Template talk:In the news

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the news
Criteria and procedures
Discussion
Suggestions
Current events

This is the discussion page for the In the news section of the Main Page, referred to as ITN. If you are new to ITN, please read the criteria and procedures that guide ITN and its updates. The most important thing to remember is that ITN does not act as a newspaper or an obituary; it provides links to encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect important current events, and that have a reasonable amount of information on the topic.

[edit] Quick guide

Following a provincial general election that saw no party win more than 39% of the seats, the Liberal Party retains power in Quebec (flag pictured) as the province's first minority government in 129 years.
Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi is declared the winner of the Mauritanian presidential election.
In Northern Ireland, members of the DUP and Sinn Féin, led respectively by Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams, meet face-to-face for the first time, and agree on a timetable for implementing the St Andrews Agreement.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards detain fifteen British Royal Navy personnel assigned to HMS Cornwall, alleging they illegally entered Iranian waters.
Jamaican police are treating the death of Pakistan cricket team coach Bob Woolmer during the ongoing Cricket World Cup as a case of murder.

Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events...

view - page history - related changes - Edit (admins only) - Suggestions

If you have already read the criteria page, here is the quick guide:

For an item to appear on ITN, a relevant article must be updated and a blurb added to Portal:Current events or one of its subpages.
The event has to be important enough to merit updating the article and should be of international import, or at least interest.
If you are not an admin, have updated an article with an item that you feel is of international significance and put a blurb on Current events, suggest the item at the candidates page.
If you are an admin, familiarize yourself with both the Criteria and Admin guidelines. In particular, please pay close attention to the procedure for images.

Archives
2004 – Jan 2005 Jan–Apr 2005 May–Oct 2005 Nov–Dec 2005 Dec 2005 – Mar 2006 Mar–Jun 2006 Jun–Jul 2006 Jul–Sep 2006 Oct 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2006 Jan 2007 Feb 2007

[edit] Dow went down 400 points

Why isn't this on there??? http://biz.yahoo.com/cbsm-top/070227/f22e4630baad29bd4d6c044dfc3359fa.html Richardkselby 00:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, for several reasons;

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an newspaper. We must have an updated article on Wikipedia to include an item in the news, "In the news" is actually short for "Wikipedia encyclopedia articles that have recently been substantially updated with verified information that is currently being talked about in the news." Many people make this incorect assumption due to the potentally misleading name.
In the news works by people making sugestions at WP:ITN/C. This item has been suggested, but as per my first point, there isn't a wikipedia article as yet. --Monotonehell 11:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

DAMN!!!!, no wonder that there're all these entries about parlimentary elections on the ITN that I don't care about :) Richardkselby 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawal of troops in Iraq

The front page currently reads:

"A plan to withdraw 1,600 British troops from the multinational force in Iraq is announced."

But Denmark announced almost at the same time to withdraw 460 troops. I think this should be mentioned, so I propose this instead:

"A plan to withdraw 1,600 British troops and 460 Danish troops from the multinational force in Iraq is announced." --Maitch 15:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea - but this item will fall off the front page as soon as a new item is added. So probably by the time someone makes the change it will disappear. --Monotonehell 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tomb that challenges some elements of Christianity?

Fellow editors, does anyone know the name of the tomb that was recently unearthed that allegedly shows that Jesus was not resurrected and that he fathered a son? (I just saw a segment about it on The Daily Show.) Does it have an article, and is it ITN worthy? I would certainly think it would be if it had a good article. Grand master ka 06:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the candidates' page this was suggested a while ago, but at the time the article was little more than a stub. It has been updated since, but the whole thing is pseudo science and media propaganda so it's not really verifiable enough for ITN. --Monotonehell 07:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at that page before I posted here and didn't find anything about it. Where is it? I just wanna see the article... Although if it was rejected before it probably isn't going to be ITN-worthy now. Grand master ka 07:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

'Twas under Feb 26 Talpiot Tomb seems like it's a rehash of a discredited claim from 5 years ago or so that's been resurrected (pun intended) for the purposes of promoting the "documentary". --Monotonehell 07:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paraguayan Dengue Fever Outbreak

Over 15'000 people have been infected with dengue fever in Paraguay and it seems to be way out of proportion this year...Its also spreading to other countries...Whoever can edit the template itself, remember these 15'000 people...10 are reported dead though the toll is suspected to be much higher.

