Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 18

I've removed one item from ITN. The reason is that currently the FA of the day is very short while OTN is pretty long, forcing DYK to be way too long. Moreover, there is currently a shortage of DYK hooks. If anybody is really bummed about my decision, feel free to revert it.--Carabinieri 15:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Following hot on the heels of Template talk:In the news/Archive 17#Alberto Gonzales we now have Larry Craig. Is it worthy of inclusion? I'd say no based on international interest (again) but I know others will disagree. violet/riga (t) 20:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a few examples of international coverage I found, though they're all in Europe. Grandmasterka 20:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Violetriga. This is only on the Guardian's homepage, and other British, Indian, and Australian papers seem to be giving it short-shrift. It is definitely big news in the US, of course, but things are supposed to be of at least international interest, and I don't think this qualifies.--Chaser - T 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not frontpage on any of the news sources Grandmasterska linked above. I'm removing it for now.--Chaser - T 20:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I searched google in other languages, and yeah, the coverage is fairly trivial, I must admit, though widespread. Grandmasterka 21:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This time, I agree that the item doesn't belong. I can't imagine why Craig's resignation would be of very much interest anywhere other than the United States. —David Levy 22:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If we want ITN to be regularly updated then I would take a relaxed view of the "international interest" and thus this could be included, but I'm not sure how relaxed we should be. violet/riga (t) 21:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with a "more relaxed view" is where does it stop? It's really hard to draw a line on one thing when you keep moving it for others. I agree that it would be a good thing, but we really would have to think hard about how to draft the criteria so that we end up with less arguments rather than more. I guess the biggest consideration for readers is that no one wants to see constant items that have no relevance to their interests. That's why the International interest criteria makes sense. --Monotonehell 22:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

While I believe that the criteria should be adjusted, I would be reluctant to support a change that would allow the inclusion of this item or anything similar. —David Levy 22:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, how can we relax the criteria while still Countering systemic bias? I think that a member of parliament resigning because of sleaze allegations is hardly newsworthy, but because of the predominance of Americans and their media, sadly it is. Just because American cable TV channels spend hours on this issue should not mean that the ITN template should. Personally, I'm rather appalled that we're even having this discussion given that North Korea has agreed to shut down their Nuclear facilities. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-2 23:05

I think the wording could probably be improved. "suspending missionary work in Afghanistan" is pretty general and implies that any missionary work of any kind (be it Buddhist, Christian, or whatever) is prohibited, although the various articles I've read only seem to say that specifically Christian missionary work has been forbidden. --136.223.3.130 13:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

From WP:ERRORS

The image is of a waxwork of Pavarotti, not of the man himself. Also, the image is nominated for deletion due to a possible copyright vio. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of it. Now. This is not only dishonest, it's begging to be written up in some second-rate newspaper column. --zenohockey 22:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be removed. The image is a photograph of a wax figure of Pavarotti and the news bit says "Italian tenor Luciano Pavarotti (pictured) dies of pancreatic cancer" but that is not Pavarotti that is pictured. --Pixelface 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Zeno, that seems like an overreaction. Bad press is both improbable and not the end of the world. This is very tame as editorial dishonesty goes; I found it fairly funny. What would be wrong with writing "wax sculpture pictured" (presuming the photo is not a copyvio)? This is hardly a situation which warrants panicking. — Dan | talk 07:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is currently an image on the Main Page which is in the "In the news" section that is a photo of a wax figure of Luciano Pavarotti.[1] The news bit says "Italian tenor Luciano Pavarotti (pictured) dies of pancreatic cancer" but that is not Pavarotti that is pictured. Can this be removed? --Pixelface 22:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the image in question and returned to the hurricane picture (yes, I've re-uploaded and protected and everything) per the multiple complaints about passing of a was statue as Luciano Pavarotti. Picaroon (t) 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking Steve Fossetts dissapearance is likely worth of ITN listing. Its likely he is dead (but not positive), he went missing while doing something he is an acknoledged expert at (flying a plane). He is certainly an internationally recognized figure as well. But I didnt ad it to the ITN suggestion list as I am not sure if it is right to do it now, or wait for the search to either find him or not. Curious as to others opinions Russeasby 02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

