Islands#Corruption_scandal_and_suspension_of_self-government, WASP-17b, Gregoire Ndahimana, Les Paul—despite some opposition for the last case and in some cases no support at all). It is not that he is being asked to do all the work when there are several which are ready or nearly ready. Again, there is nothing wrong with an admin doing this but what about the other nominations? This appears even more contradictory to me. We have tried everything to the point where I left the Mexico-Uruguay one in the best state I could before nominating and suggesting the wording all at once in the hope of preventing anything going wrong apart from it being opposed which seemed unlikely when compared to other ITNs but it still has neither been opposed nor posted... (out of breath) that's why I'm asking why this is happening. I would rather spend my time on the conveyor belt producing more ITNs and updating the portal but I'm finding all this very discouraging over the past few days. Maybe I'm phrasing it all badly, but if I've got this wrong then please can someone tell me and I will go elsewhere and leave the other nominators and nominations alone until they go out of date? If this is being disruptive or anything it would be doing more harm than good which is not what I want and not what is good for Wikipedia. --candle•wicke 16:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding my two cents. I think you are all complicating a bit. I think ITN is working just fine now (though there could always be more people involved...) We have one or two updates per day on average and several candidates are discussed each day. Regarding some items that appear to be backlogged, I believe it is still within admin's decision which one to post or not. Support/oppose votes serve just as a guideline, not something obligatory. Of course, this is just my approach, I post the items that I feel confident about (and sometimes I make mistakes, sure). And I leave the other items for other items to consider. Just like at AfD - if not sure, don't delete. Candlewicke, I know you put lots of efforts into updating candidates and not putting them on ITN may seem bad faith action or whatever. To reassure you, you're doing a great work and when you become interested in applying for adminship, let me know. --Tone 16:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Tone. Maybe I have overreacted a bit if ITN is working fine. Sorry to anyone if it has come across in this way or if there is anyone offended. I will go do some other stuff which needs me more now. --candle•wicke 18:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Candlewicke, the point is that they've always been the case and that's never going to change. That's why ITN works the way it does, even thought it sometimes appears not to be working. It wasn't about you denying or raising the points, I was just trying to explain my overall view to give you more of a feel for what's going on. Also, FA gets 24 hours, but also wayyyy more recognition due to the effort involved. I'm not trying to compare the two things, and to be honest it isn't really fair to given the different circumstances. But I'm trying to explain my view of how different ITN is.

As for IP chaos, no, I'm not saying IPs are chaotic; if registered users complained, we'd have edit-warring abound. ITN operates through human bias, and some people think some items are more important than others. Admins generally have to gain consensus and put up what they think is most prudent. As for the "lot of work" comment, at the state I saw it in it wasn't looking all too presentable but I didn't have time to fix it. I agree I could have spared the minute or so to outline what I thought was wrong.

Now, on to the articles I've worked on and posted; note how those are all from different fields and varied backgrounds. They all needed expansion, one didn't even exist, and they were all ITN-worthy (that's me using my discretion, really, but don't confuse it with bias). I worked on them to make them as good as they could be with the limited information present (due to their recent nature), and then posted them up as updates every so often. I'm sorry if you feel that I was being unfair, but I would have done the same if I had seen huge potential in the golf item.

I can see why this could be viewed as confusing; I'd be confused if I wasn't me. But, as Tone said, ITN works, even if not all the articles get put up or we don't act like clockwork. Ditto on the RFA thing. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

There is no need to put a capital on the word president. There is only a need to capitalize when it is a (person's) title (proper noun), not when it is an occupation (common noun).  Cargoking  talk  17:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Bolt's record be at the top?

He just got it 1h ago and it is listed next-to-last? Nergaal (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah, apparently it's not even worth a mention now. Strange, seeing as this will probably hit the front pages of most of the world's newspapers later today... Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 02:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ITN isn't the front page of a newspaper. --candle•wicke 16:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ITN "features up-to-date encyclopedic content reflecting important international current events," which is exactly what Bolt's record is. –Howard the Duck 03:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say otherwise. --candle•wicke 04:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you said otherwise. –Howard the Duck 05:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm content that you've said you say I didn't say otherwise. :-) --candle•wicke 17:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am amused that Candlewicke is content that Howard the Duck has said Candlewicke didn't say otherwise.  Cargoking  talk  17:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure a lot more people would be contented if Bolt is white, and lives at the eastern side of the Atlantic, then he would've made it without hassles. –Howard the Duck 02:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that the above is an attempt at humor. —David Levy 04:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely hope the same. --candle•wicke 06:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Can we get a bot to archive WP:ITN/C discussions older than seven days? Currently it has to be done manually, everyday.  Cargoking  talk  10:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There's probably no need to do it every day? Especially now that not many nominations seem to be occurring. --candle•wicke 22:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of Wikinews

Why not allow wikinews drive the ITN choices? There's a Latest News RSS feed, so I can't imagine that it would be technically difficult to have a bot update the ITN template here with that feed... Or, just manually ape what is on the Wikinews mainpage. Their's obviously going to be (and should be) more direct interest in balanced news coverage on Wikinews anyway, it'll allow attention to be more focused (either to Wikinews or to Wikipedia editing), and it will increase the Wikinews profile some more. All positive effects, I would think.
— V = I * R (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikinews is a news service, while the ITN is not. We have a very different selection criteria. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Right... I guess part of what I'm saying here is simply asking the question "why?" to that point. What is ITN, if not a "news service lite"? I guess that I'm asking those of you who are active participants in selecting stories for ITN to justify the expense of your editing time. Why don't you work at Wikinews as well? Why waste the resource that Wikinews provides in the controversies that ITN generates here? The last thing that I'm trying to do here is to belittle all of your contributions, but I think that the positive points I touched on above and the questions that I asked here ought to be considered occasionally.
— V = I * R (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That question has been asked many times before, which is why we provide an introductory paragraph at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. Please read it first—it is obvious you didn't, but that is an understandable mistake—and do come back if you still have questions. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that. Please re-read what I've stated above, as it's obvious that you're misinterpreting my intent here. Basically, I'm suggesting combining two similar and currently separate functions into a more complete whole.
— V = I * R (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Combine Wikinews and the ITN? It is not going to happen, since Wikipedia (including the ITN section) and Wikinews are two different projects with different purposes. What makes you think they are similar enough to combine anyway? The difference should be clear to you if you actually read the page I suggested above. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should a section of Wikipedia's main page serve as a "lite" version of a sister project? As BorgQueen said, Wikipedia and Wikinews are separate for a reason. —David Levy 06:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, you guys have successfully shouted me down... I think that you're displaying a saddening lack of imagination (I also detect a nasty hint of ownership here), but obviously I'm in the distinct minority on this point. I can tell when it's best to put my energy elsewhere.
— V = I * R (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ITN like all other items on main page feature content on wikipedia. wikinews is a news source. 2 separate things. Just to elaborate. First line of wikinews mission starts off with "Wikinews promotes the idea of participatory journalism..." and the page BorgQueen mentioned above has "Wikipedia is not an online newspaper and does not accept original works of journalism...". So it should be quite clear what the difference between the 2 is. anything else? Ashish-g55 16:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's an ownership issue, more a case of people being sick of discussing the same thing for the 20th time Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need a formal edit of the ITN page to reflect that it has nothing to do with wikinews. Ashish-g55 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Beginning with the removal of the word "news" from the section's name. —David Levy 18:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

well its either news or current events. and i would rather have it news otherwise its gonna look like ITN is part of P:CE. i think ITN is fine we just need make it clear "In the news" does not mean "news source". Ashish-g55 19:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all attempts to make it clear that "In the news" does not mean "news source" have failed. —David Levy 19:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

lol how does this look. ppl can revert or edit to make it more clear. Ashish-g55 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This was a rather disheartening read. Even if people make suggestions that are difficult to implement and (gasp!) have been discussed before, they deserve to be met with a bit more patience and respect. Just arguing that sister projects are separate and that any further discussion is pointless and/or stupid smacks of plain ol' conservatism to me.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ITN is beginning to be like Wikinews anyway so I don't see the point. –Howard the Duck 15:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How so? The American shooting and other events would be posted if this is true. --candle•wicke 19:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess the keywords are "beginning to be like". –Howard the Duck 01:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Restart

• I've brought this discussion up elsewhere, so I figure that I should reply to a couple of criticisms here. The reason that I posted this suggestion is that, as I see it from a primarily outside observers perspective, there are two hard working groups of people doing the exact same work here and there. Additionally, Since Wikinews is a sister project, I don't really understand the put-downs and the apparent desire to marginalize their work. It's not as though I'm suggesting giving over a portion of our main page to Google News, or some other outside organization. Wikinews is a good project, with very similar goals to Wikipedia, and they link to Wikipedia's articles extensively. Most importantly, they do the work that ITN does full time. I'm not trying to disparage all that has occurred here, at all. All I'm attempting to point out is that it would probably be better if everyone with similar interests were to work together and improve Wikimedia as a whole. There's just no need for some quixotic competition between ITN and Wikinews' Featured News.
  — V = I * R (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem stems from your mistaken belief that the section is based upon "the exact same work" done at Wikinews.

Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. The separation between Wikipedia and Wikinews isn't accidental; the two projects' mission and content standards differ dramatically.

And the section is not a news feed; its purpose is to link to encyclopedia articles that have been written or substantially updated to reflect current/recent events meeting specific criteria. (It's not uncommon for otherwise qualifying events to be omitted because no relevant article has been written or sufficiently updated.)

As sister projects, we indeed cooperate with each other. (You noted that Wikinews links to Wikipedia's articles extensively, and we likewise link to Wikinews from articles pertaining to current/recent events.) But it makes no more sense to turn over a section of our main page to Wikinews than it does to do so with any of the other sister projects (just as it would be inappropriate for said projects to dedicate main page sections to Wikipedia's content).

No one is putting down Wikinews or trying to marginalize that project's work, and I'll note that the proposed change would discourage Wikipedia's readers from visiting the Wikinews main page. (Why bother if the top content is linked from Wikipedia's main page?) —David Levy 23:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The insistence that ITN is somehow different from Wikinews is blindingly false. My best guess is that, being a regular contributor here, you so much want that to be true that you just can't see that it isn't. it's a "Can't see the forest for the trees" syndrome. Consider this: If ITN is so different, why is this then a perennial topic here? Wouldn't the fact that the topic is constantly being brought up indicate that something is not being addressed?

Worse, if we're going to accept the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" line of reasoning and take that to it's logical conclusion, it really means the shuttering of this whole section.

Anyway, I want to challenge the point that "it makes no sense to turn over a section to them". Why is that? We seem to want a news section on our main page, we have an entire sister project devoted to writing the news... what's the problem? and how would linking to a bunch of Wikinews' stories from Wikipedia's main page discourage people from visiting Wikinews? That doesn't make sense.
— V = I * R (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The insistence that ITN is somehow different from Wikinews is blindingly false.

The insistence that the section is the same as Wikinews is blindingly false. Do you dispute that we're linking to new/updated encyclopedia articles? Do you honestly not realize that we don't include original reporting?

If ITN is so different, why is this then a perennial topic here?

This is a perennial topic here because some users see the word "news" and mistakenly assume that the section is a news wire. Likewise, it's common for Wikipedia editors to mistakenly create how-to articles and pages of dictionary definitions. That doesn't mean that we should reinforce the confusion by copying our sister projects' content.

Wouldn't the fact that the topic is constantly being brought up indicate that something is not being addressed?

Wouldn't the fact that attempts to treat the section as a news wire invariably fail indicate that the individuals seeking to do so are mistaken?

Worse, if we're going to accept the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" line of reasoning and take that to it's logical conclusion, it really means the shuttering of this whole section.

No, because the section isn't a news wire. Many of us have advocated changing its name to counter the mistaken impression that it is.

Anyway, I want to challenge the point that "it makes no sense to turn over a section to them". Why is that?

Why should we turn over a section to a sister project? Why bother having separate projects at all then?

We seem to want a news section on our main page, we have an entire sister project devoted to writing the news... what's the problem?

The problem is that we don't want a news section (referring to the connotation that you mean) on our main page, nor do we have one.

and how would linking to a bunch of Wikinews' stories from Wikipedia's main page discourage people from visiting Wikinews? That doesn't make sense.

I said that it would discourage readers of Wikipedia from visiting Wikinews' main page. Why bother if Wikipedia's main page includes the top Wikinews headlines? —David Levy 01:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As a Wikinewsie, I have a preference for links to Wikinews articles. That's based on a feeling that a link to a relevant article will attract more interest than a static link to the project main page. Once on Wikinews, they may or may not find their way to the project main page, but they will have seen Wikinews content. --Brian McNeil /^talk 19:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1. We routinely link to Wikinews articles in other contexts (where it's clear that the idea is to refer readers to a sister project with news coverage related to our articles, et cetera). It's my belief that focusing on the news coverage itself on Wikipedia's main page would mislead readers to believe that Wikipedia is intended to function as a primary source of such content (a misconception that we already have some difficulty dispelling).

2. I'm sure that the editors of every sister project would appreciate additional promotion from Wikipedia, and I strongly agree that we should actively seek to provide it (to all of our sister projects, not just Wikinews). If we link to Wikinews articles from our main page, shouldn't we also link to the other sister projects' content? As I noted elsewhere, I might be able to get behind a proposal to dedicate a section of our main page to spotlighting combined or rotating content from all of our sister projects (in a context that clearly conveys its origins). —David Levy 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(<-) What would be very welcome is that the focus article (updated) on ITN has a link to the corresponding story on Wikinews (but in the article, not on ITN). I believe this is a general practice already but the use of it could be bigger. This way, we keep ITN a separate entity from Wikinews but nevertheless direct people interested in the story to that story. --Tone 21:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The focus on how we link to Wikinews, or the profile that this proposal alone provides to only one sister project, really misses the point behind the proposal. The primary change is to use an unbiased selection criteria, and that is already well provided by Wikinews.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This relies upon the premise that a "news"-themed section is an intrinsic part of our main page, which simply isn't the case. (You personally noted that isn't a core component of the encyclopedia.)

I believe that we can improve the current system (hopefully in a manner that strengthens our content and counters the mistaken belief that Wikipedia is a news service). If not (and this isn't something that we can properly handle as a project), perhaps we should fill the space with something else. (Note that various types of featured content have been proposed for the main page.) The assumption that we must find a way to make a "news"-themed section work (even if that means turning it over to a sister project) simply isn't valid. —David Levy 23:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably, I have to disagree with Ohms law about Wikinews providing an unbiased selection of news. People write about what interests them, and this manifests as the 'systemic bias' mentioned elsewhere. Undoubtedly, this situation would improve with a larger contributor base on Wikinews, but at that point you would likely have enough news to require a selection process to pick articles for ITN (assuming some en.wn-driven ITN process). There's a sort of chicken-and-egg situation here, Wikinews needs to recruit more contributors, to do so the profile of the project needs raised, and to encourage and retain contributors they want to see their work widely read/exposed/advertised.

I don't know what would be the best solution, but I would like to see Wikinews articles linked to from ITN where appropriate. Even if the link was reduced to an icon sized Wikinews logo with a tooltip for the title, I don't know if that would be unobtrusive enough; however, it would accept what seems the reasonable point Ohms law is making - most people looking at Wikipedia will assume ITN is a news feed, including many Wikipedia contributors who have not investigated or involved themselves in how the section is populated.

What of other projects and potential favouritism? Isn't the featured picture, from Commons, a substantial tip to one project? I'm not sure how you could feature other projects, perhaps there's a possibility to have a periodic invitation to "enrol with Wikiversity" and showcase some of the study materials they have. Other projects? I'm sure people could come up with some suggestions, but when you have this list of content to feature, where do you put it? Some new 'featured sister project content' section might work there, but is inappropriate for Wikinews due to articles becoming featured a considerable time after they were published and current.

Moving on from that, mention has been made of linking to Wikinews content from Wikipedia articles, and that is done quite often using a variety of templates. Unfortunately, a lot of these links are quite far down the article - either in the appropriate detail section, or right at the bottom with the miscellaneous links all over the Internet. Many, if not all, of these Wikipedia articles will be tagged with current/recent event templates. These are right at the top and would be an ideal point at which to direct readers over to Wikinews. Thus someone goes from ITN to an article, which has in the 'recentism' or 'recently deceased' notice a link to the appropriate Wikinews article, possibly also with a link to an en.wn landing page introducing how to contribute to the project. --Brian McNeil /^talk 00:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

1. While our featured pictures usually (not always) are stored at Commons, the process through which they're selected operates at Wikipedia under criteria different from those employed at Commons. (For example, all of our featured pictures must be appropriately used in English Wikipedia articles.)

2. What I have in mind is a section in which we feature links to whatever types of content are deemed suitable for the individual projects (e.g. breaking news at Wikinews, featured books at Wikibooks, et cetera) with a clear explanation that the content in question is separate from that of Wikipedia and strong encouragement to visit the sister projects. —David Levy 00:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

about point 2, what you're thinking of sounds more like a (probably good) suggestion for an expansion of the existing Main Page#Wikipedia's sister projects subsection. I can definately see the merits in that, but it's a bit off topic to this discussion.
— V = I * R (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. I'm suggesting this as an alternative to your idea (irrespective of where on the main page it would appear). Keep in mind that several other types of material have been proposed for the main page, so there is no shortage of content to fill space. —David Levy 01:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right about my use of "unbiased" above... I realized that as I reread what I wrote before even getting to the newer replies. Still, the idea behind it is the same: that we shift the actual selection work to where it's intended to be done (for a slightly different purpose). That does reduce the possibility of the view that the ITN section has some sort of unusual bias (which, recently, seems to have been to avoid most US events).
— V = I * R (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Current events portal

Isn't Wikinews already prominently featured on Portal:Current events, which is clearly linked from ITN ? I think it would just be VERY confusing if we had a newsfeed on the main page of the encyclopedia anyone can edit, that then takes you to a news service that is "less editable", which then links back to the encyclopedia when you are interested enough to click a topic. I have never seen ITN as a news ticker. It is a "Topics in the news", not as "News reporting". I wouldn't be opposed to killing Portal:Current Events, in favor of linking to WikiNews, but then WikiNews will have to open up editing a bit more, open up for news listing next to their own reporting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that we link directly to Wikinews articles. Well, I take that back, there should be a link to the article on Wikinews, but it shouldn't be like you see in Portal:Current events where the whole item is nothing but a link to the Wikinews story. There would be a link to Wikinews presented somewhere in the immediate vicinity of each item, but I don't see the basic layout that we currently use for ITN changing much. The links to Wikipedia articles, based on the text in each item, would remain the same (or very similar to) the way it is now. Anyway, I wish everyone could get past the "news feed"/"news ticker" moniker that keeps being applied here. The selection is one aspect to ITN, but the purpose behind it is to highlight our articles. How the selection process is actually performed is inconsequential, as long as it's timely.
— V = I * R (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

First in addressing the points from TheDJ: Wikinews is not WikiNews. Use of the camelcase form is invariably an indication that the person using it has only casually looked at the project. Second, and one which I feel entitled to ask for an apology for is, "... WikiNews will have to open up editing a bit more ...". This is a WMF project, anybody can edit any current article, anybody can start a new article - including users who are not logged in and thus identified by their IP address. That is more open than Wikipedia. Yes, FlaggedRevisions is in use, but I assume anyone keeping in the loop about this is not as ignorant as the mainstream press as to assume it is 'less open' editing. Lastly, what on Earth is meant by "open up for news listing next to their own reporting"? --Brian McNeil /^talk 19:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

With open, i was pointing at the different formats used, not only reporting, but also listing. Besides, you may notice that i use both forms of spelling, i couldn't care less about caps, i can't keep up with all the sisterprojects, and I actually WROTE an article for wikinews once. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "I assume anyone keeping in the loop about this is not as ignorant as the mainstream press as to assume it is 'less open' editing." isn't really a good assumption to make... I'm not particularly comfortable with Flagged Revisions myself, and I'm willing to admit that I've (somewhat irrationally) allowed it's use on Wikinews to prevent me from really jumping in there. As much of a news hound as I am, I really should be a very active editor on Wikinews, as well. I know that Flagged Revisions isn't actually supposed to close off editing, it's just... a psychological barrier, I guess. Anyway, I'm not sure what he meant by the "open up news listing" comment, either.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have a user account, you won't really notice FlaggedRevisions on Wikinews. Editor status isn't automatically granted as is proposed for Wikipedia, but the bar is set very low. As is the bar for having it taken away, but that's only happened once where someone self-published an article instead of waiting for an independent peer review. --Brian McNeil /^talk 00:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I know that's the way it's supposed to be... I'm just trying to explain why the reality is slightly different then the intent, for me. I suspect that my own feelings are similar to others, but I can't back that up with anything concrete. Regardless, we should probably have this conversation on Wikinews' water cooler, or somewhere else on the Wikinews project, since it's really specifically related to the project and not Wikipedia. If you start a conversation there and link to it, I'll be happy to come over and participate in a more in depth discussion about it.
— V = I * R (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Identity

OK, I think that this debate can be easily summarized with a simple phrase: "What is ITN?" Despite protestations to the contrary for those of you who have been regular contributors here, the public perception of ITN seems to be that it's some sort of news wire. I'm willing to accept that there is a group (dare I say cabal?) here that doesn't want that to be true, but can we at least agree that it is the central issue surrounding all of this?
— V = I * R (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, I agree that many readers perceive the section as a news wire. This is why there has been periodic discussion of switching to a different name (but we've yet to come up with one that was clearly better). —David Levy 04:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that, based on my reading of the archives, and my own views (as expressed here), as a community we want some sort of "news wire" type system on our main page. What we want is something specifically connected to Wikipedia though, obviously. As was expressed in the discussion below, we want to highlight our articles through current events, and thereby show how up to date Wikipedia remains.
— V = I * R (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

But that isn't a news wire. What you're proposing is a news wire (which isn't specifically connected to Wikipedia and doesn't highlight our articles through current events). —David Levy 06:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, but see, here's where the connection between the two points are made! Wikinews articles regularly link to the relevant Wikipedia articles, according to the story content, as a matter of policy and as an inborn desire on the part of Wikinews reporters. If you look at what their doing, day in and day out, it's obviously (to me, at least) the exact same thing as ITN, simply on a larger scale. I'm not actually proposing getting rid of ITN, I'm simply proposing merging the functionality to the sister project that does the same thing as one component of it's day-to-day operation.
— V = I * R (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Wikinews' articles link to Wikipedia articles to direct readers to encyclopedic background information. Similarly, Wikipedia's articles link to Wikinews articles to direct readers to relevant news reports. This is the cooperative manner in which the various Wikimedia projects are intended to interact.