There needs to be a substantially updated article associated with the event in order for it to be on In the news. —Centrx→talk • 05:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007 Denmark Riots

All over the international newsmedia right now, hope it may find a spot on this template. --Hojimachong^talk 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dismabig link

There is currently a link to Reform Party. It should be a link to Estonian Reform Party. Could an admin fix this? Thanks, --Islomaniac 973 22:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lack of info

can you please put american lawyer Lewis Scooter or whatever, instead of just his name, as most people have never heard of hime, or the palme affair. since this is english language, not US.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.143.75.70 (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Something is wrong with Lewis Libby link

Perhaps it's something with my browser (though I purged the cache and tried both Firefox 1.5 and IE7), but Lewis Libby appears as a redlink under the following conditions:

On main page only; seeing Template:In the news in isolation, as well as this talk page, it's OK.
I'm logged out;

When I log in, everything is fine; when I'm logged out, clicking on the link from the main page gives me the "action=edit" page. Can someone please check this? Duja► 09:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like there's anything wrong with your browser, because I'm using IE6 and I'm getting exactly the same thing.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 09:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it fixed now? I logged out and it seems fine Nil Einne 17:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this had something to do with the deletion? [1]? This was only 2 minutes but it was not that long before you encounter the problem. If your sure it's not a caching problem, are you sure your ISP doesn't use a transparent proxy? Potentially it was wikiside and something needed to be purged or was out of sync, perhaps like the time you have new messages wasn't disappearing for anons for a while (although I don't know what caused that I'm guessing it was some sync issue wikiside) Nil Einne 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesia events

The airplane accident and the earthquake are unrelated, so shouldn't they be listed on separate bullet points? Kelvinc 18:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

They are related by country. It makes the point all the more notable that Indonesia has suffer so much calamity recently. --Monotonehell 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose. It's just that the impression I get from reading that line is that it's suggesting the earthquake caused the crash in some way. Kelvinc 02:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To me it didn't say that. Most reports I've seen have also mentioned the two together in a similar way since these two occured in the same country even if there was no causal link between the two. Note if we didn't mention the earthquakes in the same line, I doubt there would be justification to mention it at all since the article is still not really ITN material Nil Einne 09:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ungdomshuset still relevant?

This news item is rather old, the riots have completely stopped, and the story has (almost, but not completely) been dropped from the local media (I am from Denmark). Perhaps someone could find some more current news to place there instead? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.237.10.244 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

We are always looking for more current news. See WP:ITN/C for recent candidates. Add some new ones if you can. --74.14.16.251 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Items in ITN move down the list as newer items are added. They aren't removed on a case by case basis, they are "removed" when they drop off the end of the list. --Monotonehell 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Cricket World Cup

After the first match yesterday, this event - involving teams from 16 nations and watched by millions around the world - will be going on for the next 6 weeks or so. Like the Olympics and the 2006 Football World Cup (example) can we have a short line, like this:

The 2007 Cricket World Cup continues in the West Indies.

-- ALoan (Talk) 11:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is already being discussed on the candidates' page and to some extent on Talk:Main page. Generally with sporting competitions the standard practice is to only mention the final result when that becomes apparent. Citing the football isn't a good precedent as that was an aberration from the guideline, which caused a LOT of argument and lead to reaffirming the guideline I mentioned above. When the Cricket World Cup is concluded and the article is updated then it can me added to ITN. --Monotonehell 11:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry - was not aware that there was a candidates page. Thanks for letting me know. I will go there. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KSM image

cute

is not PD. I have retagged it. Whoever's in charge here, please take steps to move that off the mainpage. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is always the image of him in as he was arrested, but putting that on the main page might open up a can of POV issues. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I neither posted the image or the caption. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I doubt it's really PD. I've found a recent article in VoA with the same image, and it's tagged as a photo from AP. I don't think it's suitable for use on MainPage till its copyright status is sorted out. -- PFHLai 23:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, this is getting interesting. As I see it, copyright status would depend on whether he was captured by Pakistani or American sources, which last time I checked was still a secret. The 9/11 Commission Report, which is probably better vetted than any VoA article, credits an image of Bin Laden to Reuters, but gives no credit on its KSM image.--Pharos 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

See more investigation at commons:Image talk:Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture.jpg.--Pharos 00:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KSM wording