ITN is not a news service. We only list items that are of an encyclopedic quality. Fossett's article is borderline in this case. The rule of thumb I apply here is; does the article have more information regarding the event than one would expect from a news service? Right now nothing much is known. Possibly after all the facts come to light and a substantial update is made to the article we could include it. --Monotonehell 03:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed there has been a little bit of a recent edit war over the posting of Luciano Pavarotti's death. Therefore, it might help if somebody can explain how his death fits under ITN Criterion #5, especially if it qualifies under Part B which reads, "the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically". Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll second this. How exactly was the death unexpected or particularly tragic? Borisblue 13:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the mini edit war. We should NEVER have a situation where an item is put in and pulled out multiple times. It just looks tacky. - It's a very subjective criterion. "Unexpectedly or tragically" for example, it's a matter of opinion whether someone dieing of cancer is tragic or not. There seems to be those who view it this way and so say it should be included and those who don't. I don't think there's a black and white answer on this point. The criterion is open to interpretation. We should probably discuss what outcomes would be beneficial to the project and then adjust the criteria to fit. --Monotonehell 14:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that criterion No 5 was added after a discussion whether ITN should or should not include obituaries. Maybe we need to clarify the criterion in a footnote? If possibly, I think "Recent deaths" should have its own category on the main page, as articles, such as Pavarotti and Bergman, draw such extraordinary interest imediately after the notice of death. --Camptown 14:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a pity that we can't make editorial decisions based on common sense and good judgment on what makes the ITN section good and up to date. Instead of having to base everything on strict rules. The death of Pavaraotti is in the news all over the world today, much more so than the Turkish election we're still talking about on the main page 10 days after the election ended. Because of his death, many people will want to read and learn more about the life of Pavarotti today, and we are the one site that really should be giving them that info. And the ITN section is the obvious place to put a pointer to our bio on him. Pavarotti was a really world famous person, a leading figure in his field. But if we really need rules about cases like this: How about if we say that if a person has a bio in 50 different language editions of wikipedia, we deem him/her world famous, and we list their death on ITN. No matter how "tragically" the death was (whatever that means). Can anyone find a bio with 50 interwiki links whose death would not be reported in length world wide in the media? Shanes 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say his death was unexpected. Sure, it's pacreatic cancer, but who here knows that the disease has a high mortally rate? Only some medicine geeks, perhaps. I haven't even heard he's sick; and even if he's sick, nobody except for medicine geeks expected him to die this early. --Howard the Duck 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cancer at the age of 71 probably always has a high mortality rate. I don't know if I would say his death was expected but I definitely wouldn't say it's unexpected. Also I'm sure it was tongue in cheek but whether or not you knew of his illness is IMHO somewhat irrelevant. I'm sure there were some people who weren't aware the last Pope was sick either but I don't think anyone would say his death was unexpected. (Of course he was included based on other criteria but I'm just making the point here) Nil Einne 16:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Accdg. to our article, it was unclear prior to Sept. 5 that he was really that sick (on Aug. 15 it was announced he was to be released soon). I don't know of his disease has been known by a lot of people prior to this (as opposed to the previous Pope's disease which was apparent for the latter part of his reign). The only recent definite news about his grave condition was on Sept. 5. He died the next day, hence unexpected, since he surely should've lived a longer time (I remembered George Best had a month's worth of news before he died). --Howard the Duck 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Having recently ignored the death of the directing giants Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni (who died the same day), it would actually be quite provocative to include Pavarotti now. Bondkaka 19:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But they didn't satisfy the criterion #5. Pavarotti barely satisfies it. --Howard the Duck 03:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I only raised the Pope issue to point out whether or not you knew he was sick was irrelevant. Whether or not other people knew he was sick is IMHO a somewhat different matter. While it's clear that most people weren't exactly expecting him to die, I still argue his death wasn't unexpected precisely because of his condition (he had cancer and was 71). Just because something wasn't expected doesn't mean it was unexpected IMHO. Nil Einne 07:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that ITN has been pretty much the same for ages, I think we would do well to apply the rules a little less strictly. If Pavarotti barely satisfies criterion #5, then lets list him on ITN. Better still, lets have some other new content showcased here. Greenshed 22:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should relax the criteria a bit if and when ITN has been otherwise stale for a while. If that were done, then the death of Pavarotti (which was still very much in the news only a day ago; leading almost all news reports I heard/saw/read) would qualify. --mav 04:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm proposing that Template:In the news be renamed to Template:Current events, or something close to that. This would more accurately reflect the inclusion criteria of making it into the template. As per the guide at Template:In the news: 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.