In no way would using a section of our main page to link to Wikinews articles (which, in turn, link to Wikipedia articles) highlight our updates. We would simply be copying and pasting a sister project's content onto our main page. We might as well dedicate a section to the latest recipes from Wikibooks or definitions from Wiktionary.

2. You keep claiming that the section's content is "the exact same thing as" as that of Wikinews. Again, do you honestly not recognize the major differences (such as the lack of original reporting on our end)? —David Levy 07:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I do recognize the differences, which is actually part of why I'm bringing this up. I'm honestly not sure how anyone can justify the expense of all of the effort that is expended here. ITN itself, as a process, is certainly not a component of this (or any) encyclopedia. It's more of a marketing tool, of our own creation (which does have value, but that's a slightly different topic) More to the point, a major aspect of the process here (the selection of items), is one integral aspect of the Wikinews "Latest News" and main page process. There is a significant duplication of effort going on here, and aside from the obvious cost involved in that I think that the current ITN process is flawed. Worse is, even if the current problems are adequately addressed for the moment, the process will inevitably become flawed again because the problem comes back to what I brought up earlier: this is just not that important of a process to the encyclopedia. And, to hammer that home even harder, I would add that it's an integral part of the Wikinews process. I'm going to address the "copying and pasting a sister project's content" aspect below
— V = I * R (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1. If you recognize the differences, why do you keep claiming that the section's content is "the exact same thing as" as that of Wikinews?

2. The issue of whether the section is a worthwhile endeavor is separate from the issue of whether to replace it with content from a sister project. Certainly, a "news"-themed assortment of article highlights isn't a core component of the encyclopedia, and it's entirely reasonable to argue that it should be discontinued (though this would be met with a great deal of opposition). But in such a scenario, why would it be sensible to substitute an actual news feed (which would have far less relevance to the encyclopedia)?

3. "The selection of items" is an "integral aspect" of most Wikimedia projects' main page content preparation. For Wikinews, it relates to the top news headlines (and corresponding Wikinews articles). For ITN, it relates to Wikipedia articles that have been written or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events. These are not identical or interchangeable. You're concentrating upon superficial similarities and ignoring fundamental differences. Our efforts are no more wasted/duplicated than those of any two sister projects with procedurally similar main page processes. —David Levy 09:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Identity 2

1) OK, how about this. The process that this section uses to select items which appear on the ITN portion of the main page is very similar to the process used to generate Wikinews' entire main page and Latest News feed. This isn't a superficial similarity, since the central goal of both processes is to (or should be, at least) present a timely account of current events. the only real difference between the two is that ITN specifically highlights how Wikipedia articles relate to those current events. There are other detail differences of course, but my position is that those differences are largely an artificial construct based on an unnecessary (and irrational) desire to specifically differentiate ITN from Wikinews and other news sources.

2) I don't believe that the ITN section itself is not a worthwhile endevor. I think that this is a central hangup between us, because it seems as though your perception of this proposal is that it's hostile. It's not at all intended to be hostile, for my part. My goals here are to ease the burden of everyone; to combine the efforts of two groups performing very similar tasks, to the betterment of both affected projects; and to attempt to reduce (unnessesary, in my view) the controversy that seems to continually swirl around various aspects of ITN (I may not be an active participant, but I've actually been lurking around ITN for a while, and there is an awful lot of controversy generated by ITN selections in my opinion).

3) I don't buy the position that articles must have completed an update prior to being listed at ITN. I can understand where that comes from, but the nature of Wikipedia will naturally cause almost all of the articles listed in ITN to be updated immediately after being linked. That actually highlights well one of the huge strengths to Wikipedia. The distinction that is perpetuated here that ITN only lists "Wikipedia articles that have been written or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events" is artificial, and is self-reinforced by the fact that any article linked to from the main page will immediately receive a load of attention and a large number of updates.
— V = I * R (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1. No, our goal is not to "present a timely account of current events." That's Wikinews' goal (which we merely stylistically emulate as a framework for encyclopedic content). We should be encouraging readers to visit Wikinews for news, not to seek it at Wikipedia. I don't understand your view that it's "irrational" to differentiate an encyclopedia from a news service.

This proposal appears to be based upon the logic that people already perceive the section as a news feed, so we might as well make it one (despite the fact that this runs counter to Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission). Instead, let's find a way to eliminate the perception that ITN (and Wikipedia by extension) is a news source. And yes, I strongly favor efforts to promote Wikinews and all of the other sister projects (but not by reinforcing the problematic misunderstanding that their content belongs at Wikipedia).

2. I don't view your proposal as remotely hostile. I disagree with its prudence, but I fully realize that you sincerely aim to benefit the entire Wikimedia community (a goal that I share).

3. I've been describing the section's current format (including the update requirement) in response to your continual claim that the section already is essentially identical to Wikinews' main page content. It's perfectly reasonable to propose that the update requirement be abandoned, but it factually exists at the present time. —David Levy 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be more upfront about this. In my opinion, this insistence that "everyone has the wrong idea about us" is, frankly, silly and insulting. Wheter you think I should want this or not, I want ITN to address current events. It's supposed to showcase our articles in relation to current events, after all, and that's almost what it currently does. It seems obvious to me that I'm not the only one either, since the ITN section is actually on the main page, and the perennial suggestions keep occurring to "turn it into a news feed". You guys just aren't listening to what the community at large is attempting to tell you, because there's no consensus building going on here. Whether or not you personally like that it's true, there is some overlap between news and encyclopedic content, and it would be nice to both acknowledge that and work with it, rather then attempting to beat it with a stick.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not claiming that "everyone has the wrong idea about us." I'm noting that some readers do. It's neither silly nor insulting to state the fact (clearly evidenced by our formal documentation) that the section is not intended to function as a news feed.

2. No, there are not "perennial suggestions" to "turn it into a news feed." There is a perennial misconception among some (not all) readers that it is a news feed, which has led the community to continually discuss ideas of how to counter the misunderstanding.

3. You have every right to propose that we "turn it into a news feed," and I'll respond by opposing the idea on the basis that it contradicts Wikipedia's mission and encroaches on that of Wikinews.

The problem is that you've continually argued that the section already is a news feed (because some people believe this to be so, and it's mean of us to assert that they're mistaken).

"Consensus building" doesn't involve assuming that if enough people believe something, it must be true. —David Levy 03:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

David, I wish I could make you see what I'm trying to say here. This is somewhat frustrating... You don't think, and don't want it to be true, that ITN is anything related to a "news feed". That's what I understand your position to be. Additionally, you feel that the perception that ITN is a "news feed" needs to be fought. My position is that the "needs to be fought" aspect is, well, wrong. Wikipedia obviously shouldn't turn into a primary news source, and I don't think that I'm suggesting that. You're attempts classify what I'm proposing as an attempt to turn ITN into Google news or to compete with Wikinews are hyperbole, in my view. What's worse, the attitude that seems to be prevalent here (not just from you) that "those people" who come here and make proposals or ask questions that indicate a belief that ITN is a "news feed" are somehow wrong is flat out damaging to Wikipedia, primarily to the community.
— V = I * R (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

1. We seem to be conflating two separate issues, and this appears to be leading you to misunderstand my position (which I'll attempt to clarify).

Is the section presented in the basic style of a news feed? Yes, it is. As I've noted, it's based on precisely such a framework.

Am I claiming that the section is entirely unrelated to the concept of a news feed? No, I'm not.

But is it an actual news feed? No, it isn't. Why? Because it isn't intended to serve the purpose of a news feed (to disseminate news). This is not a matter of opinion; the section's documentation and longstanding, everyday use clearly indicate its format.

Does this mean that we cannot consider making the section an actual news feed? Of course not. But to claim that it already is one (and that the proposed change would not dramatically alter its function) is incorrect.

2. I haven't accused you of attempting "to turn ITN into Google news or to compete with Wikinews." I hadn't mentioned the former, and I've opined that the proposed format would unintentionally encroach on Wikinews' territory. Despite my strong disagreement with you, I'm quite certain that you have the best interests of Wikipedia and Wikinews at heart (and I hope that you realize that I do as well). —David Levy 05:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

We're definately talking past each other, somewhat. I agree with, and I've been attempting to explain that I'm not trying to change, the idea that ITN is not and should not be an actual "news feed". Even if this proposal is implemented, what we end up with on our main page will not be a "news feed". This proposal only actually changes the selection process, which is just one (relatively minor) aspect of ITN. The current selection process is actually the primary problem right now, regardless. All of the talk about "news feeds" is what brought up Google news as well, since there's a clear implication of that in the statement.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Identity 3

1. You initially claimed that the section is a news feed. Then you stated that you want it to become a news feed. Now you're saying that you don't want it to be a news feed. Do you understand why this is confusing?

2. The selection process is not "relatively minor," nor is it "the exact same work" being done at Wikinews (as you previously described it). Wikinews' goal is to present major news stories. Ours is to present encyclopedia articles related to specific types of major news stories. (This currently is limited to articles that already have been written/updated to reflect current/recent events, but you're correct in pointing out that this criterion could be dropped or relaxed.) Not every major news story is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. As I noted, the items presented at Wikinews have been selected for a different reason: to report the news. Wikipedia's mission isn't to report the news. We don't have articles directly relevant to everything reported at Wikinews (because many news stories do not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia). Our selection process is not redundant to theirs. —David Levy 17:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't find anything confusing, because I've been consistent throughout. ITN is intended to feature Wikipedia articles which directly relate to current events. Selecting what is a current event is one of the primary tasks which Wikinews accomplishes on a daily basis. This proposal leans on their process, in order to keep our focus on the encyclopedia. That does not make In The News a "news feed", and that's a point that I've been attempting to explain this whole time. The current process is something that I see as taking away from our focus on building an encyclopedia, because it's actually a quixotic news feed that is being generated by a group of Wikipedia users, despite what appears to be the best of intentions. I don't think that you can see it because you're too close to the process, but you're a participant in exactly what you're arguing against, here. Within the scope of the encyclopedia, what specifically appears in ITN is, and should be, relatively minor. ITN itself is not encyclopedic, it simply showcases our encyclopedic content in a manner which readers can immediately relate to.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

1. You haven't been close to consistent. You explicitly stated that the section is a news feed, then stated that it should be a news feed, and then stated that it "is not and should not be" a news feed. Then you just referred to it as a "news feed" again!

2. Yes, the section is intended to feature Wikipedia articles that directly relate to current events. However, not all current events featured at Wikinews have (or should have) Wikipeda articles directly related to them. At Wikinews, the process in question involves the selection of news stories, not the selection of news stories for which Wikipedia has (or should have) directly relevant articles. Therefore, our selection process is neither redundant to nor interchangeable with theirs. —David Levy 00:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

1) No, I didn't.

2) All major events do have articles here. You might not think that they should, I don't know, but the fact is that they do. Go ahead an look for yourself.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

1. ...it's actually a quixotic news feed...

2. Let's examine some of the items that have appeared in the Latest news section of the Wikinews main page during the month of August.

• What is our corresponding article for American sailor jailed for murder of Japanese taxi driver?
• What is our corresponding article for Three American hikers arrested in Iran?
• What is our corresponding article for Homeless man causes bomb scare at LaGuardia Airport in New York City? I see a one-sentence mention in the LaGuardia Airport article (and don't see how more than that is warranted, though I certainly see how linking it from ITN would have encouraged users to inappropriately insert additional information in the style of a news report).
• What is our corresponding article for Dublin travel agents occupy offices against closure, One shop defies court order, one shop returns to work in Dublin Thomas Cook occupation and Thomas Cook occupiers arrested, released; company to return to negotiating table?
• What is our corresponding article for Melbourne terror raids nab suspects?
• What is our corresponding article for Brazilian environmentalists tell residents to urinate in shower to save water?
• What is our corresponding article for 2009-10 A-League football: Central Coast Mariners defeat Melbourne Victory in opener?
• What is our corresponding article for Eleven drown after Sudanese boat sinks?
• What is our corresponding article for Four children among seven killed after police chase ends in crash in US?
• What is our corresponding article for No bomb threat, hijacking of plane in China's Xinjiang region according to Afghan officials? I see a one-sentence mention in the Kam Air article (and don't see how more than that is warranted, though I certainly see how linking it from ITN would have encouraged users to inappropriately insert additional information in the style of a news report).
• What is our corresponding article for Police in Salinas, California identify teenage gunshot victim?
• What is our corresponding article for Al-Jazeera poll shows many Pakistanis identify America as 'biggest' threat?
• What is our corresponding article for British man charged with double murder in Iraq?
• What is our corresponding article for Fifth child dies after police chase that ended in crash in California?
• What is our corresponding article for Alleged rapist files charges against victim in Sweden on HIV infection grounds?
• What is our corresponding article for Westchester County, NY to build affordable housing for non-whites?
• What is our corresponding article for Gas explosion reported in Hammersmith, London?
• What is our corresponding article for Woman found guilty of killing fiancé by drink driving in Bath, England?
• What is our corresponding article for Venice hotel sells rooms for one cent a night after pricing error?
• What is our corresponding article for 12 injured after van carrying church group flips over on Buffalo, NY expressway?
• What is our corresponding article for Formula 1: Barrichello and Alonso top timesheets at European GP Friday Practice?
• What is our corresponding article for Australian offshore drilling rig leaks oil, could take weeks to plug?
• What is our corresponding article for Christmas arrives early in Rochdale, Greater Manchester?
• What is our corresponding article for Two firefighters killed in deadly blaze in Buffalo, New York?
• What is our corresponding article for Police remove valuables from unlocked cars?
• What is our corresponding article for Sheep sells for £231,000 at auction? I see a one-sentence mention in the Sheep article (and don't see how more than that is warranted, though I certainly see how linking it from ITN would have encouraged users to inappropriately insert additional information in the style of a news report).
• What is our corresponding article for Bodies found in trailer park in Brunswick, Georgia, US?

—David Levy 19:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Under the current criteria, a vast majority of those would not qualify for ITN because they are news and not encyclopaedic stuff that would be reflected in the updated articles. And I seriously wonder whether the readers would like to have stories like Police remove valuables from unlocked cars on WP Main page. --Tone 19:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to echo what Tone has stated above. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 20:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree completely, of course. —David Levy 22:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

i will fourth that -- Ashish-g55 03:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh... you guys just don't "get it". Anyway, I've had my say. See ya around.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I spent a great deal of time compiling the above list, and you won't even address it (and explain how it jibes with your claims)? You're just shrugging and walking away (with the added insult that we "don't get it")?

I sincerely hope that you don't once again revive this proposal with the claim that you were "shouted down," as several of us have gone out of our way to engage in meaningful (and rather lengthy) discussion. And obviously, I'm not interested in simply "winning" the argument (or I wouldn't be replying now). —David Levy 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The perspective from Wikinews

I am a long-term Wikinews contributor, and I have seen this discussion and others like it before. Whether true or not, the perception is that the In The News section of Wikipedia's front page is jealously guarded - a little piece of the Wikipedia front page that those involved in ITN control. This may not be the case, but it is the distinct perception when looking from a Wikinews point of view.

In the above discussion, Original Reporting is brought up a number of times. Yes, Wikinews allows OR. It is clearly categorised as such and could be trivially excluded from any selection of Wikinews content to include on Wikipedia. I may be being uncharitiable, but the above makes it appear this is being used as a criteria to exclude all Wikinews content.

There have been improvements over the five or so years I've been involved in Wikinews. The project is now linked to out of the ITN news section, thus far more prominently than in the sister projects link. This is really good, and is all the promotion I would expect for the Wikinews front page. However, the link there effectively becomes 'part of the furniture' and less clicked.

I would not advocate importing all recently published Wikinews articles. A report on a fire in Buffalo, NY would be most inappropriate for the Wikipedia front page.

What I would argue is that Wikinews' coverage of notable global events should be used or considered when formuating the ITN section. One of the key reasons to implement the WP license change was to allow the importing of content from other free sources under licenses such as CC-BY. Not only is Wikinews such a source, it is also a Wikimedia project; a project with a peer review and publication process managed with FlaggedRevisions.

Ohm's law highlights an issue that should probably have far wider discussion. Should ITN only report on articles that have already undergone significant revision? Or should there be some consideration of which WP articles are likely to be updated because of a recent news event? I believe including the latter is an opportunity to highlight relevant articles that may be tagged or otherwise in need of attention - linking only to 'more polished' articles simply reinforces the perception that Wikipedia is 'finished'. --Brian McNeil /^talk 11:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not belittling the concept of original reporting. I'm citing it as a substantial difference between the missions of Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) and Wikinews (a news service).

2. You state above I seek to "exclude" Wikinews content from Wikipedia's main page, and I simply don't understand why there should be any expectation that it would be included. Again, this is an encyclopedia. Why should the content of a sister project (with a different editorial function) appear on our main page?

Please understand that this is not an elitist attitude on my part. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia is better than Wikinews or above linking to its content (which routinely occurs in other contexts). I'm trying to understand why it makes any more sense to place Wikinews headlines on our main page than it does to insert recipes from Wikibooks or definitions from Wiktionary. To be clear, I'm not citing those as absurdities; as I stated elsewhere, I might support a proposal to use a section of our main page to spotlight content from all of our sister projects. But to simply transform a section of the Wikipedia main page into a news feed would reinforce the misconception that Wikipedia is intended to serve as a news source.

3. I've been describing the section's current format (including the update requirement) in response to Ohms law's continual claim that the section already is essentially identical to Wikinews' main page content. It's perfectly reasonable to propose that the update requirement be abandoned, but it factually exists at the present time. —David Levy 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The perception of, and based on the continual suggestions here that go in that direction the desire of many editor/readers is, that ITN is "essentially identical to Wikinews' main page". Whether or not you think that's wrong-headed, the reality is that many people obviously do think of ITN as being a "news source".
— V = I * R (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and I've even seen users refer to the section as "Wikinews." Should we embrace that perception too? While we're at it, shall we encourage our editors to create articles for dictionary definitions? Many perceive that they belong at Wikipedia. —David Levy 23:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about "embracing it", but I don't see how actively trying to stamp out the widespread views of your fellow editors is constructive. We should always be willing to listen to what our fellow editors are saying, and attempt to somehow integrate disparate views by reaching some sort of consensus that works for as many people as possible. I'm not even going to address the DicDef straw man argument by the way, since that's a completely different subject that is immaterial to this topic.
— V = I * R (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

1. So...if a belief about our project is widespread, we should unconditionally treat it as accurate (because it's somehow discourteous to correct people's misunderstandings)? And because some readers mistakenly believe that the section is "Wikinews," we ought to make it Wikinews instead of clarifying its actual nature?