Other users and myself have expressed the opinion that there is a problem with the current wording of the KSM piece, although it was okay in this version. Tariqabjotu hasn't edited in an hour and may have gone to bed before my last response a few minutes ago, so could someone else have a look at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? We may be wrong but if so it would be nice to have consensus about that. — coel acan — 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I still feel a change has to be made. "The Pentagon releases a transcript in which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped plan more than two dozen successful and foiled acts of terrorism, including the September 11, 2001 attacks and the murder of Daniel Pearl." presents the actual truth as Mohammaed stating his confession under no duress and with complete trust in the release itself, despite the fact that the confession was given in a closed, controversial military tribunal, not a public hearing or trial, and it is an established fact that the transcripts were censored before being released to the public. "According to The Pentagon's released transcript, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped plan more than two dozen successful and foiled acts of terrorism, including the September 11, 2001 attacks and the murder of Daniel Pearl." is far more reflective of the reality of the situation, although in my opinion, it is still too generous to the US gov't, but that's my opinion, and doesn't change the fact that it would be more acceptable than the other version. Fifty7 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the history of Template:In the news generated by the MediaWiki software, I clarified the dubious nature of The Pentagon's transcript and moved the item to the bottom (reflecting March 10 instead of March 14). I've also vowed to stop being the flag-waving patriot that I obviously am (according to the MediaWiki software). -- tariqabjotu 17:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check my comment below why I still feel The Pentagon releases is not good wording. & I just wanted to point out that I mentioned from the start I didn't think it was that big an issue as there are much more serious reasons to doubt the veracity of the statement (not the transcript). But I still felt we should choose the best wording because the wording you preferred didn't sound right to me (the reason I've tried to explaib below) & not just because there is automatic doubt when anyone releases a transcript, even more so when it's an obviously partisan organisation (& this applies to any country). Coelacan of course may feel differently Nil Einne 12:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From WP:ERRORS

The headline states that reads: "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped. . . " Should it mention that these statements are according to Pentagon transcripts, as the alleged confesion took place in secret. White Lightning 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It's fixed now, and reads: "According to The Pentagon's released transcript, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped plan more than two dozen successful and foiled acts of terrorism, including the September 11, 2001 attacks and the murder of Daniel Pearl." — coel acan — 22:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now it reads: "The Pentagon releases a transcript in which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped plan more than two dozen successful and foiled acts of terrorism, including the September 11, 2001 attacks and the murder of Daniel Pearl." This is a problem again, I think, as it's giving the Pentagon's account as Actual Truth, as though the Pentagon has never lied before. — coel acan — 23:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It should at least be reverted to "According to The Pentagon's released transcript, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped plan more than two dozen successful and foiled acts of terrorism, including the September 11, 2001 attacks and the murder of Daniel Pearl.", which was generous enough as it is. Fifty7 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good enough. If we try to neutralize the statement much more, it will actually become more biased, suggesting that the Pentagon is lying to us. Should we say that the Cassini spacecraft allegedly took pictures of Titan? -- tariqabjotu 01:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If the Cassini spacecraft had a proven track record of lying... — coel acan — 01:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are heaps of reports coming out from US intelligence officials that say KSM is lying and the transcripts are trumped up (by KSM himself, according to these reports).[2] [3] [4] Seems that by all accounts, our reporting here is missing some crucial nuance. — coel acan — 02:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No; it's not. Those links you provided suggest that Khalid is lying, not that The Pentagon is lying. The statement as it is on the Main Page, and as it has always been on the Main Page, does not seem to imply that Khalid's confession is factual; it simply says that he state[d] he helped plan the terrorist attacks. -- tariqabjotu 03:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"As it has always been"? Apparently you haven't been watching. It changed. Previously, it said, "According to The Pentagon's released transcript, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states ..." which was perfectly fine. Again, we know the Pentagon lies, and it's not uncommon for them to reverse their previous stated position regarding events.[5] They admit this. Lying, arguably, is something that a military organization "must" do. But it does mean we can't simply present their statements as fact. We do not know that KSM actually said any of this. — coel acan — 04:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I have been watching the ITN section; in fact, I was the one who originally added the item, so I am fully aware things have changed since then. "As it has always been" is correct; if you look at what I said, I said that the item has always refrained from implying that the confession is true. The word states is used; not confesses, not admits, not anything similar to those two. I said nothing about the Main Page item addressing the reliability of The Pentagon itself. Regardless, let's take a look at the current item:

The Pentagon releases a transcript in which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped plan more than two dozen successful and foiled acts of terrorism, including the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Did The Pentagon release a transcript? Yes. Does this transcript have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed stating that he helped plan more than two dozen acts of terrorism? Yes. Did those two dozen attacks include 9|11? Yes. Okay... entirely factual. If you have a personal issue with The Pentagon, that's your business, but your attempts to try to keep the sentence neutral are turning into attempts to push a point-of-view automatically discrediting The Pentagon. -- tariqabjotu 04:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Savidan says: "per the error report--a quick check of google news reveals any responsible news source makes sure to attribute this--feel free to tinker with the wording"[6] Now, what exactly is wrong with the version Savidan put up? It seems that "according to" is pretty standard for us to do here. Consider the following claim: "Coelacan releases an IRC log in which tariqabjotu states that celery sticks with peanut butter taste better than potato chips." But if you never said any such thing, how could you be "stating" it in my logs? You didn't state it. So you can't state it in my logs. How could I release logs in which you state it? That's all utterly impossible. The only way I can release such logs is if you did in fact say it. Now, there are easily understood sematic disclaimers available to us. But without an "according to", the phrase "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states" has only a simple meaning. It means "he said it", end of story. But we don't know that. It would be accurate to say "According to an IRC log released by Coelacan ..." but without that, there's an implicit endorsement. Other users, White Lightening, Fifty7, and Savidan, have endorsed the statement with this minor disclaimer. Against four other voices, why are you so sure you're right? What exactly is wrong with Savidan's version? — coel acan — 05:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Coelacan, I think that you're wrong about the usage of "state". If you released a log in which Tariqabjotu appears to say that celery sticks with peanut butter taste better than potato chips, then in that log Tariqabjotu does state it. In the play Angels in America, Roy Cohn states that La Cage aux Folles is the best play on Broadway. Did the historical Roy Cohn ever say that? I don't know, and I rather doubt it. But the verb "states" doesn't necessarily imply that he did. Similarly, "The Pentagon releases a transcript in which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states..." doesn't make any claims about what KSM said; it only makes a claim about the Pentagon's transcript. The phrase "transcript in which..." is semantically equivalent to "according to a transcript". I don't think there's a problem here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about this one. It seems to me even if it is implied that it's only according to the transcript, it's better linguisticly to say according to. I don't think the movie is quite the same thing. In this case, you're referring to the character Roy Cohn in the movie. Your not referring to Roy Cohn himself. The transcript case is somewhat different since the transcript is claimed to be an accurate recording of what was said. If someone provides me with a transcript of the movie, Angels of America, but I haven't actually seen it myself, all I know is according to the transcript. If there is legitimate reason to doubt that transcript IMHO it's especially important to remember that all I know is according to the transcript as I have never seen the movie Angels in America so I don't know whether the character Roy Cohn in the movie actually stated what it is claimed he did according to the transcript. On the other hand, I don't think this is that big an issue since altho it's automatic that you would doubt a transcript released by a clearly non-neutral party like the Pentagon, the greatest doubt is not whether he actually said what it is claimed he said but whether he was telling the truth or exattegerating and/or telling his captors what they wanted to hear to stop possible torture or to protect his family. In other words, it's probably better to mention according to, but if people feel so strongly about it I'm not going to argue with them. Nil Einne 06:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Nil Einne has a point about the "character". In my (yet to be fabricated) logs, it is not Tariqabjotu who advocates celery, but the character of Tariqabjotu whom I have scripted. It's somewhat unnatural to speak of the two interchangably. Think about how you would speak naturally, off the cuff, about what you'd heard. If you and some other Wikipedians were hiring a caterer for Tariqabjotu's birthday party, would you say "Coelacan has some logs where Tariqabjotu extolls the many virtues of celery", or would you say "Coelacan says there was an IRC session where extolls the many virtues of celery" If it sounds semantically indistinguishable, try substituting "admits to killing a bunch of people" and really ask yourself if you would naturally, carelessly use the two phrases interchangably, or whether you'd choose the one that more explicitly indicated the "Coelacan said" part. I don't think we're using language quite naturally in the ITN template right now, and I think people are quite used to and comfortable with the "Secretary Soandso says" stuff. I certainly don't think that "According to The Pentagon's released transcript, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states ..." is in any way demeaning or insinuating about or discrediting the Pentagon. I think it's just the sort of wording that readers expect. — coel acan — 08:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Shall we compromise by saying The Pentagon releases a transcript in which a character named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped plan more than two dozen acts of terrorism, including the September 11, 2001 attacks.? -- tariqabjotu 15:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it fun to punch around that straw man? I've only asked that Savidan's version be used, nothing more. Plenty of editors here have said that it doesn't read right. Instead of ignoring these concerns because you're already right and you already know better, can someone just explain what is wrong with this version that was already up? — coel acan — 02:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(redent) All the 'reliable and sober' media outlets are going with something like "According to a transcript released by the Pentagon, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to..." probably best to follow their lead as they have armies of lawyers writing policy on such things. It covers both ends of the argument. --Monotonehell 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? The Wall Street Journal is simply going with "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said...". Art LaPella 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen anything in American media, be it in print or online, that presents anything other than a direct declaration by Khalid Sheik Mohammed. It is rather distressing, and one would hope Wikipedia would be more reliable in terms of providing the reality of a situation. Fifty7 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal isn't a 'reliable and sober' media outlet, they have a definite editorial line. Actually most mainstream US media has some kind of editorial alignment. --Monotonehell 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to my knowledge, the WSJ is a prime example of the separation of the newsdesk and the editorial staff. Their Op-Ed pages consistently lean far to the right, while the news pages supposedly have an excellent reputation for neutrality and evenhandedness. howcheng {chat} 21:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the article, there is some dispute as to how different the Op-Ed and newsdesk staff are. Regardless tho, even if some 'reliable and sober' as monotone put it outlets are not saying 'according to', it still seems best to me that we go with the one that arguablly most 'reliable and sober' news staff are and perhaps more importantly, the one that IMHO is least controversial (as this page has shown, both are controversial) Nil Einne 03:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Are they really both controversial? I've had my motives questioned and my concerns called ridiculous, but no one has actually said that there was anything wrong with Savidan's version. As you can see, the only reason Postdlf changed it was to "make clear what the event was on March 14". That's fine; a combination of both would read "According to a transcript released by the Pentagon ...", or shorter "According to the Pentagon's released transcript ...". If Savidan's version was okay then I don't see why either of those wouldn't be okay. I have yet to see what is the other side to this controversy. — coel acan — 03:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you still care to know, (a) the wording you prefer focuses on the statement (March 10) rather than the release (March 14); (b) ITN is about mentioning articles that have recently been updated in a factual fashion without excessively qualifying every detail based on our perceived notions of particular governments (note the lack of According to... in the first item of this version of ITN, even though the Taliban still holds that this never happened); those details are left for the article; (c) the statement on ITN was factually correct, as I demonstrated earlier. If you felt my straw man argument was silly, I made my point (but not a WP:POINT). There is a point were qualifications can go to far, and that was a decent example. If the transcript were truly bogus, it really would be about a character named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (as you mentioned in your celery scenario, in regards to me). Obviously, though, that would be a bad idea; the qualification is a bit over-the-top. You keep mentioning Savidan's edit summary in which (s)he statements how reliable news organizations attribute this. I feel quite certain that (s)he was merely noting that The Pentagon was not previously mentioned in the item, but you have repeatedly used it as if (s)he was completely married to that wording (when in fact the summary also invited others to change it). Going along with your interpretation, however, 'reliable and sober' news organizations (whatever that's supposed to mean) may mention that the statement is according to the U.S. government (which has been known to lie and torture, naturally), but I have yet to see a news organization go to great lengths to discredit the integrity of The Pentagon in it's headline (not to say that there aren't any that have). Unfortunately, we're not one of those 'reliable and sober news organizations' (and not even a news organization) and thus we are free to discredit the Pentagon from the get-go. Go "neutrality". -- tariqabjotu 17:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