Additionally, the term "current event" is used extensively in the numbered criteria for inclusion listed at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates (points 1, 2, 5). The first criteria for inclusion is in fact that a story be included at Portal:Current events, so this would help standardize the names of things with similar functions over the English Wikipedia.

At Template:In the news and Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page, great lengths are taken to avoid using the term "news" to describe what should be included in the template. Updating the name of this service to something closer to the inclusion criteria, and more consistent with Portal:Current events, would improve the encyclopedia.

Please note that Template:Current events is currently an empty re-direct to Portal:Current events/Sidebar. Kurieeto 12:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Like the Main Page, In the news has been called that basically since it was created around 2001, and has remained there due to to historical inertia. The last time a rename was proposed was back in 2006 but did not get anywhere (see the discussion). A number of alternative names were proposed, but iirc, the concerns over what alternative name to actually use was whether they would cause more new users to misinterpret the purpose of In the news: to feature encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect important current events, not a 24/7 constantly updated news service. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually in a discussion after that we gained near consensus to change the name to "Read more about..." But the change involved a restructure as well that was never fully worked through. Then Christmas hit. We did get quite close to working out how to better state the criteria in order to better serve the section's purpose. I keep meaning to resurrect the discussion, but I keep getting distracted by shiny things. =^.^= --Monotonehell 16:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This does not belong, in my opinion. This was not a longstanding record; the previous record was set two years ago. By Powell himself. This is, therefore, not exactly a groundbreaking achievement for him (or at all). -- tariqabjotu 07:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a tradition to note the new 100m speed on ITN, I believe I was the one who added it two years ago. --Golbez 14:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think we really should be going by 'tradition', consensus can change. However I do feel this was okay although don't really feel that strongly either way. Nil Einne 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The current wording of the Fradkov blurb ("Vladimir Putin sacks Mikhail Fradkov's Second Cabinet...") is not substantiated by the (barely updated) article Mikhail Fradkov's Second Cabinet, and is not covered by the reference, which says that "Putin had earlier accepted Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov's resignation." But most importantly, it is incorrect. Putin didn't sack the cabinet, he accepted the cabinet's resignation. Or rather, he accepted the resignation of the prime minister, prompting the dissolution of the cabinet. Whatever happened behind the scenes is a matter a speculation, and as such beyond the scope of ITN. I will not act unilaterally on this, but I strongly feel that the wording needs to be changed. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I copied the entry from Portal:Current events thinking that it was correct. I've reworded the entry... Zo beter? JACOPLANE • 2007-09-13 11:43

I think this is a lot better, and a lot better than what I had in mind. Thank you very much. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be in the ITN section on the fromt page, maybe as:

Formula One team McLaren have been excluded from the 2007 Formula One Constructors Championship and to pay a fine of $100 million dollars, pending appeal.