2. The "dictionary definition" question is not immaterial; it's another example of a common perception of Wikipedia's purpose. Should we inform users that dictionary definitions belong at Wiktionary, or must we instead "listen to what our fellow editors are saying, and attempt to somehow integrate disparate views by reaching some sort of consensus that works for as many people as possible"? I'm serious. —David Levy 01:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The biggest difference between the present ITN and the proposed inclusion of Wikinews is exactly the criteria that the focus article needs to be updated. Just a very likely example: someone who opens the main page of Wikipedia spots an interesting item on ITN. He/she wants to know more and therefore clicks the article. But the article reflects nothing of this story because it has not been updated yet. What now? Some people would go and find sources and expand the article, sure. However, for a vast majority of readers would do nothing and for them, it would be a waste of time and would find it useless. So, why featuring some news on Main page if the article does not reflect it? Wikinews is about news, Wikipedia is about articles and there's the main difference. Instead of several people promoting inclusion of Wikinews in ITN, it would be much better to focus on updating Wikipedia articles as well - once there's a story on Wikinews it's really easy to update an article and by doing so, ITN would certainly have bigger frequency of items. On two of the comments above, TFP does not always feature a FP from Commons, though they manage images. The criteria are not the same. And TFA is an excellent article, not some stub that would need expansion. There are other areas of WP that direct people to articles that need work, Main page items are not ment for that. --Tone 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You bring up a couple of points that I would like to address. You're correct that using Wikinews' selections of stories to drive what appears in ITN would generate interest in the news story, which is why each line should feature a (discreet, which seems to be preferred) link to the story. The main issue that you're bringing up is about the insistence that the story is updated before appearing. In my view, this is counter to part of the central philosophy of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is never complete, and it never will be. That's actually a central reason for the existence of ITN at all! ITN should showcase that we continually have articles which relate to what is happening "right now" out there in the world. The consequence of any article showing up on the main page is that it receives a lot of attention, so it really doesn't matter if the article isn't updated the instant that it's linked to, since it certainly will be very shortly after appearing. We're not discussing Featured Articles, or any other section of the main page here, we're specifically talking about ITN. It sort of sounds as though you don't trust all of your fellow editors, to be blunt.

Finally, I find it interesting that you're bringing up "encyclopedic" in the context of defending the current selection process here. This process is a distraction from the core task of building encyclopedic content.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Strangulation

Here's yet another benefit that I see to this proposal; we can answer this criticism:

Wikinews has also had issues with maintaining a separate identity from Wikipedia, which also covers major news events in real-time. Columnist Jonathan Dee of The New York Times has pointed out that "So indistinct has the line between past and present become that Wikipedia has inadvertently all but strangled one of its sister projects, the three-year-old Wikinews... [Wikinews] has sunk into a kind of torpor; lately it generates just 8 to 10 articles a day... On bigger stories there's just no point in competing with the ruthless purview of the encyclopedia."

— from: Wikinews#Criticism

I don't completely agree with the whole "sunk into a torpor" line of thinking, but there is a point there, if we're willing to at least consider it for a moment.
— V = I * R (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Dee's claim is that Wikipedia has harmed Wikinews by encroaching on its territory and blurring the line between the two project's respective roles. Are you suggesting that placing a news wire on our main page somehow would counter this criticism? —David Levy 06:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. The most obvious effect would be a rather massive boost to the visibility of Wikinews. I can see your point about it bypassing their main page, but the reality on the web is giving in to that viewpoint leads to less overall traffic and exposure for the site (Wikinews, in this case). It doesn't matter how you generate traffic to a site, since modeling user behavior shows that once you pull someone in to the site they often stay for extended periods of time. Wikinews editors could also address the issue themselves later on, if the need become great to do so, by adding something to all articles, or something along those lines.

Anyway, I don't see this as being "A news wire", at all. I see it using the current news to display Wikipedia articles. Using what shows up on the "news wires" to do that keeps the mainpage item extremely current, is all.
— V = I * R (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1. You stated above that "we want some sort of 'news wire' type system on our main page." Now you're saying that you "don't see this as being 'A news wire', at all."

2. I don't see how the proposed setup would serve to "display Wikipedia articles."

3. In my assessment, duplicating Wikinews' content on our main page would reinforce the perception that we're blurring the line between the two sites (rightly so, as it would confuse readers in precisely that manner).

But even if we assume that Wikinews would benefit, for what reason do you believe that it (and not our other sister projects) is uniquely worthy of such a boost? —David Levy 07:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The apparent contradiction that you're drawing is all about the context of the comments. I object to the use of the characterization "news wire", but you seem to favor it (pejoratively?), so I will use it where I'm attempting to create a counterpoint. I think that's fair, although I do understand how it could cause confusion. I'll be more careful about my use of the term, from now on.

All of the rest of this, along with point 1 from above, deals with potential implementation of a system which would utilize Wikinews. Therefore, I'll take the opportunity to sketch out what I see as being possible.

The easy route: Wikinews provides an RSS feed, so it should be relatively simple (not quite trivial, but not a huge task) to take that and reformat it in a manner which would directly fit the Wikipedia main page. They provide the words, we provide the formatting (including appropriate linking).

More cooperative: Of course, Wikinews is a sister project, so I don't see any reason not to pursue a more in depth partnership. If we go to the Wikinews community and the developers, I'm certain that we could work a system where (at least a portion of) their Latest News "feed" is directly written for our main page. If they know that their writing Latest News items (or, alternatively, a new but similar item) for Wikipedia's main page, then I'm certain that "they" will make appropriate choices. Note that I put the last "they" in quotes for a reason, because I really feel that these distinctions between Wikipedia and Wikinews (or any other project) users is artificial, subjective, and frankly is a bit snobbish of us.

That provides a good segue in order to address the last point. I think that there are multiple ways to boost our other projects through Wikipedia. However, ITN is uniquely suited to fill such a role with respect to Wikiews specifically. It's simply the nature of the issue at hand, is all. If it makes you more comfortable though, I'm going to attempt to develop a proposal which will boost the profile of Wiktionary as well, fairly soon.
— V = I * R (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1. There is nothing pejorative about the term "news wire." It simply isn't the section's intended purpose.

2. I agree that the idea is feasible from a technological standpoint. I oppose it from an editorial standpoint.

3. We happen to have a main page section built around a "news" theme. As you've noted, this is merely a framework through which we feature encyclopedic content. It is not a full-fledged news source, nor would it be prudent to replace it with content copied from one. —David Levy 09:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "news wire" itself obviously isn't pejorative, but the manner in which you use it, in the context of these discussions, often seems to be. My point about all of this is that the work needed, and the controversy generated by, selection of the items that appear in the ITN section is: a unnecessary duplication of effort, overly controversial, and because of both of those points largely distracting to (and therefore damaging of) the goal of developing an Encyclopedia here. We're not developing articles through ITN, and that's a real problem.
— V = I * R (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1. None of my references to news-gathering/reporting are derogatory. My point is that this is the intended function of Wikinews, not Wikipedia.

2. I agree that there are problems that must be addressed. I disagree with your proposed strategy. —David Levy 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Then we should start talking about removing ITN altogether. I was hoping that it would never get to that point, but I suppose such a discussion is inevitable.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice given

Just so that no one is shocked about it, I posted notice about this discussion on Wikinews, here: Notice.
— V = I * R (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And here Village pump
— V = I * R (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And here Main page
— V = I * R (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stating that you were "shouted down." It's just lovely to see BorgQueen's and my good-faith discussion characterized in such a manner. —David Levy 09:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I was. Good faith or not, my perception was that I was actively ganged up on and shouted down by a few of you. However, I'm willing to take that on board as a valid criticism and edit it out of the post. I'm not actually hung up on it, regardless (water under the bridge, and all that).
— V = I * R (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Were we supposed to feign agreement?

In any event, thanks for editing the post. —David Levy 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My problem with what happened the first time whas that the perceived tone with which several of you approached my initial post here seems to be overtly hostile (and still does, to some extent). If you disagreed then OK, you certainly shouldn't have "feigned agreement", but I didn't see any assumption of good faith. It was just "No, No, No!" from several people in rapid succession.
— V = I * R (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I assure you that I bear no hostility toward you (as I've tried very hard to convey).

I don't know why you interpreted our disagreement as failure to assume good faith. Opposing someone's idea is not remotely the same as accusing him/her of dishonesty or malice. —David Levy 05:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

In response to the notice I saw on the VP, I will note that I am a huge fan of the proposal. Adding Wikinews RSS feeds (in our formatting) to the main page seems like the ideal option. It will combat almost all of the worst problems currently at ITN. To echo Ohms law, "I don't see any reason not to pursue a more in depth partnership." hmwitht 14:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should do more to promote its sister projects, and I see merit in the idea of using a section of our main page to spotlight combined or rotating content from all of them (rather than simply copying Wikinews, which would reinforce the misconception that Wikipedia is intended to function as a news source). —David Levy 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

David, This recent tack of saying "all of them or nothing" is simply a stall. There are other ways to feature sister projects, some on the main page, some on nearly every article in Wikipedia. There are soft redirects, the main page has a prominent navbar which links to all of the other projects, etc... We're specifically discussing ITN here, so could you please stop attempting to set up a false dilemma?
— V = I * R (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm challenging the false dilemma derived from the assumption that a "news"-themed section is an intrinsic part of our main page and therefore must either be repaired (possibly by turning it over to Wikinews) or allowed to remain [arguably] broken. I'm pointing out that other options exist, and one of them is to reformat the section in a manner that promotes all of our sister projects instead of just one. I'm disheartened to see you dismiss my good-faith suggestion as "a stall" (after I went out of my way to express my confidence that "you sincerely aim to benefit the entire Wikimedia community"). —David Levy 00:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, other options exist, which are being discussed below. This proposal is to use Wikinews as our selection process, essentially keeping the structure the same while reducing the burocracy inherent in this process (to virtually nil) and at the same time featuring our sister project at Wikinews. The false dillema is the choice that you're trying to force that this proposal is no good due to the fact that it only involves one sister project. We can't do anything to help out the whole WMF unless we help all equally? That line of debate is dismissive, which is why it elicits a defensive reaction.
— V = I * R (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not arguing that "we can't do anything to help out the whole WMF unless we help all equally." I'm expressing my opinion that it would be better to increase our level of promotion for all of our sister projects than it would to do so only for Wikinews, and I'm suggesting an idea (as a direct alternative to yours) of how we could accomplish that.

2. I'm also noting out that you have presented your proposal in a manner that relies on the false dilemma of whether to fix the section or retain it in an [arguably] broken form. Essentially, the logic is "we must have a news section, so it might as well be based on Wikinews" [scare quotes]. My point is that a "news"-themed section is no more an intrinsic part of our main page than a "books"-themed section or a "species"-themed section is. The only difference is that it happens to be a particularly convenient framework for the presentation of encyclopedic content (so if we can't make it work to that end, there's no need to keep it at all). —David Levy 01:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm specifically talking about a proposal for ITN here though, not some proposal to replace ITN with something different, or to add something new to the main page. If I wanted to make such a proposal, I'd have posted about it on Talk:Main Page rather then here (which reminds me, I should probably post a note there about this discussion...) I don't think ITN should go away, I simply think that ITN is uniquely qualified to feature Wikinews while at the same time featuring Wikipedia content, and thereby showcasing how up to dte our encyclopedia remains.
— V = I * R (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, I realize that you're specifically talking about a proposal for ITN. Your proposal involves the inclusion of links to Wikinews, and I'm suggesting an alternative format (which I don't believe could reasonably co-exist with yours) that also includes such links (as well as links to our other sister projects).

2. I don't think that ITN should go away either. I agree that it should be tweaked, but I strongly disagree with your specific strategy. —David Levy 05:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The ITN section heading

I have a proposal for altering, just slightly, the heading (but not the name, as such) of the ITN section on the main page, in a way that might significantly diminish the persistent misperception of ITN as a newsfeed.

The main page is laid out with five major sections that showcase content. Two of these showcase particular exemplary items (Today's featured article  and  Today's featured picture). Each of the other three sections showcases a number of items that fit a particular theme (Did you know, On this day, and  In the news). The function of  In the news  is especially similar to that of  On this day ; really, the only difference between these two is the choice of relevant timeframe. However, In the news  is presented on the page as being fundamentally different from either of the other two multi-item sections — because each of those other two section headings is terminated by an ellipsis. Does that make a big difference? Yes. Without ellipsis, the heading states what items are to be found there; with ellipsis, the heading suggests what sort of items may be found there. If the ellipsis were removed from the heading  On this day,

On this day

there would be a suggestion that the things listed are the only notable things that happened on this day. Likewise, presenting the heading of  In the news  without ellipsis,

In the news

suggests that the things listed are the only notable things in the news — a newsfeed. If the ITN heading had ellipsis added,

In the news...

then instead of suggesting a newsfeed, it would instead suggest that these are some items on Wikipedia about stuff that's in the news — which is, to my understanding, what we want it to suggest.

So I propose adding "..." to the ITN section heading on the main page. --Pi zero (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we instead remove the ellipsis from the heading of OTD. I'm not sure how it ended up being included in the first place. It obviously was copied from DYK (where it serves a grammatical purpose), but I don't know why. It probably just slipped in during the 2006 main page redesign (when the section was renamed from Selected anniversaries), as I don't recall an actual discussion. (If there was one, it must have been brief.) —David Levy 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see the purpose for it in OTD: On this day...the planet Mars made its closest approach to Earth in nearly 60,000 years: 55,758,006 kilometres (34,646,419 mi). However, In the news... Ted Kennedy dies... doesn't really make much sense. Also, I don't think a lack of periods of ellipses is really the difference between order and chaos. -- tariqabjotu 00:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The key distinction between DYK and OTD is that the former contains items that are formatted as interrogative sentence fragments intended to follow the wording "Did you know." —David Levy 00:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What I see as a key difference between the sections is this: OTD showcases new articles, or occasionally updated articles, and it does so by using snippets of information from those articles (which is where the ellipsis come from). ITN handles... well, you know. See above and below. But, no ellipsis because ITN doesn't use snippets, it summarizes instead.
— V = I * R (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why the perceptions of "everyone" is a problem that needs to be fixed.
— V = I * R (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstandings within the community lead to confusion within the community. Misunderstandings by readers, whether within or without the community, are a failure of the basic mission of an encyclopedia to inform. --Pi zero (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

ITN Future Events page

can an admin please remove the embedded future page from ITN/C and just leave the link there thanks. Its really starting to get annoying as ITN/C takes a bit to load and then the future page collapses, and when it does u always end up in a different section than what u were reading. tired of scrolling back and forth. -- Ashish-g55 17:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

or if there is some way to load it in collapsed position then that would be ok too. -- Ashish-g55 17:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashishg55, does it collapse for you now? I switched it to class wikitable which somebody told me was accessible. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

not bad. seems to start up in collapsed mode. thanks. -- Ashish-g55 18:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

but my internet miraculously got faster and ITN/C is loading really fast to actually see if Future page is collapsing afterwards... bah. i am gonna try again when its back to normal slow speed :) -- Ashish-g55 18:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

boooooo its still the same. for a second i thought it got fixed. now its collapsing with a nice border to it lol. still leave me 3 days down the list everytime it collapses. -- Ashish-g55 18:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Now what does it do? It was a combination of wiki and HTML table markup, so I nixed the HTML. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

well now we are basically back to original problem (without border still collapsing after loading) -- Ashish-g55 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see what you want. To load the page before it displays. I can't help you there. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

well the main problem is that when it collapses after the entire ITN/C loads the page doesnt really stay in same position. ITN/C scrolls down same as length of future page leaving u in totally different area. here its taking anywhere from 5-10 seconds to load the whole page so everytime i gotta wait for entire page to first load so the future page can collapse...then i scroll down. -- Ashish-g55 18:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I think you should remove it. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Won't the link be OK on its own? I'm going to boldly remove it now as there's no point expecting anyone to answer that question at this unearthly hour. --candle•wicke 02:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work. :-) -SusanLesch (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I hope it is better now. :D --candle•wicke 15:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ahh good stuff. i was wondering why my page isnt jumping up and down anymore. -- Ashish-g55 15:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Reboot discussion

Just an FYI: There's a discussion talking about reforming or rebooting ITN occurring here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Omission of Senator Kennedy's death from "In the News". I wouldn't be surprised if there are others as well, but that's the one I know about.
— V = I * R (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably it's better to make a separate page for a discussion, I'll try to do something in this direction tomorrow. --Tone 22:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There are legitimate reasons to consider an overhaul, but the incident in question isn't one of them. In this instance, the problem was that the normal criteria weren't being followed (apparently due to a knee-jerk assumption of U.S. bias). —David Levy 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. What I got from that discussion was that at least in part, many of the regulars were insisting that normal criteria were being followed to deny the item... So there seems to be some dissonance here. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Some editors made incorrect/outdated assumptions about the normal criteria (such as the belief that heads of state/government were the only qualifying politicians).

But the biggest problem was that Kennedy was American. It's not uncommon for users to blindly rally against U.S.-related items (based on the assumption that their proposed inclusion stems from American arrogance/bias) without bothering to objectively analyze their merit. Fortunately, such a response is far from universal, and many editors from other countries recognized this event's international coverage and spoke up.

But as someone pointed out, if Kennedy had been from any other country, there probably wouldn't even have been a discussion. —David Levy 00:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot stress this advice enough. Both sides have exchanged some regrettable comments, and many people's tempers have flared. All of this within the past few hours. To me, this does not sound like the right time to begin such a major discussion. I urge, and urge greater than anything I have urged on Wikipedia before, that this discussion be postponed for a few days to allow some cooling off. Otherwise, I fear strongly-toned exchanges will occur which will taint the rest of this discussion and lessen the chance of a workable solution being reac::hed. Otumba (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Past experience tells me that the above advice is sound. —David Levy 23:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, wait a bit. But not too long. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's been a botch but it's not going to bring the site down. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what, how about we agree to properly start this discussion in exactly 96 hours from now. Seems like a reasonable cool-off period to me. Otumba (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't get pissed at me for being the messenger here, but the above makes you guys sound like you just want to bury this until people are "sensible enough to see how correct we are". I understand the sentiment to let cooler heads prevale, but the presentation is not very constructive. As far as I can tell, no one is trying to force a major overhaul right this second (and, really, how would that happen anyway?).
— V = I * R (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I do understand your concerns, but you must agree a lot of people on both sides have still get a lot of testosterone running through them. If we started now, even though no solution will be reached for ages, we would risk opening up with that testosterone left, which could lead to some rather ill-considered statements than will stain the rest of this discussion. Besides, there are clearly people who feel very strongly about reform, so I don't think 96 hours will make this issue go away. I apologize if my advice came across as some sort of attempt to bury your suggestion. Otumba (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think a RFC could be started. However, all must be sure to AGF when the discussion is resumed.Shinerunner (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

An RFC sounds like a good idea. Is 96 hours from now good with everyone? Otumba (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think an arbitrary timeline like this is a bit beaurocratic. While I like the cooling off idea, how about we just do it... tomorrow? Doesn't have to be "to the hour". Tan | 39 23:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was being a little picky :), but I did mean 4 days in my hour statement. I do think, considering how much tempers have gone up today, that 1 day is not enough. There really is no rush, after all; it isn't as if those who want reform are going to forget. Otumba (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For the record, I wouldn't use your testosterone statements anymore. Not only does testosterone not directly cause aggression¹, but it implies that males are somehow much more culpable in the aggressive tone you are perceiving. Just a thought; I'm not an offend-able type myself, but you know. Tan | 39 23:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Though testosterone does not cause aggression, the two are associated in popular culture. Plus, I confess my testosterone statement was not meant to specify a gender. My main point was to emphasize that tempers are high. Otumba (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There would have to be discussions on what to include in a RFC as well. It would be good to narrow down what the real needs are. If you simply state "How do we reboot ITN?" you'll get everything from "Junk it completely I don't like it" to "Let CNN run it" etc. Shinerunner (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to scrap the system completely. What we need to change is the guidelines that people quoted upon opposing inclusion of Senator Kennedy's death. Tan | 39 23:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I used rebooting ITN as this was the section title. I agree that some areas or policy may need revamping and not the entire system. Shinerunner (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the best solution is to give this work to those who do it full time. I don't see any changes made here as being anything more then temporary, to be honest. I like having the section on the main page here, but ITN just isn't a central aspect of the workings of Wikipedia, anymore (if it ever really was). Our sister project Wikinews, on the other hand...
— V = I * R (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you're still under the mistaken belief that "this work" is the same as that of Wikinews. —David Levy 00:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I essentially replied to that above.
— V = I * R (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

While it's reasonable to discuss modifying the guidelines, the incident in question stemmed from various editors' misinterpretation of them (coupled with blind opposition to a U.S.-related item). —David Levy 00:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"What we need to change is the guidelines that people quoted upon opposing inclusion of Senator Kennedy's death." Ted Kennedy's inclusion is permitted by the current guidelines, so that's not the problem. -- tariqabjotu 00:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That point seems to be under debate. There were a number of ITN "regulars" insisting that the guidelines excluded TK during the initial discussion. I think some of them are still saying the same thing now. Are they ready to recant and admit they were wrong about the guidelines? That seems an important question to me, because if they are not admitting they were wrong, then either the guidelines need fixing to be more explicit, or if most disinterested observers agree the guidelines are very clear already and not in need of clarification, perhaps the regulars need fixing. And if they are now admitting they were wrong (great!), then something else needs fixing so the regulars don't go into the weeds again. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

hmm i do not agree with above statement at all. everyone is entitled to their opinions. u dont need to "fix" people just because there was a difference in opinion... there were enough people opposing and enough supporting to make it a little bit of controversial item. now just because in the end item was posted does not mean all who opposed were in "weeds" like u say. reading the above i feel like u r looking for some sort of public apology from people who opposed... a little offensive dont u think? and as per guidelines i think they are being discussed in good enough detail below. -- Ashish-g55 20:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My 10 cents, talking about "fixing" regulars is not the most constructive language. Like it or loathe it, it seems clear that any solution reached must partly be based on the views of "regulars", and not just non-regulars. Treating people who have contributed a lot of energy to this side of Wikipedia over many years as a group that may need "fixing" is a sure fire way for this discussion to fail acrimoniously. Otumba (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

US centricism

I think we can all agree that American users / American POV should not receive preferential treatment in Wikipedia. This can be expanded to Anglophone users / Anglophone POV as well. The problem with ITN is that, because of the high number of Anglophone editors, news items which are important to editors from Anglophone countries get posted a lot more often than other items. However, the problem is more complex than that, since ITN needs to reflect the so-called "global" media, which, unfortunately, often suffers from anglophone bias. It seems obvious that a senator or a member of parliament who is not holding a cabinet post would not get posted on ITN if he were from any other country other than the US. The same can be said about coverage in "global" media: they love to report about whatever the American/British media is reporting about, because of Anglophone cultural dominance.