( Just for the record my definition of 'reliable and sober' equates to organisations that report with NPOV. There's not that many that do these days. I'd point to ABC News and Current Affairs as an example of one that's outside of commercial influence. --Monotonehell 18:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC) )

I would have liked the more honest "NPOV" better than 'reliable and sober'. Wikipedians know how little agreement there is on NPOV. But 'reliable and sober', especially in quotes, implies that you are quoting what nearly all of us would say, and that we would say it only about the unexpectedly limited list of news sources you had in mind. And that was demonstrably false. Art LaPella 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry obviously the phrase I used isn't in such wide spread use as I assumed it was. It's a widely understood term in my neck of the woods. --Monotonehell 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to resurrect a dead duck, but I think your missing the point. If the Pentagon releases a transcript which is false, I don't really feel it's resonable to say that the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the transcript is a character who states something. There is no character since this is something which is purported to be true. Rather if it's a false transcript, it's just a false transcript. I still feel it isn't that controversial or discrediting to say 'according to the transcript'. If we had said according to the transcript...allegedly... then that would be wrong. But in this case, I feel we're just stating the facts as neutrally as possible. According to the transcript... Some people, noteably you, feel that this implies the Pentagon could easily be lying, but with the alternative, others feel we're leaning on saying the transcript is definitely true. There doesn't appear to be any middle ground here and I still feel according to is the least controversial but obviously editor has their own POV Nil Einne 05:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean me? I haven't expressed any opinion on that dead duck. Neither version says the Pentagon is lying, and neither version says anything either side considers to be false. I objected only to the statement about how all 'reliable and sober' media outlets present the story, and we should therefore trust their lawyers. To me, the most straightforward interpretation of that statement was false and misleading. Art LaPella 06:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No I was replying to Tariq. It's a bit confusing given the multitude of replies but if you follow the thread mine is in-line as a follow up to his?. I don't want to get into the reliable and sober thing to much, I wasn't the one who choose those words anyway but I do feel on from what I've seen the majority of news outlets generally considered to provide a resonably unbiased level of coverage do in fact present the story in the way we've been talking about. I don't really know much about the WSJ, although from the article it does appear the alleged seperation isn't as clear cut as it may seen. But I wouldn't for example consider Fox News to be in the league of the unbiased news media. Of course not everyone may agree but it seems to me this is probably the most common view, especially when we consider the opinions of people who actually study the news media and I think the article on Fox News supports this contention. All media organisations have biases of course. Nil Einne 12:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This will probably be my last comment on the matter, it's now largerly academic anyway since the item has disappeared off ITN. I've been thinking about this a bit more & I'm coming back to what I originally thought which is that linguisticly the original wording (The Pentagon releases... in which...) didn't sound right but I've now realised more precisely what the problem is. Tariq felt it was better to say The Pentagon releases a transcript. On consideration, he might have a point that this is probably the better wording. However, and here's the key thing here. We should still say according to IMHO. Something like The Pentagon releases a transcript according to which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed stated he... during... To me, it's just not right to say someone said something in a transcript. At least according to my kiwi+Malaysian english. People don't say things in a transcript. Rather the trasncript is supposed to be a record of someone saying something. For example, I might say in the book Harry Potter 7, Harry Potter dies (this isn't a spoiler since the book hasn't been released and I have no idea what occurs in it) or maybe in the book Harry Potter 7, Harry Potter says he was responsible for September 11. I wouldn't say, in the BBC transcript (of an interview), Rowling says Harry Potter dies. I might say in the BBC interview Rowling says... If the Pentagon had released a supposed written statement from KSM, we might say something like The Pentagon releases a written statement, allegedly?, from KSM in which he states/claims. However to me anyway, you just don't say people say things in transcripts because as I've said they don't. They say things in interviews, trials etc which the transcript records. It doesn't matter whether or not we trust the transcript or the people who made the transcript Nil Einne 12:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an opinion at best - you'll notice what kind of news I consider reliable. Art LaPella 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not really an error, but should it be mentioned that he said he helped plan the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing? --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, it seems unnecessary. We mention the September 11th attacks because they're probably the most significant of the attacks he's alleged to have been involved in. Anything more will just make the section too long. And if we were going to mention another attack, surely there is more merit to mention the 2002 Bali Bombings Nil Einne 03:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this very long discussion should be moved to Template talk:In the news. No one is "reporting errors" here anymore. --199.71.174.100 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed property ownership law

I changed the link to a stub on the law itself. Also, the news media has done a pretty awful job describing the law and the controversy around it. In particular, it is not the first PRC law that protects private property ownership. --Roadrunner 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea as from what I've understood this particular law still protects the state's interests in property unlike laws in other countries and so is quite different. --Monotonehell 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Many non communist countries have some degree of consideration of the state's interests in property. Most for example, protect the state's right to regulate property usage based on environmental concern, zoning and other such matters. More significantly perhaps, it isn't uncommon that the state has the right to acquire property when it's needed for some sort of essential work even if the owner refuses to sell, although in many cases, that power is used extremely sparingly if at all nowadays. I have little doubt the law in China protects the state interests to a far greater degree and I haven't actually read the law nor am I a lawyer, but I'm not sure if the fact that the state's interests are protected in law is itself different Nil Einne 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flight 471

With all due respect to the victims, I'm not sure an emergency landing resulting in 7 deaths is really Main Page material... - dcljr (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't all airliner crashes notable? The mainstream media certainly seem to think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.131.76 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Events in Zimbabwe

Could someone be so kind as to put all the info into 2007 Zimbabwean political crisis or some similarily title article? It's definitely something big, and I find it rather surprising that noone's written an article yet... —Nightst a llion (?) 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Have any third party sources referred to it as being such? Looks like just the normal cycle of life in a dictatorship; resist, crackdown, repeat. Wikipedia is way to quick to decide what constitutes political and economic crises. Picaroon 22:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]... Good enough for you? ;) —Nightst a llion (?) 22:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish Elections