This has been reported on many news channels this evening, and is major sports news. Davnel03 19:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Already discussed on ITN/C, and posted. --PFHLai 16:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge that there is an article in the name of reclusión perpetua, but this is Wiki in English, and the front page should not have foreign language terms that are not part of the vocabulary of a reasonably well educated English speaker. Can I suggest a minimum of 30 years imprisonment or something similar? Kevin McE 10:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As explained on WP:ERRORS by Nil Einne, reclusión perpetua is a specific legal term with a specific meaning in the Philippines. Let's keep it. People who don't know it can click and read. We are not calling El Niño "the Baby", eh? :-) --PFHLai 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not be insulting and sarcastic. I specifically excluded foreign language terms that have become part of English in my comments. Yes: people can click and read, but the whole point of a headline is to inform, and the use of phrases that are not part of the English language does not inform English speakers. Kevin McE 19:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

it's a proper noun. "Joseph Estrada" isn't part of the English language either. But your suggestion of "a minimum of 30 years imprisonment" is valid as well: it's a matter of taste, no need to take it personally. dab (𒁳) 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

in fact, I tend to agree that if we keep the term, it should be italicized as a non-English technical term, as reclusión perpetua. dab (𒁳) 20:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the minimum 30 years part. It's carries a different connotation. While I don't know for sure, I would guess it's possible to be given a minimum 30 years imprisonment without being given reclusión perpetua in the Philippines. More importantly perhaps reclusión perpetua is a specific sentence, one of the most serious in Filipino law and not simply being sentenced to prison. Indeed it's more accurate IMHO to call it a 40 year sentence. Nil Einne 07:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Do consider though that it appears to be part of the English language in the Philippines. Itacilising it will probably be okay though. It's done here [2] for example. Nil Einne 08:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No insult nor sarcasm was intended. --PFHLai 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

please note a valid point. --143.239.215.33 12:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Go to WP:ERRORS. --74.14.21.183 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this should be added? Simply south 11:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This topic has already been proposed on WP:ITN/C, on September 18. You are more than welcome to join that discussion. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been added now. • Lawrence Cohen 21:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that Ezeu (talk · contribs) has removed the Floyd Landis blurb from ITN, with the edit summary "The Landis issue is not a major global news event. He was on the frontpage a few months back, that is enough." I don't understand how this is not a major global news event. This is the biggest doping case in one of the biggest sporting events in the world. This verdict is what led the UCI to scrap Landis as the Tour winner; up to this verdict, his victory was only under contention. This is/would be the first time a Tour winner was stripped of his title for doping offences. This is highly notable. Aecis^Brievenbus 09:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no support on the Candidates page for Ezeu's recollection that Landis was mentioned there a few months ago. He may be confusing the Vinokourov and Rasmussen expulsions from the 2007 race with the discovery of Landis' offences after he won the 2006 race. Kevin McE 15:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if there's not much support for Ezeu's removal of the item. If nobody objects, I'll restore it soon. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any further discussion or objection, I've restored the item, with a freely licensed image of Landis. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded Josiah Rowe's action. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-22 01:26

In the event that this is to be re-added, there are various things on the main page to consider first. Also I want to raise a new issue. The 3 million figure appears to be the extreme high end. Pol Pot and The Killing Fields suggest around 1.6 or no more then 2.3 million would as averages would be better. While we do say 'up to' IMHO it's a bit sensationalistic for us to use figures that are the extreme high end and supported by only one source Nil Einne 11:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} It appears on the news entry of the Cần Thơ Bridge collapsing, that there are redirects that need to be avoided:

• Cần Thơ Bridge --> Can Tho Bridge
• Collapse of the Can Tho Bridge --> Collapse of Can Tho Bridge — Moe ε 17:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Ezeu 18:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. --199.71.174.100 23:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Chess really that important? - Boochan 08:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope nobody will infer any lack of respect to the deceased photographer and his family, but the relevant issue is the violent response to the peaceful protests, and the fact that protesters are being killed. If this were not the case, and of importance, then this brave photo-journalist would presumably not have been in a position to become a victim. As the entry currently reads, it gives the impression that the death of a photographer (who did not have a Wiki entry until his death, and thus cannot be claimed as a well known personality) from a wealthy country is more noteworthy than the deaths and grounds for protest of many Burmese. Kevin McE 09:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

His death is relevant in the sense that it has changed the position of the international community (Japan in particular) from concerned onlookers to actively involved. Other than that, I agree with you. The big news is the protests, not the death of any single person present at the protests. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How in God's name does a story about a Volcano killing 4 people stay on the main page for 24 hours and yet the mass executions by both Blackwater guards and of Buddhist Monks get no attention?

Get a clue. Real things are happening on the planet.Yeago 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The protests in Burma were on the Main Page for days (that version is from Sept 25). It looks like it was just removed yesterday or earlier today. There is already an article about the Blackwater shootings, you can feel free to suggest it to be on the main page. Since when is a deadly volcano eruption not news? (Though the point of the In the News section is not to report the news, but to tell about current events affecting Wikipedia articles) Wikinews reports the news. Mr.Z-man 17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeago, please note that ITN is not a news service. "Real things happening on the planet" may not appear on ITN if the relevant wikiarticles are not well updated. If you think the Burmese news should go back on ITN, please check that the related articles (e.g. 2007 Burmese anti-government protests) have been expanded since the line left ITN, and post another headline on WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai 23:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about our coverage of the Nobel Prizes. In a worst case scenario, we could have all six Nobel Prizes on ITN, which would likely mean 100% of ITN would be dedicated to the Nobel Prizes. What could we do to prevent that? Should we merge all prizes into one? For instance:

"X and X win the 2007 Nobel Prize in Y for Z. The Nobel Prize in V goes to W and W. The Fooian Uist T gets the Nobel Prize in U for S."

Or should we listify it? For instance:

"The winners of the 2007 Nobel Prizes are announced in Oslo and Stockholm:

• A: U
• B: V and V
• C: W and W
• D: X
• E: Y, Y and Y
• F: Z and Z"