In less problematic cases (news items which receive a lot of coverage in the US media, but not in the international media) it is (imho) relatively easy to see that we should not post it on ITN (with a few exceptions sometimes, as usual), but cases like Ted Kennedy (who got a lot of attention in both American and the global media) are a lot harder. In these cases we must ask ourselves: if the global media is biased, should ITN be biased as well?

In short:

1. If a US-centric news item receives masses of coverage in the US, but little internationally, should we post it?
2. If a US-centric news item receives a lot of coverage both in the US and internationally, should we post it? (Even though the international coverage may be due to Anglophone bias of the global media, and not because the item has international importance?)

Would it be possible to reach some kind of consensus about this? Offliner (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that this whole line of thinking is the central, underlying cause of a perception that "we need to fix that place" ("that place" being ITN). Look, I know it sounds harsh to say this, but I think that being overly concerned about centrism (of anything) is a bit ridiculous. The position being espoused here is as extreme and ridiculous as a position similar to "we need something from <some topic> in ITN all the time". ITN should be organic, it should just flow. If there is an abundance of US news, or any other topic for that matter, then so be it. There just is going to be some pull towards US items because... well, that's reality. The biggest organizations on the block will always garner the most interest. Don't try to fight the tide, you'll just end up drowning.
— V = I * R (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious that a senator or a member of parliament who is not holding a cabinet post would not get posted on ITN if he were from any other country other than the US.

On the contrary, it seems obvious that a death with these levels of political ramifications and international news coverage (along with the requisite article update) would be posted without controversy if the deceased individual were from any country other than the US. —David Levy 00:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The point of this topic by the OP is to create a different standard for US based news than non-US based news. That is clearly not within the Wikipedia ethos. The 'elephant in the room' problem is understandable. However, a different solution is needed (if in fact a solution is indeed necessary). The standard for whether news is posted in ITN should be the same no matter what country of origin it is from. In the Ted Kennedy case, in my opinion the sheer amount of global news reporting his death made the item clearly worthy of ITN. It just seemed to be a glaring omission.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead of this section: "I think we can all agree that American users / American POV should not receive preferential treatment in Wikipedia." seems to possibly prejudge an outcome. What is "preferential treatment" exactly? Trying to allocate coverage based on any sort of quota strikes me as wrong. What should matter are consistent application of criteria, not quotas. ++Lar: t/c 14:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Criteria

I agree with David Levy. but that is the reason we only post head of state/ x-head of state's death to avoid all these conflicts. it used to be our compromise at being netural. and that is what most people tried to argue. The thing however is that it is quite easy to oppose a non US senator vs US senator (as we saw today perhaps) so more often an exception gets made for US related news.

@Ohms. atleast you agree that if ITN were to be changed according to your proposal there would be mostly US related news. rest i will leave for people to think if that is indeed what we want ITN to be or do we want it to be neutral (comparatively) like other items on main page. -- Ashish-g55 00:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The criteria no longer reference heads of state/government (as some users failed to realize in this instance). The current wording refers to "a high ranking office of power" and "a significant contribution/impact on the country/region." Love him or hate him, Ted Kennedy held one of his nation's highest elected offices and was one of the most influential politicians in its history (more so than many of its presidents). —David Levy 00:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If the criteria are that only { current | previous } heads of state are posted, then say that explicitly. The criteria as they stand right now are worded in a way that Sen. Kennedy's inclusion in the section should not be controversial, for the reasons David Levy mentioned above. I would expect the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition to be included in the column for the same reasons, even though he's not a head of state, if something were to happen to him. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

With the same kind of international coverage, yes, I think it would be posted. But a non-American person would receive international coverage only if he really has major international importance, where as Americans often get preferential treatment from the media. Offliner (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

While there are, at times, a US-centric bias it is also important to realize that not all suggestions/contributions are made with the editor saying to himself "Hey, I'm an American and this American fact should be included." That is the importance of Assuming Good Faith for our fellow editors. Unfortunately, many don't follow international news or are only exposed to 2-3 minutes of top national stories on an average newcast and very little international reporting. National and local stories receive much more coverage overall. This, to me, is the reason that a preceived bias may be seen. It's not that people feel superior or want their way, it's that they don't take the time to search out and educate themselves to the "happenings" of the larger world.Shinerunner (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said. That's a big part of what I was attempting to get at above.
— V = I * R (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Ω, excellent words Shinerunner. Otumba (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a user saying there is American bias is guilty of not assuming good faith. Saying someone or something is American bias isn't about saying the person is not acting in good faith. In fact, it's precisely the opposite. It's saying that precisely for the reasons you mention and others, the person may not realise that their viewpoint is biased. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Every single one of us has some bias. That's unavoidable. what we're saying is that the pedumum has simply swung too far in the opposite direction here, as is obvious by the fact that a news item that every other news outlet in the world was reporting on extensively was unable to appear on our mainpage in a timely fashion. The loan event wasn't the issue, it's the structural failures that allowed this to become a problem that is at issue.
— V = I * R (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Whether or not the pendulum has swung too much the wrong way, doesn't change the fact believing something is biased doesn't mean you aren't assuming good faith as Shinerunner appears to have suggested. Whether or not the pendulum has swung too much in the other direction is something that's being discussed in multiple places, including down below. I see no reason to discuss it here as it's not something I raised at all, nor is it something Shinerunner really mentioned. Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My point was that all sides need to assume good faith. The original discussion that started this brought out some harsh statements on both sides. I just felt that if there is a problem let's work to identify and solve it. The reason that I included the news broadcast information was to try to help editors in other countries understand what is happening on our news services. When most local/national news outlets are stating that TK was one of the greatest senators and reporting how other countries are reacting, then if a editor assumes this is "big news" it wouldn't exactly be US bias being pushed. It would be more of a misunderstanding of the importance of the news on an international level. At the very least with these discussions everyone can state what is bothering them so there can be a clearer understanding of the other editors viewpoints.Shinerunner (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that all sides need to assume good faith and that we should remind editors of that. What I am disagreeing with is that there is much evidence of either side not assuming good faith which you seemed to be suggesting there was. (There were a few problems particularly in the TK discussion but they aren't major ones at the moment.) I also agree that greater civility and more careful, thorough, referenced and calmer thought and discussion would help the situation in numerous ways, as well as editors trying to put themselves in shoes of those they disagree with. But even when things get a bit heated, that doesn't mean editors aren't assuming good faith. In fact, good faith generally has little to do with it. They just have strong views and perhaps are guilty of letting their strong views get in the way of rational thought. But again while all that's problematic that doesn't mean they aren't assuming good faith. An important note here. If someone is having trouble seeing the other side because of their own strong views, that doesn't mean they aren't acting in good faith. The person may just not realise it. It's only when a editor consciously knows or does not care whether their actions are benefiting wikipedia when they aren't acting in good faith. Assuming good faith doesn't mean we have to believe what someone is proposing will benefit wikipedia, it just means we should believe they are trying to improve wikipedia. On a personal note, I for one thoroughly accept that the vast majority of contributors here are trying to improve wikipedia. The fact that we have strong disagreements on how to do it, doesn't mean they aren't. While I would hope not, it's ultimately possible we won't reach a consensus. Again this doesn't mean that's because either side wasn't acting in good faith. To sum it up, while you have some good comments which you're welcome to make and are helpful to the discussion, I still think it's a mistake to suggest that not assuming good faith is a significant problem. It isn't (yet?) Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I appreciate that we're in agreement on most items, however I never stated that there was a "significant problem" nor do I really think there is one. Let's just say what I was trying to convey was a reminder to AGF. When editors make statements like "Clearly Wikipedia has a vocal anti-US minority who wants to silence any US stories on the front page" or "it doesnt really matter when it comes to US news. some admin always seems to post it either way" a helpful cheery reminder about AGF may not be out of the question. Shinerunner (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

...yea, I think that you might actually be addressing a perceived issue here that the rest of us don't seem to be seeing Nil. When I read Shinerunner's original post here, and replied that it was good, I didn't see it as some sort of "You people need to AGF!" type post, which is what it sounds like you might be reading it as. I actually wouldn't have posted a supporting statement after such a post, myself. That being said, What you posed was a point that I generally agre with Nil. I'm just not sure that it's on point for this discussion.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Preferential treatment

I don't view it as preferential treatment. I view it as a reflection of the fact that good or bad, the United States' internal affairs tend to have more international impact/interest than those of many other countries. This applies as much (if not more so) to our ghastly blunders as it does to anything positive. —David Levy 00:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

i also agree. i actually see that as the bigger purpose of ITN (maybe my personal opinion) to educate people about various international news that they may not otherwise see in their local newscast. hence we say ITN is not news source. A person in africa should feel like they want to read ITN material because the item concerns or interests everyone. If regularly all items were to come from same country or region then its just a news source that they can read about on CNN perhaps. And the only real way to achieve this kind of material is to try and keep ITN neutral across the globe. -- Ashish-g55 00:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is en.wiki. There's going to be a lot of US-related news. This whole issue wasn't anyone being US-centric; it was people being anti-US. That stops now. Tan | 39 01:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

wow its almost like you did not even read the discussions above. I am really sorry but you sound overly patriotic there. US-centrism and anti-US are POV and what you just said is basically a major difference in opinion. 67.226.153.217 (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to sound so confrontational... -- tariqabjotu 01:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't be that aggressive about it, Tan. Ashishg55, I can admire your stance from a philosophical point of view. However, that viewpoint is actually directly at odds with WP:NPOV, which is explained further in WP:OR and WP:ADVOCACY. We should never attempt to actually debate the underlying issues, or try to "fix" any perceived injustices in the world. There are plenty of web sites around the 'net which those types of tasks as a central component, but what's worse is that allowing any POV pushing to occur anywhere takes away form the core task of building an encyclopedia and encourages the spread of more POV pushing to occur. Being neutral is an impossible goal to ever completely attain, but it's certainly worth perusing, and allowing it to continue once it has been identified is not the right course to take.
— V = I * R (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I would argue Ashishg55's stance is consistent with WP:Systemic bias. I don't think it's about POV pushing. The Ted Kennedy example may not be a good example here but that doesn't mean WP:Systemic bias is wrong Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's actually part of what I'm trying to get across. There has to be a balance here, as giving in to either view; that US centrism is something to actively fought on the one hand, or that is should be completely ignored and we thereby allow systematic bias to creep in; is a problem. Whatever any of us thinks individually, about this or any other issue "out there in the real world", we can't allow ourselves to become "the gatekeepers to Wikipedia" in any significant way. Sure, at the extremes there are notability concerns that even I will agree with, but I will continue to argue that the incident which prompted all of this discussion is a perfect example of going to an exclusionary extreme and actively pushing a POV, which is the reason that all of this discussion has started. <smal>I should probably admit that I do feel at least a small bit of "I told you so" satisfaction in all of this, though.
— V = I * R (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

i dont think what i said was about POV pushing. if anything it was more about NPOV pushing. maybe i pushed a little harder than i should have lol. my main concern all along was whether posting a similar item for a different country is feasible since there are just too many senators all over the world or people at similar positions. and it didnt sound like it was possible so i opposed to avoid any conflict in neutrality. The only exception was fame which seemed localized. maybe the local fame was so high that i was wrong this time but that doesnt mean i was pushing for my POV. my goal was still maintaining neutrality. now if from now on with this "overhaul" we do not want to be neutral anymore then thats a totally different thing and i will stop trying to make ITN international with global concern/interests. basically you cannot continuously make exceptions for a country and still call it being neutral. once or twice is ok but it happens way too often and some ppl like me who opposed get blamed for POV pushing. -- Ashish-g55 04:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess this was the reason why the 2009 CONCACAF Gold Cup wasn't posted, while the Copa America 2007 had been posted; we couldn't just equate each and every items that are "equal on paper" and argue "if we posted A, but since B is "equal on paper" with B, then we should add B too. Same with the FIBA Oceania Championship 2009 and EuroBasket 2009. –Howard the Duck 05:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I probably made this a bit overly personal by mentioning your name, Ashishg55. It's really not just you, obviously. Quite a bit of this ties into the questions of the core purpose of ITN, so we may want to let this thread go and concentrate on that question. My stance, and it seems to be shared by others, essentially boils down to the point that ITN should ape what the current widely reported news is, as much as possible, in order to be neutral and to highlight the fact that our articles stay current. This all came up because the process here decided to actively work against what the current news is/was, which is where my earlier "don't fight the tides" comment was coming from. There's a selection bias that has developed here, which in my experience usually develops due to insularity. I don't want to put the work that all of you have done here down, but it just looks as though you've collectively formed a "cabal" here that is disconnected from the wider community.
— V = I * R (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Specific instances

Please cite specific instances in which exceptions were made to include U.S.-related items that didn't meet the normal criteria. Armed with this information, I will personally seek to prevent similar situations from arising in the future. —David Levy 05:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Its getting late night here so i will state a few off top of my head from recent ITNs. Barack Obama's speech for muslims, Sonya Sotomayer when Obama merely nominated her, then again when she got elected, Al franken getting elected. there are many more which i can make a list of i suppose. Many were taken down after long debates similar to todays but they were posted none the less. but all this is a moot point if above proposals to just add all news items like a news source is used. most items will end up being US anyways. -- Ashish-g55 05:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I need more than a bare list, please. What criteria were ignored? —David Levy 06:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For my own information, I would be curious as to the other stories listed at the same time. Did the above mentioned instances cause ITN to be dominated by US related news or were they the only US related news story at that time? I would think that information would be helpful in the ongoing discussions. Shinerunner (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Every other Senator

I'm sorry, but to equate Kennedy with every other senator all over the world is really poor judgment. He was one of the most well known and influential senators that ever served, from a very high profile country. If ITN is so rules bound that an event like this is left off because of some overly bureaucratic reading of some text then changes indeed need to be made. More eyes here is a good start. ITN can and should be global, but the way to accomplish that is not to suppress news coming from the U.S. RxS (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you only prove my point a bit more. "most well known and influential senators that ever served, from a very high profile country". so it is ok to post it because it is US is what you are saying? if he was highly influential in a low profile country it will not be posted? That is pretty much what systemic bias really is. i could make more comments on ur other points but they have all been heard before so i wont restate. -- Ashish-g55 05:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. If a highly influential senator on the level of a Ted Kennedy from any country it should be listed...including the U.S. You use the term systemic bias as if it is relevant in this case. It isn't. This was an embarrassing lapse of judgment. If you can't see that than I'm not sure what to say, but it's a pretty common opinion wherever this has been discussed. RxS (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I can at least understand the viewpoint, even if I don't agree with it at all. There's a reason that the US (and Europe and Japan, for that matter) receive a disproportionate amount of attention in comparison to Africa, South America, and most of Asia. Asia highlights well how this all works, though. China, India, and most recently South Korea, have been steadily gaining more and more attention to their respective goings-on, over the years. Their becoming more developed, and therefore are steadily becoming more engaged in the wider global community. The primary issue with reporting on, to pick a semi-random example, what's happening in the Central African Republic, is that it usually just has zero impact, to be blunt. They have little connection to the outside world, so until large groups of people start dieing there for one reason or another, Events there are just not going to register with anyone.
— V = I * R (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Under the current criteria, the death of any politician of Kennedy's rank and influence would qualify, irrespective of the country from which he/she hailed.

However, there also is the update requirement, and systemic bias does result in a lower likelihood that the death of a comparable politician from Kyrgyzstan (as a random example) will result in a sufficient article update in a timely fashion.

There also is the inescapable fact that U.S. affairs generate more international interest and impact (good or bad) than do those of many other nations. It isn't our job to counter this real-world imbalance. —David Levy 06:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Very broadly put, there is no way to skirt systemic bias in both the inputs and outputs of any knowledge base and as the world decentralizes it's going to get harder, not easier, to make editorial decisions like these. Systemic bias hints at both strengths and flaws in how folks deal with information. Meanwhile nobody is smart enough, or has access to enough data, to even define all the biases (with all their overlapping bounds of "helpfulness" and "harm"), much less build a system that can handle them. The pith is to abide with the notion that these biases, these weaknesses and strengths, are always lurking and this is where open editing shows its strengths: Each reader gives their own value to any shred of information. Open editing carries a means of feedback by which a meaningful, shifting "value" can be given to any information, in a kind of free market of information and outlook. From what I can see, the breakdown here came about because this "market" of feedback was narrowed down to only a few editors, who in trying to overcome bias, made it worse. Hence, although systemic bias will never be wholly swept away from a project like ItN, wider, open input can very likely tamp down most of the worries but beware, one editor/reader's notion of success in handling systemic bias will almost always be, for another editor/reader somewhere at some time, a notion of utter failure. This is ok, so long as feedback from both flows freely into the mix. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Prevention

For the people here, how do you prevent systemic bias?

• Supress the information to an acceptable mininum of the topic where the bias is heaviest
• Add more information on where the bias is lightest.
  1. –Howard the Duck 05:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's lets make this a tally like the WP:Hypothetical items. –Howard the Duck 05:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion, at least, the way to prevent a perception that we're biased in any way is to ape the news somehow. That's a large part of why I've proposed using Wikinews to select for us, above. Sorry to keep coming back to that, but I really think that is the long term solution to several problems, here.
  — V = I * R (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ITN purpose

I thought the purpose of ITN was to subtly broadcast that hey, we're the most up-to-date encyclopedia in the world! You read about these stories in your local newspaper and boom, here they are reflected in our articles! Suck it Britannica! More selfish than altruistic if you ask me. -- tariqabjotu 01:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's supposed to be, really. Since Wikinews was split off from Wikipedia, I suspect that it's sort of lost some of it's focus. The best I can tell, the biggest original contributors to ITN more or less migrated to Wikinews. Which is partially where my suggestions way up there^ were coming from.
— V = I * R (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This section seems to get to the heart of the matter. What is ITN's purpose? Just another news service? Or a way to highlight interesting articles worthy of attention which happen to be topical? Or something else? If it's just another news service then strict notability considerations should determine what articles are mentioned. But consider DYK, another "article clipping service" that gets a section of the main page. The articles in DYK are selected based mostly on newness... not strictly interest level, or newsworthyness ore even quality (some quality standards apply but DYK are by no means the best articles, that's reserved for FA)... The purpose of ITN should drive the selection of articles for ITN. So what, again, is the purpose? The header of the ITN template states:

In the news mentions and links to entries of timely interest—that is, encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event—rather than conventional news items.