Total bullshit now. There are no coalitions yet and perhaps new coalition will be centre-right. Please read these pages http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6463465.stm http://www.hs.fi/english/article/SUNDAY+EVENING+2355+ELECTION+SPECIAL+-++BIG+GAINS+FOR+OPPOSITION+NATIONAL+COALITION+PARTY+SDP+SUFFERS+DEFEAT+AT+POLLS+/1135225916469

--Zzzzzzzzzz 00:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the wording, which wrongly implied that the SDP would likely remain in government. The Tom 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Six Nations Championship

The Six Nations Championship has just finished, and being a large sporting event between large international teams, perhaps it should be considered for the news (France won closely on points difference). Many more minor events, such as the superbowl, are included. Matt. P 14:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Super Bowl is the top competition in American football, the Six Nations isn't for rugby union, although I'd rather wait for the 2007 Rugby World Cup. --Howard the Duck 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prompt/prompts

I dunno about anyone else but the Zimbabwe entry seems to have incorrect grammar. I can see that "beating and detention" are two things and therefore need "prompt", but why do I keep getting a niggling feeling that "the beating and detention of" is one event altogether and therefore deserves "prompts"? --AdamM 14:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel it should be prompt. Even tho perhaps you can argue the beating and detention are one event, people are criticising not just the event, but the beating and the detention. Nil Einne 19:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SpaceX

SpaceX launched their Falcon 1 rocket for the second time this morning, this time succeeding in 90% of their objectives though failing to reach orbit. This is big news on the world stage because the rocket costs a fraction that others cost, and a number of places such as a Malaysian company, the Air Force and NASA have contracts with the company as well. Here's a Google News search of the keyword SpaceX. Mithridates 05:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I see there's been a lot of edits to the article in the past day, but not much actual information has been added. Once the article's been cleaned up (for example one part says that the previous launch is yet to come) it should be nominated see here for how to put forward a suitable candidate --Monotonehell 11:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Woolmer entry too long?

I always get annoyed when someone uses this as an excuse, but I've been sampling some cheap Cabernet Sauvignon and I may be saying things I wouldn't otherwise. Nevertheless, I was kind of thinking that eight lines of text (on the main page, in 1152x864 resolution, in Windows XP, using Firefox), is probably more than is really appropriate for Bob Woolmer. I don't mean to downplay the importance of the situation, but merely to put it in perspective compared to the other very important news events also listed. I was thinking that perhaps we could eliminate the last sentence. Thoughts? TomTheHand 02:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's too long. I'll trim it now. Picaroon 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit-conflict)The entry about Bob Woolmer seems rather wordy. Its giving the Main Page a fairly lopsided appearance. I'd suggest just this: "Jamaican police announce that they are now treating the death of the Pakistan cricket team's coach Bob Woolmer (pictured) during the ongoing 2007 Cricket World Cup in the Caribbean as a case of murder." The portion with the details doesn't seem absolutely necessary to be on the MP, think that can be left to the relevant article(s).--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've cut its size in half. What do you guys think? Picaroon 02:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks alright to me. The boldness is appreciated, Picaroon! TomTheHand 02:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Mea culpa" and I agree entirely; the first sentence suffices. Thanks for the repair, David Kernow (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woolmer wikilink

Can we remove the wikilink to the Death of Bob Woolmer article. That article probably shouldn't have been created in the first place and will be merged back to the Bob Woolmer article asap. Having the death wikilink is directing editors to the "wrong" article. --Monotonehell 15:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I altered the item. I was about to ask why you didn't just go make the change yourself, but I didn't realize you weren't an admin. -- tariqabjotu 16:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

lol thanks, I'm just loud and not "in charge". ;) --Monotonehell 16:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] heart attack

someone please pipe [[heart attack]] to heart attack in the lead piece on Andranik Margaryan. cheers W guice 17:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Charest

The headlines state that Jean Charest lost his riding, but this is not true; he narrowly won, see here. -- Jeff3000 03:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

True. Now where's the whole headline?? -- Jo9100 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Charest may have won or may have lost. According to the CBC, with 88% of votes in, he has a 650 vote lead, but for a while everyone was saying he had lost. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus given the uncertainty of the his winning or losing, Wikipedia should not be stating it as the headline. -- Jeff3000 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we have Premier Charest's picture (pictured right) on ITN instead of the Quebec flag, please? --199.71.174.100 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec newsworthy