Does everyone agree that's a valid purpose statement? ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's as good as anything, and underlines the fact that we're here for the articles and not a reporting service. It drives readers to articles that provide background to the headlnes which is pretty rare I think. (Though, I'm not sure there's a qualitative difference between a news service and spotlighting articles that have been updated from a current event. We'll have articles in place already on most (most) topics that occur in the news so any news event will spawn an article update. So really, it's the news event itself that's driving inclusion and not the fact that an article got updated. Does that make sense or is it too nit-picky?) Probably too nit-picky. RxS (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made a specific proposal that relates to this distinction (newsfeed versus articles-related-to-the-news), above under the heading #The ITN section heading. --Pi zero (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I almost support that. My version would be something along the lines of

In the news mentions and links to entries of timely interest—that is, encyclopedia articles that reflect an important current event—in order to showcase how up to date Wikipedia remains.
— V = I * R (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews split

Wikinews was not split off from Wikipedia. —David Levy 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't? That seems to be an odd position to take, when you consider that they themselves seem to disagree.
— V = I * R (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are you seeing any mention of Wikinews being split off from Wikipedia? It's been a separate Wikimedia project from day one. —David Levy 03:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're not really understanding the discussion you link to. Wikinews was started as a seperate project, as with wikitionary, wikisource, wikibooks et al. Wikipedia being the first and most visible of the foundations projects, wikinews may have used it as an example of how it will function. However as the discussion you linked to makes clear, wikinews was never intended to take over any part of wikipedia, nor was it split off from part of wikipedia. Instead, it was started as a seperate project with its own goals which were distinct from wikipedia and intended to fulfill a purpose that wikipedia did not at the time, and was never intended to fulfill. To use a different example, both conservapedia and Citizendium mention wikipedia in their founding. Citizendium even planned at one stage to start off as a fork of wikipedia (which didn't happen). However to suggest they were split off from wikipedia isn't accurate. Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about this: I'm willing to accept that there are differing interpretations of the history of Wikinews. This is getting pretty far off track though, so we should probably just let it go. Except, I have to bring up the point that Wikinews is a Wiki Foundation project, which makes it distinctly different from conservapedia or Citizendium (even if the founders had and have ties to the Foundation, their not members).
— V = I * R (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Differing interpretations"? You were incorrect about a material fact. It's nothing to be ashamed of. —David Levy 03:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See, this is why I wanted to let this go... I think it's the other way around, obviously. We could argue this forever and get nowhere though, and more importantly it has nothing to really do with the core topic at hand, so what do you say that we let it drop?
— V = I * R (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to even concede a relatively minor (albeit material) point when the facts are right in front of you, I'm not confident that continued discussion will be fruitful. —David Levy 04:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

←:OK, I don't think that it's that important of an issue, but if you're going to question my intelligence over it I guess I have to address it. WikiMedia started Wikipedia in 2001. by 2004, there was a vote, including canvassing of current Wikipedia users, on taking a (then beta) Wikinews project "live". It passed, and Wikinews has been developing steadily since. Wiktionary, Wikibooks, etc... all developed in similar fashion. All of the projects have their own specific goals, but their all part of, and governed by, The WikiMedia foundation. ...I wonder if this whole thread of discussion is actually caused by reading where I said "split off" as meaning "fork"? That wasn't my intent, if that's indeed what the hangup is. I know that Wikinews isn't a Wikipedia fork! It does abide by the same core principles as all WikiMedia projects do, however.
— V = I * R (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1. At no point have I questioned your intelligence.

2. Since Wikinews was split off from Wikipedia, I suspect that it's sort of lost some of it's focus.

I'm unable to come up with a plausible interpretation of the above that doesn't involve Wikinews originating as part of Wikipedia and subsequently becoming a separate project. —David Levy 04:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To #1: your message above, where you said: "If you're unwilling to even concede a ... point when the facts are right in front of you" is questioning someone else's intelligence, even if it wasn't intentional. That's OK, though, I don't (normally) get emotional about these things.

To #2: History (currently) records that the idea incubated in Wikipedia:

(from Wikinews#History)

The first recorded proposal of a Wikimedia news site was a two-line anonymous post on January 5, 2003, on Wikipedia community's Meta-Wiki. Daniel Alston, who edited Wikipedia as Fonzy, claimed to have been the one who posted it. The proposal was then further developed by German freelance journalist, software developer and author Erik Möller. Early opposition from long-time Wikipedia contributors, many of them pointing out the existence of Wikipedia's own news summaries, gave way to detailed discussions and proposals about how it could be implemented as a new project of the Wikimedia Foundation.

But, what about this. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I either misspoke, or was unclear in what I was saying. If this is a factual thing, I can and will argue that forever, and I think that you will as well, but I'm perfectly willing to admit that I didn't express myself completely. That happens all the time!
— V = I * R (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I wasn't questioning your intelligence; I was questioning your collegiality.

2. Where are you seeing a statement "that the idea incubated in Wikipedia"? Setting aside any disagreement for the moment, I'm sincerely interested in learning how you're arriving at that interpretation.

I also genuinely want to know what earlier state you were comparing the current Wikinews to when you noted your suspicion "that it's sort of lost some of [its] focus." —David Levy 05:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to let it go just so we could concentrate more on the core questions, is all. If that came across as uncollegial, then I sincerely apologize, as that wasn't my intent at all.

Anyway, that Wikinews developed from a portion of the Wikipedia community at the time seems self evident, to me. As is detailed in the article, a Wikipedia editor suggested it, another developed it further, and whole groups (which I'm sure included some new "recruits" as well) developed a manifesto, worked out a framework for it to grow, developed the beta, and voted on it going live. We're all WikiMedia members... I don't see the fact that some of us concentrate on Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, or (predominantly) Wikipedia as something that divides us at all. I think that thinking, which I'm perfectly willing to admit is extensive, it wrong-headed and damaging to the whole group of projects. I believe that we should work to integrate all of the projects together much more then we currently do, while maintaining them as separate entities, in order to encourage growth of the entire project. There can and should be synergy among all of the WikiMedia projects, we simply need to not stand in the way of it.
— V = I * R (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you've written, but you didn't answer my questions. Thanks anyway. —David Levy 05:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously most of the initial wikinews editors came from wikipedia and as I've already acknowledged this means they got most of their earlier wiki experience from here. This doesn't change the fact that wikinews was never a part of wikipedia. Using my two earlier examples, I'm pretty sure a fair number of conservapedia and citizendium editors came from here as well (in both cases their founder cited their experience here both from editing and watching, and the founder of citizendium is of course one of the co-founders of wikipedia) and while their projects are not wikimedia projects and so their development was obviously not discussed here or on other wikimedia pages they do have one thing in common, that is being distinct projects which did not split off from wikipedia but rather came from editors who wanted to do something else (and in both the other cases, weren't happy with everything wikipedia was doing). Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The real key difference that you seem to be missing is that all WMF projects have the same core principles (let alone the fact that their all WMF projects, but that doesnt' seem important to you?) Part of the reason that the two wiki's which you mentioned, as well as several others, have been (directly or indirectly) forked from Wikipedia is for the express purpose of changing the core principles that they operate under.
— V = I * R (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me you're missing my point. I don't deny there are key difference between all the WMF projects and my other examples. They are. But that's completely irrelevant. What I am saying is that in all cases despite similarities in numerous ways including in terms of contributors and how they arose, it is inaccurate to say they split off from wikipedia since in all cases it is simply not true. As with David Levy, I have to agree that your refusal to either accept that you choose your wording poorly or were mistaken in your belief in that instance or at least try to explain how the history leads you to believe it is accurate to say the wikinews split off from wikipedia or even just drop this discussion* and instead continually choosing to discuss new and irrelevant points which are best discussed elsewhere is not helpful to me since that's the only thing me and I think David are discussing here. (There are plenty of other places where this is ongoing discussion on most of what you appear to be talking about now, I prefer not to discuss the same thing in 5 different places although I acknowledge I do often do that myself and may have caused part of the problem here in going too far off topic in my examples/explanation.) BTW convervapedia didn't fork from wikipedia at all. (Citizendium did to a limited extent). And incidentally, wikinews departs from the core principles you mentioned (it's not an encylopaedia, duh!, Citizendium in facts follows 4 of the core principles in their own fashion AFAIK as well although not necessarily as core principles, i.e. they have a neutrality policy, obviously do aim to be an encylopaedia, are free content, have a code of conduct, the only principle where they explicitly differ is in they do have firm rules). P.S. In case you still don't get it, what I'm saying is that while all the other WMF projects are intended to be complementary to us (there are also a bunch of wikia projects which can be considered likewise even if they aren't associated with us) while conservapedia and citizendium can be considered rivals of sorts, the vast majority of these including wikinews did not split off from us even if their contributors may have had their first experience with wiki style editing with us. *And on that final note, I feel this discussion has gone on long enough. You're welcome to comment further but personally won't be continuing it since I don't see much point as it's likely to just go round in circles. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Hi. I liked those ITN things on my talk page. Despite the fact that an admin disagreed with it being posted, is there anyone here who would give me one for the Taliban item? This person was dying for almost a month, and it really was a lot of work to keep up with it for three weeks and make the necessary updates. I thank you either way because other editors have added greatly to these articles since they reached the main page. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

when I saw that item being cited in the discussion here as an example of something trivial by comparison with this one, I thought it a really mistaken example. From a world-wide perspective, they were both extremely relevant items to include. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

DGG, that is nice to hear. Well maybe instructions would help. Is there anyone from ITN out there who would please copy the following to my talk page? I would like to keep it and share it with the editor who noticed the BBC News story that confirmed Mehsud's death:

On 22 July, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Baitullah Mehsud, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--your signature here (it's really not that hard to do)

Argue US-centrism and Wikinews all you want and ignore this request. Third request. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to three regular ITN users: User:Daviessimo, User:candlewicke, User:Ashishg55. I am so happy to get this one and passed it along to User:The Man in Question and most especially User:Rdavi404. Good work. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Very Important

Otumba has given you all a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

You know, reading some of the words hear makes me wonder how the hell Wikipedia made it. I mean, reading some of the words here, you'd think a civil war had started. Wouldn't be the first time. How on earth then did we make, and I mean we, create the greatest encyclopaedia the world has ever seen? Simple, because though many disagreements have happened, and will inevitably happen for as long as Wikipedia breathes, at the end of the day most of us who have been arguing against each other pat each other on the back and say "You know, I don't like your view, but that's part-and-parcel of being one amongst many. Let's carry on the work." Despite disagreements, the collective spirit remains. And here's a little cookie to symbolize that. Enjoy. :) Otumba (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you!
  — V = I * R (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. You and I are not going to see eye-to-eye all the time, just as no member of the community will with another, but shaking hands at the end of a debate and continuing to co-operate afterwards is what Wikipedia is about. :) Otumba (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

Should he really be there? According to the death criteria he wasn't in a very high office of power, only being a senator, and won't greatly change world events. I guess just another case of US-centralism... ChrisDHDR 12:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been heavily discussed. Please see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#ITN candidates for August 26 and the above discussions that followed (search for "kennedy"). —David Levy 12:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sections for RFC discussion

Also, we should get rid of the per editor sections. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, why not have sections? It makes replies much easier, and it facilitates people adding their own replies.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions for discussion

I came here from T:MP and wanted to add my comments without wading through the morass above. There seem to be quite a few issues here, so I've written a set of questions that I think we need to answer before making any changes. They form a sort of sequence, whereby answering the earlier questions would affect the answers to later questions.

• What is ITN for?

ITN currently serves to highlight encyclopaedia articles which are of timely interest because their subjects are currently in the news. It does not serve to actually report news stories. This may or may not be everyone's perception of what ITN is for; equally some may feel that this isn't what it should be for. If there is widespread opposition to this purpose, then we need to take a very big step back and answer this question before we do anything else.

• Should ITN operate as a news ticker?

There's some argument to be had here. The current selection criteria ensure that a) bold linked articles must be of a decent standard and b) the stories selected have some ill-defined `importance'. A news ticker service would result in more stories, of lesser `importance', linking to lower quality articles. However, it would serve to satisfy the purpose defined above. Personally, I don't like the news ticker idea, but there's certainly a debate to be had.

• What is our target audience?

What demographic are we aiming to satisfy? Possible demographics (all of which implicitly also include the requirement for an internet connection) include: the whole world, everyone who can read some English, everyone with a high standard of English (others can go to simplewiki), everyone whose first language is English, residents of all countries where English skills are common, residents of all countries where English is an official language, residents of the Anglophone countries (ie English as the dominant language), or perhaps some more restrictive options. We need to remember that not everyone reading ITN is from the US, UK, Canada or Australia, and many will not have English as their first language.

• What sort of stories do we want?

As alluded to above, ITN currently selects stories which are deemed to have some major international impact. This is rather nebulously defined, and results in constant debate on the exact boundaries. Compared to conventional news sources (eg BBC, CNN, Reuters), ITN tends to favour stories on elections, disasters, science (especially space science) and international relations, and to disfavour stories on entertainment, economics, national politics and sport. Is this a good or a bad thing? Do these sorts of stories mesh well with the purpose and target audience from above?

• How many stories should we run?

ITN currently has a limit of `at least one story every 24 hours'. In practise, it runs very close to this limit. There needs to be a tension between the desire for more stories, our ability to reach consensus on their inclusion (and vet the text), and the opportunity for people to actually read them before they get rotated off.

• How do we design selection criteria to achieve these aims?

Pretty self explanatory. This is a huge area, so I won't attempt to list options here. But we need to bear in mind all of the above before debating them.

• Are there any other changes we should make?

Things like changing the title of the section to better reflect its mission, changes to procedure on WP:ITN/C, merging with Wikinews or Portal:Current Events etc. Note that these things should really wait until we've answered the other questions above.

I hope these questions can serve as a useful basis for discussion. Modest Genius ^talk 21:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: User:Ohms law made the RfC, not me. I do think it's a good idea though. Also, I just added another question I missed the first time around. Modest Genius ^talk 15:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

RxS

Great overview of the questions and issues.

-There's a good deal of schizophrenia happening at ITN. The stated purpose is to generally leverage news items to highlight articles and not as a news service. That's a good use of front page space. But more often than not it's used as a news service. Either turn it into a straight news space or make it more of a current events space that has little if any connection to straight news.

-ITN has very detailed rules for inclusion, but they are wildly unevenly enforced. You have items included that have little to do with inclusion guidelines, and others are excluded by a strict reading of the rules. The inclusion guidelines should be relaxed in order to allow for a more uniform application. This would also allow for a little more common sense to take effect.

-The first sentence says that ITN features up-to-date encyclopedic content reflecting important international current events.. This is pretty vague, and is regularly ignored. It is, on the other hand, frequently used to block items relating the the U.S. in order to promote diversity. Diversity is a great goal, but this is a bad way to go about it.

-Overall, ITN occupies space on the front page of one of the most widely visited web sites in existence. It needs a fresh inflow of participants. The current group that is active works hard, but it's turned into an echo chamber where differing views are not encouraged.

Those are my thoughts...RxS (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher

Just jumping in here, but where you say "not everyone reading ITN is from the US, UK, Canada or Australia" gives me pause. I don't know the stats, but I imagine if you add in India and a couple of others, you've got 90-99% of readers. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And, while I'm shooting from the hip, I don't think it's good to "disfavour stories on entertainment, economics, national politics and sport." WP is generally about the writers, and not the readers, and I think we should be more about the readers. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Plus, a suggestion. Include something from a variety of categories like Business, Entertainment, Sports, etc. Like google news. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that you're probably correct about the demographics of English Wikipedia's users, although you might be overstating it slightly. That's not really a good excuse to ignore internationalization issues though.

Anyway, There's a lot here that goes into exactly what I've been proposing. The skewed selection process that ITN currently operates by is the main reason that I think we should rely on something slightly external to Wikipedia itself. This process will never attract enough users to the actual process in order for it to continually make neutral choices about what to list. The core part of the problem is that Wikipedia is actually an encyclopedia, so it should be no surprise that we can't get a good group of people together to make selections about what constitutes current events. It's just not really an important component to the task of building an encyclopedia. Luckily, we have a sister project who have an integral role in selecting the top current events, which is why I've been advocating leaning on them.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the section's function is not to report "the top current events." —David Levy 17:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nifboy

I've always felt ITN was a kind of current-events version of DYK: A way for editors' work to hit the main page without dredging through FAC, and also as a kind of impromptu collaboration-of-the-week for ancillary articles, with the bonus feature of informing our readers. I'm not sure what kinds of articles would be better for that purpose, because bad articles get looked at and hopefully edited, while good articles actually do our readers a service. So I guess I wouldn't mind simply having more stories/articles. Nifboy (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's accurate. I think it'd be better to let current events in the world drive it, though. We've already got DYK. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't completely share the view that ITN and DYK are that closely related. For example, DYK is much more about a single article then ITN typically is. Sure, there is always a bolded link to indicate some primary article about the subject, but ITN is also not written with snippets... This is touching on the idea about the need to only list updated articles in ITN though, which is a part of current ITN policy that I don't completely agree with.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohms law

I wanted to echo the "Great overview" sentiment as well, and add that I appreciate that you took the time to do this. It promped me to bump this to an RFC and list it on cent, so hopefully we can get a broad cross section of opinions here to contribute.

I'm still of the opinion that the selection process itself is what drives the problems, here. The main reason that I'm proposing using the selection of stories which Wikinews uses for their front page is in order to address this problem. Since Wikinews obviously needs to select stories for a broader purpose (to present what are currently big stories), then it follows that their selections are relatively neutral. There is an inherent selection bias there, but it's something that I think Wikipedia should work with, rather then attempt to fight against.

ITN should highlight our own articles, in order to showcase how up to date they are. That's always been my view of the core purpose of the section. Taking Wikinews' main stories and presenting our own articles which directly relate to them keeps us constantly current, and the side benefit is a bit of a boost to the profile of our sister project. All good things, as far as I can tell.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should change the selection process, but we're never going to run wikinews articles, based on what I know of WP and its editor's opinions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a huge part of the problem here. I mention Wikinews and everyone jumps up and says "We're not going to use Wikinews' articles!!!!" The thing is, I'm not proposing copying their articles or anything like that. I'm proposing using their selection process in order to highlight Wikipedia's articles which directly relate to the items listed there. We should also provide a discreet link to the Wikinews article, as a simple matter of courtesy, but that's not the core of the proposal. I wish I could make the distinctions more immediately apparent, as you're not the first to jump to conclusions about this.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have articles directly related to all of the items listed there, let alone articles that have been or will be substantially updated as a result. —David Levy 17:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

...sure we do! We're currently linking to all sorts of pages related to what is put up on ITN, and every Wikinews story includes at least some links to Wikipedia stories. Besides, even in the rare instance where an article isn't available for a top news story comes up... just wait an hour, and it'll show up. That's actually one of the primary reasons we have ITN!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

1. No, a great many Wikinews articles do not have corresponding Wikipedia articles; they link to Wikipedia articles that provide background information about people and things mentioned in the article, not articles that are "directly related" to the news story. (Some contain only passing mentions of the events in question, or even no mentions at all.)

2. There should not be a Wikipedia article for every "top news story" or everything reported at Wikinews (because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service). Encouraging the indiscriminate creation of such articles would be very bad. —David Levy 00:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Apoc2400

In my opinion, ITN should help readers find articles related to current event, both new articles about the events themselves and articles with background information. It should focus on news stories where Wikipedia has more to offer than just a summary of the current news. Deaths are good items, because we often have far more information about the people and their work than obituaries have room for. The Nobel prizes each year are good too, because interested readers can dig deep into the winners bios, their research topics/writing/work or the history of the prizes themselves. This goes far beyond just reporting the news. Less good is a plane crash, where our article offers nothing more than what is in the papers. I am not saying ITN should never list a plane crash, but it should give priority to articles that offer more than news. Also, please keep Wikinews out of it. First, because if I want Wikinews I go there, and I dont. Second, because Wikinews will just weight how big the news story is, not how much Wikipedia has to offer related to it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You make a very good point about the availability of supporting information. Highlighting articles which have been created purely because they've entered the news (death of so and so, 2009 widget disaster etc) seems rather perverse, and certainly lowers the quality. Modest Genius ^talk 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that an ITN on a plane crash is "less good" for ITN because Wikipedia is very good at cross-referencing dozens of different news sources in the event of a disaster (see e.g. this NYT article). That said, I don't mind deemphasizing less urgent news stories where the bold article was just created and little else. Nifboy (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Second, because Wikinews will just weight how big the news story is, not how much Wikipedia has to offer related to it.

Exactly. Ohms law's proposal is based on the belief that we're duplicating "the exact same work" done at Wikinews, and this simply isn't so. —David Levy 17:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an excellent point. Presenting background information for news stories is one of the things the press usually cites Wikipedia as being very good at. — RockMFR 15:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. I also believe that linking readers to good articles about events/people they may have heard of in the other media is the primary purpose of ITN, however, I do not share your bias against newer articles. Random89 07:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Shinerunner

To me, some of the problems relating to article selection are due to a misunderstanding as to the purpose of ITN. It seems obvious that some are looking at the title "In The News" as current wire service stories/breaking news. If that is the case, then renaming the title or a better description of the purpose of the section may help. A clarifcation as to the purpose of ITN or rename may also help diffuse or minimumize the problems with article selection. As to article selection, a better explanation or expansion on the guidelines would help as well. Shinerunner (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should change ITN to match its name, not it's name to match ITN. Current event areicles are also the highest quality type of article that exists on WP (not counting FA and GA). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that some readers seeing the word "news" mistakenly assume that the section's purpose is to report the news, not to link to encyclopedic content. —David Levy 17:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone suggesting that we actually link to news stories from ITN though. Everyone wants to link to Wikipedia articles.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the participants in this discussion; I was referring to users who show up (usually at Talk:Main Page) with complaints along the lines of "Why isn't _____ in the news section? It's a big news story!". As I noted elsewhere, some have even mistakenly called the section "Wikinews." —David Levy 00:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Ohms law believes that people are lining up to demand that the section be treated more like a news feed. In actuality, people mistakenly perceive it as such (and complain that a major news story has been omitted, despite its non-encyclopedic nature). —David Levy 17:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher

The problem here appears to be a lack of commonsense. ITN should not just be a newsticker although one of those on the main page as well which gets millions of views a day may be a good thing. ITN should cover stories which are widely reported in the international media and which are notable enough to have its own article or extensive coverage on another article. In the case of deaths, obviously this is far more dependent on peoples point of view if someone is notable enough, but examples such as M Jackson and Ted Kennedy should be added without question, these got huge coverage world wide.

What really seems to be the problem here is the discrimination taking place, and frankly i find it bloody disgusting. It appears if its about someone who is white and in the United States you will face tougher criteria than if its a person from another part of the world or with a different skin colour. If items were excluded from the news page because they were about Africa or black people, this would rightly cause a huge uproar and be unacceptable. Yet that is exactly what is happening here in the case of white people such as Ted Kennedy and some of the responses to adding Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard i found sickening and offensive.

The main page gets about 5 million views a day and yet clear problems with the ITN section are allowed to continue which makes wikipedia look like a joke. The fact it took so long to add Ted Kennedy to the main page because he was a White American Male was a bloody disgrace and i hope the criteria is made more clear, or people are banned from profiling articles based on skin colour / nationality of the people because had this been the other way around we all know the chaos it would cause. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No, there is a widespread bias towards, US, white, etc. Not intentional discrimination but in assuming what's important to you is important to everyone, which is just as bad. There is quite rightly attempts to counter this, and sometimes it goes too far, such as with Ted Kennedy. Jaycee Lee Dugard on the other hand is not in any way a major event in the world. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

When media organisations from many different countries (not just the west) are reporting something, its notable enough. Ofcourse the English wikipedia is going to contain more content from parts of the world that speak English. Shock horror, they are the main people who contribute to this English wikipedia anyway. To discriminate people because they are white and in the west, is unacceptable. If the Jaycee Lee Dugard story only got coverage in the USA then ofcourse it doesnt deserve to make it to the ITN section, but it got international coverage.

If the In the News section cant cover major stories it really should be renamed because otherwise this is a complete joke. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

so basically u just want to give in to whatever is on top of CNN? because whatever is there most likely has a page in all other news paper sites too even if its not on front page. dugard had a page everywhere ya but i mean if its top story on CNN why wont there be. They are newspapers they need to cover that stuff. the way u want ITN to be it would just be a lot easier to have a link to CNN and be done with it. stories dont even need to unfold they just need to be posted without consensus, updates etc and fast as its "sickening, offensive, a joke..." if wikipedia as encyclopedia actually tries to see the merit in it first... -- Ashish-g55 17:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Many of the things CNN covers is not covered by other international news organisations across the world. Certain things are picked up by the media more than others, now i dont decide what is notable to them or not but when the worlds media is talking about something which justifies an article on this encyclopedia or extensive information on an article then there is justification for it to be listed. If we can not act with commonsense on this matter then it really does need a name change, it seems crazy that we have an "IN THE NEWS" section and refuse to cover certain things that are "IN THE NEWS" around the world. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In the news does not say in anyway that it covers all news... its not a news ticker and its not a news source. thats what wikinews is for. above there is so much discussion to change it to wikinews. by the looks of it thats what u want. i still dont get why would wikipedia which has a different goal as encyclopedia have wikinews stuff on its main page which has a totally different goal. original/non-original research. wikinews mission statement says they encourage journalism where as wikipedia does not. but im tired of saying same thing again and again. if few people here want to change ITN to media bias ridden news source then go ahead. seems like discussion of merit to encyclopedia inside an encyclopedia is no longer welcome. -- Ashish-g55 19:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

See, the comments that "In the news does not say in anyway that it covers all news..." is where the wheels fall of here. It is called "In The News", and the twisting around to justify this view that the section isn't supposed to reflect what is actually in the news is a bit strange to see. I know that several of you are committed to this line of thinking now, but it's... odd. I find it interesting to see that this ideology is seen as being "more encyclopedia" as well, which looks to be another justification ideology from my perspective. I would actually state the opposite, that the current process is not encyclopedic at all, and actually detracts from the core task of the project.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee

We definitely have a problem with entertainment. I am currently trying to get the split of Oasis (band) included. This is massive in the UK, and is being covered around the world. Yet The Beatles and the CNN front page are being held up as some sort of bar for inclusion for entertainment events - this is imho just crazy.

As for ITN in general, what's it for? Arguing of course. The (totally expected) Ted Kennedy death shows ITN it will never be anything more than a POV fest, and interesting as some of the stuff is, it is generally very repetitive, and I hardly ever look at it, I find DYK much more interesting if I ever look at the page at all. I say just bin it and replace it with current events page links, but we surely must be able to think of a better use for that prime front page real estate. MickMacNee (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As a crude fix for the coverage aspect, just limit ITN to 1 listing from each topic area - Top Story, politics, sport, war, science, entertainment, business, health. Rotate single hooks in each topic as needed or as they emerge, maximum exposure for each of 1 week, minimum 3 hours. Only break this schema in extreme circumstances. MickMacNee (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, one main story for all the different topics (entertainment, politics, sports etc). If we had that then yes Oasis would deserve the top spot for entertainment at the moment in my opinion.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A quicker rotation would help. Personally, I feel a week is way to long. One to two days max would be better unless there is some compelling reason to keep longer. Also a "Breaking News" section of one or two items with a time limit of 12-24 hours could be included. Shinerunner (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it might be hard to get decent regular hooks for the health/economics slots, hence the week max limit, but we can look at it in practice I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe not a "hard and fast" rule for time limits but if a useable story should present itself then a quicker rotation would be better. Scientific developements don't happen on a clockwork basis as well, so some leeway would have to be used. Shinerunner (talk)

My concern here is that we're just shifting the underlying problem around. There's still an issue here about who picks the specific topics, and based on what criteria. That's why I continue to recommend leaning on Wikinews, so that the selection process itself is basically uncontentious (for us, here on Wikipedia).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So wait, does this mean that the ITN regulars then transfer all of their... eh, "madness" there? It's like you just transferred the "theaters" but it's still the same "war." –Howard the Duck 15:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If they do, then that's actually a good thing for Wikinews, since they could use some more participation, regardless. I doubt that many will go over there, though. Regardless, they have a slightly different concern then we do here, so even if some people here did end up going over there I don't think it would be a problem at all. Their own process keeps them on point, which is one of the main reasons why I've been talking about leaning on them.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I like what I'm hearing in this thread, so support. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

i dont want to be rude but isnt pushing for wikinews replacing ITN gone far enough? there are like general opposes after opposes in entire page and most of them are not even from ITN regulars (since we have all established that we wont be listened to).There are many good reasons posted above why wikinews should stay separate. And for the per topic news... ITN is not the only section on mainpage. we have limited space and most of time its limited to 5-6 points. putting one from each topic will simply not work because of that. there arent just 5 defined topics we can put... the items are of very wide variety and many times you will need multiple in same category... i'm sorry but it just wont work out well. -- Ashish-g55 16:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(redent) I agree about the wikinews thing, but I don't think it's impossible to come up with 4-6 categories and then use them (I see 8 hooks right now). First let's say that each is for international stuff, we don't need a US or UK cat. How about 1) science and academic stuff 2) politics and violent stuff 3) sports 4) entertainment 5) health 6) and maybe business. That's a quick off the top of my head list, and it can obviously be changed all we want. I think it would frequently leave room for one or two more from whatever category. We could also do an "encyclopedic" category, since it seems like that's what the people who frequent this page like. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea sounds good but I can foresee some problems. Namely, lack of participation/strict criteria/simply not enough relevant news from a certain topic and on the other hand fast cycling of other topics (there are often election held in more that one country a certain day so we can't be NPOV with listing only one election item). So we would be stuck with maybe a health item for a couple of weeks while we would cycle other in hour's time. Quicker rotation is good but if we are to assure that the focus articles are in good shape, we need more people to work on them. Currently, there is on average one new item per day but this could go up to 2-3. More would probably be too much for now. (I'll take some time and add my comments to RFC some time this week when I find some time. Till then, just commenting what I read.) --Tone 17:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there ins't anything for a category, then fill it with an encyclopedic entry, like we use now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Random89

I would also like to echo the sentiments above and commend Modest Genius on an outstanding summary of the current situation. I particularly agree with the statement "Compared to conventional news sources (eg BBC, CNN, Reuters), ITN tends to favour stories on elections, disasters, science (especially space science) and international relations, and to disfavour stories on entertainment, economics, national politics and sport.". This I feel cuts to the root of the current state of ITN, for better or for worse, our current guidelines and precedents lead to a higher percentage of these types of events.

In my mind, there is clearly a need for ITN, in some form or another, and I feel we do a pretty good job of it in most cases. This may be only my perception, although it is backed up by page-count stats, but I believe that a large number of visitors are interested in viewing the articles about, and learning more information about, topics they have recently heard about in other news sources. I do not think ITN is a primary source of news for the vast majority of wiki and ITN readers.

Meshing this reality with the encyclopedic standards we strive for tends to filter out many stories that are often mentioned in other news sources, as well as unfortunately introducing a the POVs of our editors. The truth is that ITN, by its very nature, will never be objective, even if we were to mirror P:CE or Wikinews or something along those lines. That being said, for the most part ITN does a very good job, and I believe that evolution rather than revolution is the best solution to any existing problems. Random89 06:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor error with the STS-128 Discovery launch ITN blurb

Hi, I'm not well-versed in the ITN section so please have mercy on me. :)

On the main page in the ITN section, I saw this blurb:

"The Space Shuttle Discovery (pictured) is launched on a mission to the International Space Station marking the 25th anniversary of its first flight."

Almost correct, but Discovery's first flight was on August 30, 1984. STS-128's launch was begun at 11:59pm local time on August 28, 2009 (and ended shortly after midnight on August 29).

It's such a minor point but if we're holding out WP as a RS for encyclopedic information, might want to get the little details right. :) So I'm suggesting a minor wording change. Perhaps something like '...on the eve of the 25th anniversary of...'? Dsf (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I think that you're actually supposed to post these issues at WP:ERROR.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem. The fact that it's not at the exact same second, minute, or hour wouldn't matter. Neither does the exact same day. It's close enough to the exact day and the 25th anniversary was mentioned during the launch. That's enough to make it marking the anniversary. The mission will overlap with the 25th anniversary anyhow. -- tariqabjotu 14:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes the launch statement started off saying that... so if NASA doesnt mind about exact day, i really dont think we need to either. -- Ashish-g55 16:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Close enough for gov't work, eh? :) All right -- I have no further issues with that. Thanks. Dsf (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Closing previous discussions

Should some of the previous discussions be marked "closed" and archived so that there aren't so many similar discussions throughout the page? Shinerunner (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems wise. Unfortunately, "rebooting ITN" was such a vague and open-ended issue that having so many discussions about so many different things was inevitable. These discussions could have worked if they had focused on specific complaints. The complaint most people had was that the death criteria is flawed, hence the commotion over Ted Kennedy. Amazingly, though, the death criteria has hardly been raised in all of these discussions. Otumba (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done-Talk moved to archive and archive display switched to collapsible format. Shinerunner (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Help is needed with August 2009 California wildfires

I'm not nominating this or anything. The wikiprojects the page belongs to are weak. But, it's a top 10 google news hit right now, and it has very little content. Could someone tell whoever, or whatever project, so that we can step up our game on an article that will be viewed more than most. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Headings

Is there any particular reason why the titles for WP:ITN/C nominations have changed from ;Nomination to ====nomination====?  Cargoking  talk  08:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I like it better that way, especially for really long discussions. –Howard the Duck 11:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed them a couple of times, because using the edit buttons is much easier than scrolling through several discussions before finding the one you want to comment on. However, it seems people keep using the old ; format, which is annoying. I can't really see any advantage to using ;. Modest Genius ^talk 19:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Rename to simplify

Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page is a long and cumbersome title. I am proposing that it be moved to Wikipedia:In the news to match the name of the corresponding template. The disambiguation page currently residing on the latter page seems unnecessary, and the link to Wikipedia:Press coverage could easily be achieved with a hatnote instead. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I support this proposal. I agree that Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page is a needlessly unwieldy title. I also agree that a hatnote link to Wikipedia:Press coverage would be more appropriate. —David Levy 16:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, why not. I support as well. --Tone 17:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

support Modest Genius ^talk 19:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Support. --candle•wicke 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will move it tomorrow unless there are any serious concerns raised before then. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done, and all important links updated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Updating Template:ITNbox

With the recent changes to page names, the Template:ITNbox will need to be updated to correct the redirects. Shinerunner (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought I had done that. Have I missed one? Feel free to correct it; it's not protected or anything. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it later today unless someone else catches it.Shinerunner (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done It was just the abbreviation links that need to be changed. I also changed the abbreviations to reflect the new page names. If there's a different preference for an abbreviation I'll change it.Shinerunner (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why did you replace the shortcut links with piped links to the pages (some of them displayed as nonexistent shortcuts)? —David Levy 00:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

When the pages were renamed and moved, the shortcuts were being redirected to the new page names. Shinerunner (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you like me to undo?Shinerunner (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already reverted. —David Levy 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia shortcuts are redirects. That's how they're intended to function. You piped them (so that the actual shortcuts weren't linked) and replaced some with shortcuts that don't actually exist (and one with a shortcut to a different location). —David Levy 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that.Shinerunner (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Just please make sure that you understand how shortcuts work before attempting to update them in the future. —David Levy 00:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft - Word ban (not a nomination)

I've moved this nomination to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, which is where nominations should go. Otumba (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good idea. I'd never even have noticed it here and it would have gone out of date. It is tough keeping up with all those who leave things in odd places. :) --candle•wicke 04:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Um you guys completely missed the point. I thought it was obvious but guess I should have explained it. This was never intended to be a nomination. My point was that I was quite correct in my original assessment that there was a good chance the Word case which was earlier proposed was a minor thing that would probably never be significant. Indeed I'm pretty sure I predicted there was a very good chance Microsoft would get an injunction while they appealed unless they settled the matter instead. P.S. Just to be clear, I added the not a nomination to the header after it had been moved Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITN

In conjunction with the the rename approved above, I propose that the WP:ITN shortcut be reassigned from Template:In the news (which has T:ITN as its intuitive shortcut) to Wikipedia:In the news. I sampled some of the links to WP:ITN, and it appears that most probably were intended to lead to the informational page anyway (a logical assumption, given the "WP" prefix) or at least make equal sense either way. And obviously, no links would be rendered nonsensical or diverted to an irrelevant page. —David Levy 00:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

110% concur, for the reasons stated. Most people who type in WP:ITN are probably looking for the informational page, not the template. Otumba (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also T:ITN for that purpose. I 210% concur. --candle•wicke 04:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Support. I also wonder if this talk page would be better at WT:In the news than here? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this page is used to discuss ITN in general, not strictly the template. So yes, let's move it to Wikipedia talk:In the news (which already redirects here). —David Levy 17:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if no one objects I'll do it tomorrow. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

Why is ITN featuring a primary source on the mainpage wrt climate change? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is something that needs fixing, then it's probably best to post at WP:ERRORS. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is not related to an error; it's related to where/how ITNs are chosen. Why are we reporting a primary source instead of a secondary source review of primary sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The blurb could be chosen better, I agree. However, the nature of the item is not a problem since that was widely reported so several secondary sources exist. --Tone 17:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

My query must not be clear; I apologize. Science articles should be subject to scientific secondary source reviews, not news reporting. I'm still unclear why a primary source study is being reported on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, ITN also reports when a new species is discovered - something that is usually published somewhere as a primary source. However, this is probably a slightly different case. After thinking a bit, it may indeed be reasonable to remove this item from ITN. Any other opinions? (probably ITN/C will be a better place for discussion) --Tone 18:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A counterexample from medicine would be a study claiming autism is linked to vaccines, widely reported in the media, but not something we should be reporting until other scientific reviews are published. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I remember that we've declined several such items in the past. Climate changes should be no exception. Good point. Removing. --Tone 18:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sandy's messages above; there have been plenty of episodes over the past couple months to demonstrate that science reporting in the mainstream media is worthless (the first one that pops into my mind is the "Twitter makes you evil" study, which didn't really exist except in the imaginations of science writers [5][6][7]); there was even an article in a recent Annals of Internal Medicine talking about how academic press releases (and, by extension, the news articles that rely on them) are full of crap. In short, newspaper articles should never be used as sources on science issues rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Influenza prevention

Due to the beginning of the school season and the coming of cooler weather, along with a recent story that 2,000 students at Washington State University are infection with H1N1 influenza A, I think the article influenza prevention should be put in the in the news template, not only because it is in the news, but because it would also be a very important public service announcement that could potentially save lives.

I realize that this article is not a traditional Wikipedia article that would appear in the "In the News" section. Given the threat of the prospect of a resurgence of the pandemic H1N1/09 virus in the Northern Hemisphere in the coming months of cold weather, I believe traditional Wikipedia policies should be forgone in order to engage in a public service that would likely be responsible for the saving of human life.

Here is my argument:

Websites that convey crucial information about the preventive measures people can take to drastically reduce their chances of becoming infected with swine flu are very under-trafficked. All that needs to be observed is the reach of given websites. Important sites that deliver concise, crucial information have the following traffic rankings (all according to Alexa.com and current as of 09/08/11):

• The Center for Disease Control and Prevention website (at[8]) is currentlty the 2,266th most visited website on the Internet, with a reach of 0.064% of global users visiting the page.[9]
• Similarly, the website for the World Health Organization (at [10]) is the 3,126th most visited webpage on the Internet, with a reach of 0.027% of Internet users visiting the site.[11]
• Wikipedia, on the other hand, is the 6th most visited site on the Internet with 9.96% of Internet users vising the site.[12]

Given recent stories in the news that indicate that up to half of the people in the United States could become infected[13], up to 90,000 people may die from the virus[14](and largely young people, as they are more susceptible to the virus; young people also belong to the demographic that uses Wikipedia the most), and the fact that the vaccine for H1N1 will not be widely available until approximatley the likely time the virus peaks[15], it is clear that if Wikipedia were to create a simple information page that contains a short and clear indication of simple, preventive measures, it seems clear that, even if one human life is saved (which is certain to be the case if this is implemented) it would not only justify the breeching of standard, accepted policies of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion on the "In the News", but it would also be morally imperative, and I believe Wikipedia would have an obligation to create such an article and display it prominently. This all being said, the content I have added to the article is a mere proposal, and additions, deletions, and alterations are obviously welcome.