The election in Quebec is certainly internationally newsworthy. It will decide the future of another independence referendum, and is currently the lead news story on Google news, with articles about it from over 450 international sources [20]. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 03:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Post it on the suggestions page; subnational entity elections are never added to ITN. Also there are issues with the correctness of the item you added, see this. --Peta 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware. The results just changed within the past 20 minutes. And this is an extremely major subnational election — and since Quebec is offically defined as a nation and is the current leading news story word-wide, I'm not sure why it's a problem. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 03:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If it does stay , it should be focussed, not a bulletin on the status of the Premiers riding. --Peta 03:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at the Google News results, you'll see the vast majority of those sources are from Canada. Even the United States makes very few appearances in those results. -- tariqabjotu 03:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain then the article from Xinhua[21], the Guardian UK [22], Forbes[23], The San Jose Mercury News [24], Houton Chroncile [25], and BBC [26], et al. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PZFUN (talk • contribs).

Please don't treat me like an idiot; you knew exactly what I meant. I can read and I see Canada, Canada, Canada, with a few other places – like the ones you mentioned – mixed in. I clearly said vast majority, not all. -- tariqabjotu 03:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No-one is treating you like an idiot, and please do not go looking for a fight where one is unnecessary. But just from a simple scroll through of the top 20 articles on Google news, I found at least 10 from outside of Canada. And it is not surprising that the majority of articles should be from Canada, it is, after all, a Canadian election. The US-midterm election, which was on here, the majority of articles would have also been from the US. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 03:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. media always overdo coverage of events; note the wide coverage of the relatively trivial event involving the arrest of a punk rocker. So, I take the volume of USAmerican coverage with a grain of salt (unless it's very low, which might mean something). As for this election, it's a provincial election, not a national election. The U.S. midterm elections were national elections. Can you pinpoint the last time we have had non-national elections featured on In the News for awhile? -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu: I think you are getting unnecessarily defensive when there is nothing to defend against. No-one is questioning your intellectual capacity nor your ability to read the word "Canada"; it is merely the case that there are a number of international sources reporting on the event, and it is a patently usual thing for the country of origin for a particular event to of course have the most sources reporting upon it. And I don't believe that PZFUN interpreted your statement as being about "all" sources, either. Please, do try to assume good faith in these things. Thank you. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone was questioning that I could read the word Canada; the Canada sentence had nothing to do with PZFUN making a belittling comment. I was merely taking offense at PZFUN's use of the question (or statement) Please explain then the article from [place x], [place y], [place z]. It's not like I could actually explain the sources. It was a belittling request / question. And please don't play the assume good faith card; it's really... um... I can't think of the right word. But it's never good. -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The big story here is not that the Liberals "won the election" but rather that the ADQ won so many seats and held the Liberals to a minority. This is a Phyrric victory. -- Mwalcoff 03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree, but I am trying to keep the election on the page at all — let alone the jucier bits! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 04:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, as I may be off soon (or finally getting around to completing that article I have been writing), I said in my edit summary that I didn't think the Quebec item was international news as written. Although I still don't believe provincial elections are of international importance, the current wording is better. -- tariqabjotu 04:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it should be on ITN. This election is of very little international importance. Though if it is to remain there the end should probably be rewordered to "...as the province's first...", or another possesive, as it is clearly not THE first in 129 years (anywhere).

[edit] Heads up on some possible items to watch

The results of the first democratic presidential election in Mauritania should be out soon --Peta 03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The Tamil Tigers launch their first air attack in the decades long Sri Lankan Civil War [27]. Significant escalation of an ongoing conflict - there will probably be reprisals.--Peta 03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Def. worth an add in the future, but the article in question hasn't been touched yet. The Tom 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Peta, thanks for the heads-up, but both your suggestions above are premature. Please only make suggestions here when the candidates are ready for inclusion. You may want to re-read the criteria. --Monotonehell 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am entirely aware of the criteria; and I think it is useful to notify people watching this page (updating admins and news editors) that news will be forthcoming (within hours) so that people can keep and eye out and update articles; in the case of elections updates can be made as soon as the information is available. --Peta 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is a useful and good idea to have a heads up, but perhaps it would be better on Template talk:In the news until it's ready, otherwise all you get is a load of editors complaining that it's not suitable. This page should probably be reserved for Prêt-à-Porter candidates. Otherwise it will become a tad messy? --Monotonehell 10:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/_/Template_talk%7EIn_the_news_d441.html"