I hope my arguments are clear and have been thoughtfully considered. Thank you. Sagan666 (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

you may want to try this on Talk:Main Page instead since there isnt really a lot that ITN can do in this matter. If a link like this were to be provided it would most likely be displayed on main page separately. -- Ashish-g55 15:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Notifications

Just a heads up that Right- and left-hand traffic and SuperFerry 9 haven't had the ITN tag placed on their talk pages or credits sent out. I'd do it myself but the credits are to me! I think these are the only recent articles that have been missed. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've notified User:MSGJ, who posted the both items. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll do it shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm having problems trying to work out who to give credit for SuperFerry 9, because there are so many people who have worked on it! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I see User:Chitetskoy significantly expanded the article, and User:Dumelow nominated the item on WP:ITN/C. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

Just a general comment, not to be taken as a criticism in any way :) But if we can't find a more imaginative image for a blurb than a flag or a coat of arms, then wouldn't it be better to leave an existing image for an earlier post in place? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. COA and flags are boring in this regard. --Tone 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've found having to look at the same picture for several days far more boring, but perhaps that's just me. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And we get this kind of complaints just for showing an image relevant to the second item, next to the first. These complaints tend to get slightly more intense when the image blurb goes down further. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we not just put the pictured item at the top, and make an exception to the chronological order? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed before, and I think the consensus was that we keep it as it is now. Sorry I can't find the link to the relevant archive page... But if you are serious about the proposal you might want to start a discussion on Talk:Main Page. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sport on ITN

I am wondering what the consensus is now when it comes to including sports such as the Superbowl and AFL on ITN. It seems the United States and Australia are still a level above countries such as Ireland on the scale of inclusion—I nominated the sport of hurling a few days ago (updated and completed all the formalities) to see what would happen and it encountered some difficulty. I am not saying that it should or should not be posted, although I am hoping for consistency. I would hope that if one sport such as this encounters opposition that so too would all the others (which are mainly variations of football, not individual sports such as this example). If I recall, this is the first time that one of these newer national-level sports has reached the stage where it has happened and has been nominated, updated, etc. but has been declared inadequate by some users after several days. What rule determines how "good" or "suitable" or "important" a country or sport is when it comes to inclusion on the Main Page? --candle•wicke 10:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the exact same reason why the UEFA Champions League final would be posted, while the CONCACAF Champions League won't, except maybe something really awesome happens. Not that I'm saying that is bad, I'm saying that is... fair. –Howard the Duck 12:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

i think i just got a deja vu... anyways i think we have gone through exact same conversation for some other sport last year (cant remember exactly which one). but im pretty sure we came up with answer that it is not possible to say which sport should or shouldnt be included. if a tournament for respective sport is at its highest level then i dont see why it shouldnt be included. given that it is atleast played nationwide somewhere... -- Ashish-g55 13:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

By your logic, we'd have items on sepak takraw, patintero, kabaddi and a host of several other sports we've probably never heard about. Kabaddi is a big one, the Bengals play it, and there are more of them the Irish the world over combined. –Howard the Duck 13:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

i dont think there is anything wrong with having kabaddi actually. the other 2 im not so sure about. kabaddi is played at Asian games as can be seen in the article so it should not really be upto us to judge the importance of the game. -- Ashish-g55 13:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sepaktakraw was also played at the Asian Games. See Sepaktakraw at the 2006 Asian Games. –Howard the Duck 13:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) IMHO, sport is, for the most part, hugely under represented on ITN. For many people, sport is a part of their life and it seems a little foolish that we persist on preventing items going up because they are small. For me two criteria such as those below should be followed:

• The top level of any internationally recognised sport should be posted no matter how small. Even if the sport does not have an international body of control, it should not be discounted if it reported on across the globe (as a sport) and recognised by international bodies of any form (e.g. International Olympic Committee).
• The most popular sports should have more items posted on ITN. How sports like cricket, basketball and football (the real kind ;) ) have only a couple of mentions a year is quite bizarre. To put this in context, even a relatively minor competition in global football such as the Asian champions league has so far had a cumulative attendance in excess of a million people (and how many million more on television) so its silly to suggest that no-one follows them. Rather than saying no to hurling, larcrosse or badminton, why not say yes to more items from the big sports to create a better balance.

Personally I think we should let the smaller sports on and subsequently add more events from the big sports. Just off the top or my head we could make the IPL recurring and also add the UEFA cup and college basketball (as clearly that is big deal in the US)--Daviessimo (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)hmm well i am not all that familiar with sepak takraw but if it is played internationally then its highest level should be added... obviously after proper updates to articles. as far as i can tell hurling was updated properly. -- Ashish-g55 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to watch debates on adding U.S. college basketball (or even any basketball competition) to ITN. That should approach Ted Kennedy proportions. I'll be reserving a truckload of popcorn for April. –Howard the Duck 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

well maybe not college basketball as that takes domestic to a new level lol. i think NBA for basketball is good enough. but UEFA sure... -- Ashish-g55 13:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

See? College basketball season hasn't started yet. :P –Howard the Duck 13:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

but everyone knows why college basketball would be opposed heavily. its not even highest level in its own country lol. but i guess that discussion can happen in april -- Ashish-g55 14:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So if we won't add the NCAA, we'd be adding this? The U.S. selection was third but not before it was upset in the semifinals, and I'd guess they didn't send in their best team. –Howard the Duck 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think, Howard, that you miss the point that if you or anyone else nominated all these sports I would be quite happy to support (or at least not get in their way) if they were updated and at their highest level, etc. I wouldn't judge them on google or hits or CNN. I even boldly added Canadian football to ITNR (after asking) when someone suggested it as I couldn't think why Canada should be inferior. And basketball is already there so that is a different debate (I think). What I meant was when is a country too small or too large, inferior or superior enough to be included and how could this possibly be decided in a neutral way? --candle•wicke 14:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You see, the highest level of a sport may not be "internationally significant" or has "international interest". Sure the Irish diaspora may be everywhere but I'd by surprised if Bill O'Reilly even knew the GAA existed.

Is there a satisfactory way of determining this? i tried article views, Google News mentions (not "Google hits"), prominent mentions in news websites (all were shot down), so how do we measure it? You mentioned sponsorships but how about countries such as Bangladesh whose national airline (if they have one) might not be able sponsor anything? What is our metric? –Howard the Duck 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The only reason I suggested that is that every year it gets nominated. As per usual that sort of nomination will be decided not by regular users but by the hundreds... ok maybe tens of users who never contribute normally but always chip in when there is a controversial topic. My point was rather than block the little sports, we should discuss what additional big sport items can go up. --Daviessimo (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

well lets not talk about college basketball lol since that gets discussed in quite a bit of detail every year no matter what. the main point of conversation was why is hurling not being included but superbowl is. for superbowl i dont think its possible to not include it as daviessimo said people will come in 100s to decide on topics like that. and even i think it should be included given the amount of people watching. Now for hurling obviously not many are going to come to support that so its left to us to figure out its significance. logically speaking even if it isnt as popular as superbowl it is still a sport that is geographically constrained and to my understanding this particular event was its highest level. as long as we have updated article for such sport events we really should include it. -- Ashish-g55 14:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So then were do we stop? Kabaddi? Hopscotch? Rock paper scissors? Snakes and ladders? –Howard the Duck 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'd like to see Catalonia's human castle building if anyone knows when this takes place. But really, about the sponsorship issue, I wasn't trying to say that this is any greater because it has an airline as its sponsor. I was using that to show how international it really is and to say that if it could attract such a sponsor it wasn't going to be a small event. That was not to insult the other sports which are affected by poverty or which cannot attract sponsors or are funded by organisations which cannot build a stadium, etc. (basically all the points I have heard each time I try to say all this). I provided articles from New York and Abu Dhabi. How can a sport which features even minimally in newspapers in these two cities not be international—they are nowhere near one another. In relation to whether it is broadcast internationally, well Setanta Sports has a section dedicated to Gaelic games on each of their USA and the Caribbean, Canada and Australia websites. Or does that count? I'm not sure if it is inferior to CNN but I'm sure I'll be informed if it is... --candle•wicke 18:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I provided a link to New York Times covering a Filipino college basketball championship, but the world will end that won't get posted. Again, this boils down on money and location. –Howard the Duck 05:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Do any of you have a sense of how the general population of Wikipedia readers feel about sports items being posted in ITN versus items of politics, arts, science, etc? My feeling is that if we start including too many sports events it leads to the criticism that ITN reports trivial events and doesn't report significant ones. I appreciate the goal of trying to report a diverse amount of sporting events from nations large and small, but it seems to me that reporting championships of sports only popular in a handful or a simgle small nation can easily lead to this. Also, in the ITN criteria the standard 'international interest or impact' is clearly stated and I think that hurling and many other events struggle to meet that standard. There are always going to be points of fierce debate (US college basketball being obvious). In the end I would say lets not include too many potentially trivial sports events.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(Reindent): Johnsemlak, the thing is what are "trivial sports"? Is the Super Bowl which is played primarily in the U.S. (and practically little played elsewhere, although I did see an anime with where the characters play the sport) is comparable to curling? –Howard the Duck 12:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, rather than list some specific sports or events, which seems to generate a lot of passionate rebuttals, what I would say is the ITN/R list is biased in favor of sports events and could use more attention to other fields. It's difficult because it's relatively easy to say that a sporting event generates media interest (particularly in sports-only newspapers) in certain geographic areas and are certainly popular events. That said I think rating the international impact of any sporting event is questionable. Huge events like the Olympics or the World Cup (and some boxing matches) can rise to the level of international impact but most on the ITN/R list are questionable. Also, we often mention the issue of geographical bias when we debate what sports events to include but what about gender bias? Surely most sports events on the ITN/R are mostly of male interest.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with some of that. I think only events such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup (maybe Formula 1?) are really both international and included on that list. Saying that one is more popular than the other doesn't seem to work and it makes more sense to try to include one from a wide variety (and more for others if necessary). Female sports don't receive much support here—I tentatively nominated this female sport but it didn't capture any imaginations as most have never heard of it and many are inclined to go with what they know. It appears unlikely female sports will feature very much on ITN. Sport in the southern hemisphere is the same—2009 AFL Grand Final still has no citations and the rugby Tri-Nations competition might have been forgotten completely had I not asked about it the other week (although I hope someone else might have asked had I not). The following sports (not even competitions, but entire sports) would not have been on ITN had I not updated them too following nomination either by myself or others—snooker, table-tennis, badminton, hurling—the lack of interest in some of these sports is all very unfortunate in my opinion. Some of them are played around the world and at the Olympics, others are not, but it is more because I like the variety (rather than the inevitable large amount of baseball, basketball and football ITNs which would occur) than any significant interest that I work on them at all. And on that note, in answer to Do any of you have a sense of how the general population of Wikipedia readers feel about sports items being posted in ITN, I wonder if this response or even this response is indicative of the general feeling... --candle•wicke 14:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think F1 should be third in line after Olympics and Soccer. With F1, firstly it's very political and not really a sport (I won't rant here) but because of the sport's nature, only a person in a rich country, or an extreme elite in a not-so-rich country can even get the money to engage in small-scale car racing. eg nothing in Africa, and only in Japan (Excluding a few Asian pay-drivers etc) not much in E Europe (Hungarian GP) until recently (Kubica etc) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, one event worth considering from a woman's point of view might be the World Figure Skating Championships. I also thought maybe the tennis Federation Cup but we've got four yearly tennis events as it is on ITN/R. However, at the end of the day sports is a male-domiated domain and we can't possibly achieve gender balance. That is why I would say we could make the list of ITN recurring items a little less 'blokey' by expanding other fields of interest besides sports. Right now it seems to be a list of mostly sports events. That said, perhaps I'm over-worrying as most events posted on ITN aren't derived from ITN/R.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There aren't really a large amount of basketball and most especially baseball ITNs, just the NBA Finals and the World Series annually (although the NCAA Men's Div. I basketball tourney is perennially nominated it'll won't be there). I wouldn't call those "many." What we have nowadays are "many" tennis, golf, rugby union, cricket and football items. Even the top basketball competition was shunned at ITN... –Howard the Duck 14:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Irish Cricket ITN item

I don't get it!?! When I suggested that the Women's Professional Soccer, the premier woman's soccer league in the US, championship result be included in ITN, the comment was that it didn't have international significance, even though there are many international players--Japan, Brazil, England, Canada, Australia, Sweden among home countries being represented. But now ITN has Irish cricket? And not regular Irish cricket but a SENIORS league??!! How is that more internationally significant than the WPS!?!? Thanks for the explanation! 202.151.72.129 (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

cricket? i believe u mean hurling. please read WP:ITN/C and above for reasons. -- Ashish-g55 02:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Or at least read the articles relevant to the item, to determine the nature of the sport and the definition of senior used in that context. Kevin McE (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

How could Hurling be confused with cricket. Totally unrelated. This has actually baffled me all day.  Cargoking  talk  17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Look! There's a wooden thing that looks like a flattened baseball bat! And a ball that is smaller and harder than a basket ball! And it's played in the same group of quaint old islands as a strange game that I've heard some mention of at some time that uses equipment like that!" 202.151.72.129 as interpreted by Kevin McE (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, seniors only means "not minors". Old age pensioners don't tend to play in Croke Park. The players are normally under 30.  Cargoking  talk  09:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Heck, this was chosen over an intercontinental basketball championship, and a World Cup competition. –Howard the Duck 05:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest Howard, I'm a little confused about what your position on sport items on ITN is. One minute you seem opposed to additional sports items going up (see above), yet here you want additional sports items put up. There is already one recurring pool item, the 9-ball world championship, which is considered the top level of that sport (even you admit that on WP:ITN/C), whilst in international basketball only the World Championships and Eurobasket are considered big enough to go up (Again your opinion is that if the sport is not that popular in that region, or is not that high a quality it should go up). So what is you your position? Are you in favour or not? At the end of the day you can't just oppose when you have no interest in the sport and support when you do. --Daviessimo (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In the current setup, all three might fail, but the hurling and pool ones particularly fail badly. –Howard the Duck 12:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well surely the rules should be changed then to allow for more flexibility (as I have suggested above). I have no problem with either the pool or basketball going up --Daviessimo (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Rat photo

Why is a photo of a generic rat being used to depict the new species?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

lol it actually looks pretty funny. but ya remove it please. it will only confuse ppl -- Ashish-g55 13:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I do try to find a new image when I post an item. I accept that it might have been confusing, but it's a shame because it was quite cute. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The no fair use image on main page is ridiculous ive looked a lot too and can only find BBC images that can only be used as fair use images for the rat. i can understand the whole no NC images in commons but i dont think i will ever get the reasoning behind not using low res fair use images on main page. especially when we allow them inside articles. except for one instance of Jimbo saying use free images only on main page there is almost no reasoning behind it... one of those things in wikipedia that doesnt make sense but doesnt change either. -- Ashish-g55 15:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, AFAIK we have never, ever allowed or used NFCC images on ITN, even before anything Jimbo did. Also the article you are referring to Bosavi Woolly Rat does not use any NFCC images and it's unclear to me that using such an image is justified under policy. There have been plenty of reasons given why we don't use NFCC images under the main page. If you don't agree with them that's your right, and I respect your views. This isn't the place for any further debate but since you made the comment I should point out it is incredibly offensive to suggest there are no reasons and suggest if you are interested in this you actually read some of the comments from the many debates rather then accusing people of Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem even though that is not the case for many of them. As I've already said, I may not agree with your views, but I don't claim that your views don't exist as you did and do think there is a very big difference between the two which if you want to be able to contributive constructively to wikipedia it is IMHO important to understand. Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashish may not have realised the issues and history behind the reasoning, but I think that may have been an over-reaction there Nil. I don't see how the comments could have come across offensive really. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

umm i am not exactly sure what u r offended about Nil since my comment was in general. i wasnt trying to open a new debate there... and yes i have not only read the reasoning/history but participated in them and most conversations will show u a link to jimbo pointing out a scooby doo featured article where he says please only use free images... and just to prove my point here is a wikipedia FAQ Wikipedia:FAQ/Main_Page#Why_is_a_Main_Page_section_missing_an_illustrative_image.3F which pretty much states my point.i hope that satisfies all ur comments against mine (and lol even the FAQ says many think this is a case of Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem so please u should read before u make these kinds of comments too). so yes we have used fair use images on main page and it got made into this policy which as i said "i will never get". im not debating it or anything but i am entitled to my opinion of not seeing a logical reasoning behind it... i have not personally accused u or anyone but only made a general comment so there is no reason to be offended by it. and to be honest the comment is not offensive or all that un-constructive to begin with but again that might just be my opinion. -- Ashish-g55 13:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat. AFAIK we have never ever used NFCC images on ITN. Unless you have some evidence that we have used NFCC images on ITN, then my points stands. We have used them on TFA but not on ITN. If you don't understand the difference I suggest you take a few days to think about it. Furthermore, as I have repeated the specific example you used was also irrelevant since there is no image in the article you are referring to and it is unclear if we can use one in the article per NFCC. In other words, this specific case is completely irrelevant on two fronts, so can you at least use a relevant example when you make highly offensive comments? I have removed the offensive reference on the FAQ but it was added long ago enough that I'm not going to bother to take this up with BanyanTree who added it [16]. Your comment is effectively accusing other editors of not having their own opinions and instead simply following what Jimbo does. It's one thing to say you don't agree with the reasoning or even say you think the reasoning is wrong or flawed, it's quite another to say there is no reasoning. That sort of nonsense is the sort of thing which destroys any attempt at rational discussion because instead of accepting that well meaning contributors can have differences of opinion, you are instead say that the other side is stupid and has no idea what they are talking about and is not thinking rationaly and is just following Jimbo. Do you not see why saying that I am stupid, have no idea what I'm talking about, am not thinking rationally and am just following Jimbo is offensive to me and others who similarly argue in favour of excluding images from the main page? P.S. I don't deny there may be some editors involved in the previous discussions guilty of Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, but that's quite different from saying all editors are guilty of it. I also don't deny that Jimbo's involvement had big sway in settling the issue as it did, but that is of course something that's happened in a number of areas and whether you agree with the outcome of Jimbo's involvement or not it doesn't mean other editors don't have their own viewpoints on the matter in support. In fact many recent discussions have demonstrated that there's far from consensus either way as with a number of other areas (e.g. renaming the main page) which means there are many who share your view, but also many who don't and many of these almost definitely have reasons for their views and are not just following Jimbo. In fact from my experience recently the vast majority of editors who bring up Jimbo in these discussions are editors accusing the other side of just following Jimbo. Editors who support current policy don't. P.P.S. And yes, when you make blanket comments covering the other side, it is quite normal that other editors are going to take offense if your comments characterise them in an offensive manner. For example, in the recent ITN bruhaha, it's quite understandable you took offense with comments that attacked ITN regulars even if they didn't mention you by name Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

ITN is part of main page and it extends the image policies that main page has. So my comment was never for ITN specifically otherwise i would have said so. and i am pretty sure there is no policy of NFCC just for ITN (except note saying avoid fair use images which was made after jimbo's comments either way). secondly i am not accusing everyone for following jimbo in all situations, i dont really understand where u r getting that from. in this situation i felt like we are following jimbo and there are no good reasons behind it. it is not just my opinion but of many people. i still do not understand what u find 'highly offensive since my comment was obviously for this situation alone and it is a known case as u said it urself too. and stating other situations again has nothing to do with this conversation either... and as i have also said above i was not restarting some discussion about this situation but rather stating my frustration over the image policy. is it wrong to even post opinions now? jeez. -- Ashish-g55 17:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Poor choice of wording in Turkey story

The story about the flash flooding in Turkey reads: "At least 31 people are killed by flash floods during Turkey's heaviest rainfall for 80 years." Instead of "heaviest rainfall for 80 years", shouldn't it be worded "heaviest rainfall in 80 years."?  AcroX  17:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Already at WP:ERRORS.  Cargoking  talk  17:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

typo?

on todays selection, shouldn't the wording in "In football, Germany defeat England 6–2..." be "defeats" instead of "defeat"? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No. And the place to post these comments is WP:ERRORS. Algebraist 18:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Or more clearly, Defeat in this situation is, while incorrect in American English, correct in British English. Weird, I know, and it always comes up when we have items like this. -- tariqabjotu 18:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that... that is a truely strange variation. I can understand different words or spellings (color Vs. colour, etc.), but I thought this one was a fairly universal rule of english (including the previous wording of "Germany beats England")... nevermind then, sorry for wasting your time... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

AN/I complaint

seems you are all Zionists or something - see here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Golden Lion is a highly notable award, and has generated substantial news coverage. The nationality of the film did not make it notable, nor is there anything wrong with an Israeli film winning the top award. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 16:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The ironic thing about this accusation is that AFAIK, the film is antiwar and controversial within Israel Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably actually more notable as an Israeli-made film, since it's never happened before. I'm more concerned that the feature article as named after a character from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine ... that's offensive ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Noordin Mohammad Top

The line on Noordin Mohammad Top refers to him as an islamic militant but pipes to islamism. The correct form of the link is islamist. I have changed the original article, where this error has been replicated from, but do not have editing rights for the In the news section. Yaris678 (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

But Islamist redirects to Islamism. By the way, please use WP:ERRORS for these reports in future, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, your piped link above confused me. Are you saying you want "Islamic militant" replaced with "Islamist militant"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying. Yaris678 (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final

Just to clarify as there are so few commenting these days: This has consensus as the highest level of a sport to go on ITN, doesn't it? --candle•wicke 22:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Tadhg Kennelly has become the first person to win the highest honour in both Australian rules football and Gaelic football. This must be relevant too. --candle•wicke 23:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And it must help that The Sydney Morning Herald has reported this final despite being on the opposite side of the world. And the Herald Sun too. And ABC. AFL --candle•wicke 03:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How about on countries where the players are not descended from? Aussie rules and Gaelic football are as similar as American and Canadian. –Howard the Duck 10:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

For example, Xinhua reported both the EuroBasket final (even their top sport story of the day), the same Sydney Morning Herald reported the Mayweather-Marquez bout, same for Italy. –Howard the Duck 12:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Stella Obasanjo item, one year or two?

The Stella Obasanjo article says the surgeon was sentenced to one year imprisonment, and the Wikipedia home page news says two years imprisonment. Which is correct? I don't know how to find out. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The main page says one year for me (and agrees with the article) - Dumelow (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the ITN template history when I saw your comment on the article's talk page earlier and could not find any point where it was two years. --candle•wicke 01:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Image

Now that the treasure image is not free anymore, a lightning has been put there. This is not the best idea, since this is not the same lightning that caused the chimney collapse so it is misleading. We should instead use one of the older pictures, dust storm maybe. --Tone 13:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The hoard is back up again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Aruba and Palau nominations

They both appear to be ready under 25 September if someone could at least check them please. :D I have asked around but not everybody has the time unfortunately. --candle•wicke 21:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Obituaries

I thought there was a strong disapproval of mentioning deaths in the news unless they were of major world figures? After the ridiculous argument over whether Teddy Kennedy qualified, we now have Alicia de Larrocha? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it was decided in the discussion that she meets the second criterion:

The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

POV

To my surprise, the front page feature some rather strong POV. An international fact-finding mission headed by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini has concluded that Georgia started the 2008 South Ossetia war and that Russia answered by using excessive measures. By exlcuding the latter part, the balanced tone of the report has given way to a strong Russian POV.Jeppiz (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

House of Lords

Regarding the sentence

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (location pictured) is established, replacing the House of Lords.

It sounds from this as if the new Supreme Court is replacing the House of Lords as a whole. It isn't. It's merely taking its place as the highest court in the land. I suggest either removing the pipe from "judicial functions of the House of Lords", or adding "as the highest court in the UK" (or some such) to the end of the sentence. --RFBailey (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Already fixed by someone. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro photo

New photo for Rio's victory: File:Anuncio Rio2016.jpg. Felipe Menegaz 16:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone change it, please. Felipe Menegaz 00:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, the image has been updated to that of Marek Edelman instead. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Irish referendum

Just to point out that while the referendum has been passed, the amendment hasn't been adopted yet. This will only happen when (assuming no legal challenges are made) the president signs the bill which can only happen on Tuesday 13 October at the soonest. The news item should really read:

"A referendum on the twenty-eighth amendment of the Constitution of Ireland is passed, enabling the country to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon."

Not hugely important but still. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Blue-Haired Lawyer, for pointing this out. I haven't thought of this significant difference. And thank you, BorgQueen, for fixing this mistake of mine so quickly. --PFHLai (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. To be honest I'd be the first to accuse myself of gross pedantry. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

Before mid-2009, I don't recall ever seeing deaths listed on the main page ever, with the exception of major circumstances such as Michael Jackson and Ronald Reagan. Now suddenly, every update has a new death on it in the past month. It's getting kind of ridiculous, we have the deaths in 2009 page for a reason. There's no need to add in a huge number of dead, leave the main page for the very major deaths. Wizardman 15:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it depends where you are... what about Corazon Aquino for instance? And several people very seriously opposed Ted Kennedy and that didn't work out very well at all... so why have one rule for the United States and another for Poland or the Philippines? I wouldn't describe Ronald Reagan as "major" where I am (at least not much more than Aquino) but I respect that some people would. --candle•wicke 16:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the same could be said for the sudden increase in sports... it's just the way things are I suppose. --candle•wicke 16:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Even as an American who enjoys politics, I didn't think he was main page material (though if you were going to pick one US senator to put on the main page, it'd be him). Just seems to me that ITN's getting a little lenient in what they're putting up I guess. Wizardman 16:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer if we were more lenient and the content refreshed more often. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Speed of update

I'm really getting concerned about how quickly ITN gets updated lately - for example, we still don't have the Greek election results or the Medicine Nobel up, both of which would be updated nearly immediately in many cases in the past. Can someone please look into this? Radagast (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it comes down to a simple lack of admins. I am not disparaging the ones who do work on ITN, who do a great job, but there are just simply not enough people with the ability to update the template to ensure that ITN is updated as soon as an item has enough support and updates - Dumelow (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just posted the Nobel item but the Greek election item currently needs more citations. Please don't criticize admins for not posting articles that aren't even properly updated with citations... (Having said that, what Dumelow said is true) --BorgQueen (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Didn't check that section, just the results. Good catch BorgQueen - Dumelow (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it is a little unfair to critise either the admins or regular ITN contributors for the slow speed in getting items up. The simple fact is that all items that go on the main page require a referenced update. In many instances items are nomed and supported, but people are unwilling to make the required updates. It is this issue that causes the slow progress and not the contributors, who actually keep ITN ticking over the rest of the time. --Daviessimo (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have nominations before the article is updated? You would never get people nominating a DYK hook before they'd written it, that would be crazy! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is to encourage others to help write the article (or to hope someone else will as I am tempted to do in some cases recently). Maybe to get a sense of what the general feeling is about its worthiness. Sometimes people don't have time to write articles but see something which others may be interested in. Like right now I see this but have no time. I've decided I won't nominate it now as a result. :) And, having been criticised last week for daring to respond to a query by another into why an incomplete article was in a queue, I suspect that some people do submit DYKs before they are ready. Also, DYK nominations usually moves more slowly (and more quickly at 6-8 hours when posted) so there is more time to discuss and pinpoint any problems. If ITNs were all posted quickly (with less contributors) there might be more mistakes. --candle•wicke 20:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Criteria

User:Physchim62 removed the criterion about update requirement without any discussion. Does anyone support? --BorgQueen (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've self-reverted after reflection, although I do think that the section is a classic example of instruction creep. Why three references? Why not two or four? Why is no consideration given to the need for references to be reliable and independent of one another?

The dispute arises from the annual round of Nobel Prizes. Yesterday (in Physiology/Medicine) and today (in Physics), the Swedish Academy of Sciences has honored scientists who have worked in mainstream fields for which we already have several pretty decent articles describing their acheivements. The only news value is the fact of the award, which can be adequately described in a single sentence and a single reference. The same could apply to many sporting triumphs, which are regularly featured on ITN. This section is too pedantic, and the question of updating should be left to the judgment of admins, noting that the articles will hopefully continue to be improved while they are linked from the Main Page. Physchim62 (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, look at my prediction for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry due to be announced midday Swedish time tomorrow. Two out of the three names are stil redlinks. There's another redlink (Bernd Giese) on the list of Thomson Reuters predictions (about as accurate as anything, until the announcement is made). The Physiol/Med and Physics prizes have gone to fields and people which were already covered: that is a plus for Wikipedia, but it doesn't mean that other articles aren't being improved (or even created) in the margins. Physchim62 (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The need for an article to be updated can obviously not be relaxed. I would be happy with a rewrite of the section, if Physchim thinks he could do better. (Although personally I saw the "3 references" as more of an example than a definite requirement, but perhaps this could be made clearer.) The question of whether an update is sufficient needs to be interpreted with common sense as usual, but there is no reason why more non-admin editors could not do the verifiying and checking as currently happens in DYK, especially given the serious shortage of admins here at ITN. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally always understood it as a minimum of 3 references for the update, meaning you could use as many as you wanted, but no less than 3. IMHO, removing it is going to be couterproductive to a large degree, because a lot of people already come to the candidates page, nom and support items, but then don't update them. --Daviessimo (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think credibility of reference should matter more. to me referencing single original source is better than referencing 3 news sites. if we put a minimum number on reference then a lot of useless references get added from news sites (in my experience atleast) so i think the article should be properly referenced rather than have 3 references. So minimum should be 1 (not minimum for article but for the updates made). -- Ashish-g55 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be a mixture of both. One original and two news. News sites tend to have the same content though, as most stuff comes through the wires.  Cargoking  talk  16:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair the criteria just says "a five sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) has generally been considered more than sufficient, while a one sentence update is considered extremely questionable" and doesn't specify that five sentences should be added or it won't go up. I think it is fine as it is with what counts as being an update being determined on a case-by-case basis by the reviewing admin. Its only really there to stop situations like a death article being posted with the only new info being "xxxx died on yyyy of zzz". Even when the only source is a single news article there is usually sufficient info to add at least five sentences - Dumelow (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

Hi. I expected to see a photograph of Obama when I woke up today. So let me tell you it didn't surprise me that this most prestigous of awards isn't pictured and instead we have a NASA spacecraft. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He was there for 4 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was pictured but got replaced after new entry was added... and besides everyone knows what obama looks like by now. but they probably dont know what LCROSS looks like. -- Ashish-g55 16:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree.  Cargoking  talk  16:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, too. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Martin, guess I got up too late. That's a helpful sign. For all you explosion lovers I read Twitter crashed when the le prix le plus prestigieux au monde was announced. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Phoebe ring error

I noticed that the blurb on Saturn's Phoebe ring describes the ring as having a size of "300 times that of the planet", whereas the article notes a size of "128 to 207" the radius of Saturn. This is a pretty serious size discrepancy, so I figured I'd post in case any of the admins care to fix it. Thanks! --NoahElhardt (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

H1N1 pandemic

Important developments - GN search. 17 youth deaths in a week. May require a persistent link, as its going to be a bit unhappy. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Only 17 dead? There were two in Northern Ireland this week too. If only 17 have died in the world I would think that's not very abnormal globally but I'm worried for Northern Ireland... --candle•wicke 13:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Um. Google News sidebar, 76 U.S. kids dead since April. [17] CDC stopped counting new cases in June, after ~600.[18] Specializing in pathogenic microbes apparently doesn't help one's math skills. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Canonizations

So Father Damien was canonized today, but no mention of the other four. Nobody wanted to update the articles – it's not as if we lack hagiographers on Wikipedia – but why should this person be singled out on ITN? Better to leave the whole lot out until the encyclopedia is properly updated. Or is it just because "Father Damien" worked in Hawaii, whereas the others never set foot on the American continent? Physchim62 (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, ITN is being accused of having pro-America bias. Actually, Damien's international involvements are beyond question. He was a Belgian priest who worked and died in Hawaii, venerated in not only Roman Catholic Church, but Eastern Catholic Churches and some churches of Anglican Communion and some of Lutheran Churches. Our article says: "Several memorials have been made to Damien worldwide, from Belgium and the United States to Ireland and Ecuador." --BorgQueen (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Damien has never set foot on the American continent either. Hawaii is very far from the continent. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Father Damien is no more (and no less) relevant to the news story than the other four new Catholic saints. You don't give any reasons for suggesting that he is, apart from the fact that there's a statue of him in the US Congress. If that's your only reason, then yes, it's pro-US bias. We should either have a piece that covers them all, or none at all. How about:

• Pope Benedict XVI canonizes five new saints, including Father Damien (pictured).

We should, of course, wait until we have the basic details of all five new saints before adding the piece, rather than just rushing in with an update by the very person who proposed the story in the first place. Btw, you don't know that Damien never set foot on the American continent: he certainly didn't fly to Hawaii… Physchim62 (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Much better blurb, that's something I suggested from the very beginning. --Tone 20:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the new wording makes the whole sentence one giant block of wikilink text. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Delink "canonizes" in that case, if that's you're only objection. Physchim62 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The update on Father Damien isn't up to much either, seems very much like the sort of updates that BorgQueen was vociferously objecting to last week. Maybe we should just pull the whole thing. Physchim62 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That reference has been removed for being redundant anyway, because his canonization was planned long before and the article was already properly updated by other editors. The article appears to be constantly well maintained, due to the article's former FA status and the subject's fame. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So lets get this right: a piece will be posted to ITN (by BorgQueen, of course) if

• BorgQueen proposes it;
• BorgQueen does the update, no matter how short or incomplete; and
• BorgQueen writes the blurb.

A piece will be removed from ITN if BorgQueen doesn't like it (obviously, in such a case, none of the three prerequisites for inclusion would have been fulfilled).

I suggest we just redirect WP:ITN/C to User talk:BorgQueen, it would save everyone a whole lot of time and energy. Physchim62 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your rudeness is entirely uncalled-for, Physchim62. BorgQueen works very hard on a task that few editors are willing to do (in part because unfounded accusations frequently arise).

This appears to be a case in which it was appropriate to delay adding the ITN blurb until long after relevant article updates were made. The canonization itself is what placed this story prominently "in the news," but there is no penalty for expanding an article in advance.

You've acknowledged that the other articles have not been sufficiently updated, and you want us to remove the blurb until they have. That isn't how ITN works. Its purpose is to highlight articles that have been written or substantially updated to reflect events in the news, not to serve as a ticker that reports world news according to importance.

The only bias is systemic in nature; articles pertaining to events in countries where English predominates (and certain ones in particular) are the most likely to receive the appropriate updates. This is a very real problem, but it isn't one that can be solved by ignoring the articles that are suitably updated.

We've received similar allegations of U.S. favoritism on the basis that an American athletic championship game was included and a comparable event in another country was omitted. And I've responded by pointing out that numerous editors worked very hard to write a detailed account of the American event (e.g. this summary of Super Bowl XLIII before it received an ITN blurb) and the other event's article has barely been updated at all (typically one or two sentences mentioning the winner and final score).

Just as we won't bar the Super Bowl from ITN on the basis that we couldn't include this year's FIFA Confederations Cup Final, we mustn't exclude one saint on the basis that we can't include others. —David Levy 22:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that BorgQueen works very hard at ITN. However,

• the article was not substantially updated in response to the event that occurred; in fact it was less substantially updated than the physics Nobel Prize articles that BorgQueen pulled last week.
• the person who did the minimal and incomplete update was the same person who proposed the article, wrote the blurb (dispite there being a different suggestion at WP:ITN/C, which BorgQueen didn't even acknowledge) and posted the piece in record quick time.
• the piece was posted to T:ITN dispite a request to hold on, and the admin who posted it has refused to revert her actions

The speed at which the piece was posted also circumvented any discussion as to how we should treat canonizations – after all, this is the second one this year, with five saints each time. I've no problem with putting them on the main page, I think their more noteworthy than many of the Shuttle launches that go up, but there has to be some benefit for the encyclopedia. Otherwise, ITN just becomes the ticker for world news that everyone says it shouldn't be. Physchim62 (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Some corrections: a) You made your comments after I posted, not before. b) If my memory serves me correctly, the Nobel physics laureate articles lacked citations, and I did put them back on ITN after you added just one sentence with one citation each. c) ITN has been criticized for being stagnant in past, which is why we have a timer, and which is why I often hurry as long as I get supports from someone else. (In fact, when I waited for more supports on some occasions in past, the whole ITN was criticized for not being fast enough.) d) I didn't revert because I considered your rationale invalid, as David Levy tried to explain to you why we shouldn't omit articles that are updated, just for the sake of other related articles that aren't. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And again, Physchim62, the article was substantially updated between the canonization's announcement and its actual occurrence. Only the latter justified an ITN blurb, but the former is very much a part of same overall event, and there is no time limit or other technicality that would lead us to disregard the earlier updates. (If there were, that would discourage editors from contributing content until an ITN blurb was feasible.) You're essentially arguing that our sizable coverage of Father Damien's canonization shouldn't be considered because editors didn't wait until now to write it. —David Levy 23:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't noticed the timings until BorgQueen mentioned them, it seems that my comments at ITN/C came after the piece was posted and not before. But she was indeed in a hurry to get that piece up: proposed at 14:04, "posting soon" at 17:16, posted at 17:24! Less than three-and-a-half hours! The "update" left at least one sentence speaking of the future rather than the past, which would normally be enough to have someone come along and say "that needs fixing", if they had had a chance. But nobody had a chance, just like nobody had a chance to update the other articles, because the piece was already up there. ITN should not be about handing out little prizes, it should be about encouraging improvements to the encyclopedia: BorgQueen's actions here have gone against that essential reason for consacrating MainPage space to the template in the first place.
For the record, the physics pieces already had references when I got to them (I formatted refs and polished wording), although they may have been unreferenced when BorgQueen saw them. Her comment was "And in fact User:Physchim62 has added just one sentence with one citation each, which is normally considered insufficient, but if consensus approves that is fine with me." It is hard not to accuse her of hypocrisy when, four days later, she deletes one sentence, adds one reference and then posts on a topic she proposed. Physchim62 (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

1. As BorgQueen noted, we receive far more complaints when items are not promptly posted than when they are. There was nothing unusual or improper about the timing, and your argument that the article should be deemed ineligible because other articles haven't been updated is entirely contrary to our longstanding principles and practices.

2. I've repeatedly explained that the article qualifies for ITN inclusion because of the earlier relevant updates (which we don't disregard because editors didn't wait until now to write them), but you continue to cite BorgQueen's edits as the sole update qualification rationale. I can understand why you might have mistakenly believed that in the beginning, but you now know it to be false. You're making it difficult to assume good faith on your part. —David Levy 00:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Father Damien ITN?

I'm sorry but there are far too many more important and notable things happening in the world at the moment. In addition, if we start including such religious information for christianity, then why not for buddhism, islam, judaism, etc, etc, etc? Surely we can't discriminate. I recommend this item be removed from ITN as soon as practicable. Nick carson (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The canonization is very important not just to the Catholic Church but also to Belgium, Hawaii, the USA, those who combat leprosy and other diseases in the developing world and so on. He is a very famous symbol and a very notable figure in the world. Gavin (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and of course it would be ideal if we could include notable events for other religions as well. @Nick carson: You are welcome to contribute and nominate at WP:ITN/C. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See also above. This piece should never have gone in in as it did. I would say that that I consider being declared a saint by the Catholic Church as being equivalent to a Nobel Prize. I would also say that Wikipedia's Main Page coverage of the canonizations has been ridiculous, with one name out of five being mentioned, no trace of the other four, simply because this promoted by the resident admin. Don't count on me to provide any more properly written and properly updated ITN pieces. Physchim62 (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but have you ever provided "properly written and properly updated ITN pieces" before? That is something new to me, although I might have missed them. I thought you only nominate items and don't update frequently. (Not that there is something wrong with it.) --BorgQueen (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

BorgQueen, I believe you avoided answering Physchim62's main questions. I too am growing increasingly despondent from WP's ITN nomination process, it needs a major rethink to ensure that we get a balanced spread of the most important, significant and notable happenings in the world today. At present, that's not what's happening, it's not all bad, just a few bad eggs tend to sneak in, which is a few too many. Nick carson (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick carson, you didn't follow Physchim62's suggestion that you read "above", did you? David Levy has already excellently and eloquently answered Physchim62's questions, and I have no reason to repeat here. (Anyway Physchim62 thinks that "being declared a saint by the Catholic Church as being equivalent to a Nobel Prize", which is exactly opposite of your opinion about the item.) And I am not sure what makes you think you have a right to complain here since you don't even participate in the discussions at WP:ITN/C. If you have objections to many items getting featured on ITN, then you will need to check the nomination page often and debate with nominators and supporters of those "a few bad eggs". That is how ITN works. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we really want to be using the word scheme

I wanted to point out that the current hook Under the One Laptop per Child scheme, Uruguay becomes the first country to deliver a free laptop to each child of primary school age. could be worded better for clarity and to keep from being misinterpreted. Scheme usually has a negative connotation attached to it (ie. corruption, scam). maybe a word like program or project would be more fitting for a truly nice event. I bring this up because we had this similar issue recently at DYK with one of the hooks. Thanks♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 04:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't infer any negative connotation to scheme, BUT if an editor has made a serious suggestion that a phrasing is not suitable, and an alternative is available that improves readability or clarity for some while preserving the meaning unambiguously, I hope that it will not be ignored again as it was recently in the lunar probe blurb. Kevin McE (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to "program", which is used generally in the OLPC article. Shimgray | talk | 16:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR would suggest that we try to find an alternative to program, as whichever spelling is used it will be wrong to a large proportion of English speakers. Kevin McE (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's "scheme" ;-). The article seems to use "programme" and "program" interchangeably but tends towards the latter, and we may as well reflect their usage. Shimgray | talk | 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, "scheme" having or not having negative connotations is itself an WP:ENGVAR issue: it's a neutral synonym for "plan" or "program(me)" in British English, but carries negative connotations in Canadian and American contexts. I've reached deep into my mental thesaurus and pulled out "initiative" as a word that ought to keep everybody's feathers unruffled on all sides of all oceans.  :) The Tom (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Tom brings up a valid point. It is widely used in Americian news outlets as a sensational way to show how someone has planned a negitive scam to gain something in the expense of someone or something else. ie. Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme. Wasn't sure about other parts of the world. thanks for taking the time to discuss this. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 06:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

December 2009 (UTC)