Or should we replace one with the other, as we have done earlier this year with the UEFA Cup and the Champions League? Or are the announcement dates so far apart that it's not an issue in the first place? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, there were never more than two announcements, maybe 3, on ITN at the same time. A pro-active stance towards getting candidates into the template would probably suffice to keep the spacing tolerable. - BanyanTree 00:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The announcements will be happening just about everyday now, so it will be an issue. -- tariqabjotu 03:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We've got two Nobel Prizes on ITN atm, Physiology/Medicine and Physics. According to the schedule released by the website of the Nobel Prizes, we've got one announcement coming up today, Chemistry. Literature is scheduled for Thursday, Peace for Friday and Economics for Monday. So like Tariqabjotu, I would say that this is indeed an issue. Aecis^Brievenbus 07:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that we are not going to have a 100% Nobel template and, if the rate of updates hold, every other item will on average be non-Nobel. So that would be 2-3 for the normal 5-6 item template over the course of the next week. The question is if this is enough of an issue to warrant reorganizing the template. For me, the answer is no: individual Nobel Prizes are inherently ITN-worthy and it is insanely difficult to find ITN hooks for most science-related topics, space vehicle launches notwithstanding, so I'm not unhappy with a feast after a year-long famine. That said, I am an acknowledged ITN update liberal. - BanyanTree 08:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Although Aecis' list looks nice, BanyanTree has a point. I don't know what to say. I was one to merge all of the nomination blurbs into one grand blurb, however this should be done in such a manner so as not to dilute the importance of the individual prizes and the Nobel Prize as a whole. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue anymore: we've only got two Nobel Prizes left: Peace and Economics. Peace will push Von Wernich off and Economics will push the Battle of Mir Ali off. Then we've got parliamentary elections in Gibraltar and Togo that might be included, which would push Ertl off ITN. So we will probably have at most three items about the Noble Prizes (Lessing and the two remaining Prizes) in a 6 to 7 item ITN. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"describing the deaths of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide" -- I am sure we can phrase this better. I understand "describing the Armenians genocide as genocide" was avoided (although, why not be plain...) but "deaths of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire" is clearly too vague. What this is about are well-defined "1915-1917 killings of Armenians under the Young Turks government of the failing Ottoman Empire", not just deaths of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in general. --dab (𒁳) 21:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have noted the mainpage posting at Turkish-American relations, where there is not yet mention of this. Chris 04:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to the replacement of Image:Al Gore, Vice President of the United States, official portrait 1994.jpg with Image:AlGoreGlobalWarmingTalk.jpg, which more accurately reflects how Gore currently looks (it strikes me as a bit odd to depict a living person of whom several recent free images are available with a thirteen-year-old portrait) and has the added, although almost entirely insignificant, benefit of demonstrating Gore as he presents his global warming slideshow (the image most associated with his global warming work is, I'd say, his standing at the front of a room or on stage)? Joe 17:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture of Gore at the global warming talk was the one I originally proposed for the item, but other folks thought he looked too sad in that picture. See WP:ITN/C#October 12 for the discussion. There was a third photo used initially in ITN, but apparently it wasn't licensed correctly and has been deleted. Personally, I think that the "sad" photo from the global warming talk is more appropriate than the VP portrait, but others may disagree. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I happened upon that thread just after posting here; I didn't mean to duplicate the discussion and will follow up at ITN/C. Joe 23:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The entry as it stood was abysmal, I have to say. "Forced from their homes" implies it's happening now, not projected to happen over the next dozen years; the "environmental catastrophe" given as the cause is something considered likely to happen if action isn't taken - it isn't the reason for the movement, which is an attempt to prevent this catastrophe.

Please try to avoid oversensationalising things. It's a story, yes, but it isn't "four million people evacuated as a dam bursts", which is what it implied. Shimgray | talk | 00:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "an additional 4 million people"? Millions of people have already been relocated to make way for the dams for the past 10 years. Just moving people out of there is hardly news at all, unless you have never heard of this project. --74.13.129.52 05:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP is right. I have corrected the headline. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing so quickly. --74.13.129.52 06:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This kind of phrasing suggests that the "need" is merely a natural fact, rather than a political decision and a consequence of political decisions.

For neutrality, please consider: The Chinese government announces that an additional four million people will be relocated away from areas surrounding the Three Gorges Dam.

Or, better yet: The Chinese government announces that it will relocate an additional four million people away from areas surrounding the Three Gorges Dam. This attributes responsibility for an action to a specific party, rather than leaving it vague and weaselly. --FOo 03:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I agree. Changed. Thanks, BanyanTree 05:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors Nil Einne 01:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a crash in a major tunnel in Melbourne earlier this year in which 3 people died and 400 people had to be evacuated, it disrupted inner city traffic for an entire day and, rightly so, was not deemed significant enough to be placed on the 'in the news' section of the English wikipedia, so why may I ask is a collision of 15 trucks on a los angeles interstate considered more significant? By my reasoning it would have to be far more significant to warrant the appearance it is getting. 124.190.196.150 00:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This should be discussed in Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates or Template talk:In the news not here so I've moved it. In any case, I see no evidence that the Burnley Tunnel disaster was deemed 'not significant enough'. It wasn't even proposed in Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates from what I can tell [3] therefore it's significance was never considered... Nil Einne 01:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been readded per a talkpage post which basically said "if it has international significance"; the line's had "international transportation" added, but the article makes no mention of this and, frankly, I don't see where that comes from.

More to the point, it really isn't a very informative article. It has one summary paragraph in the intro saying what the tunnel is; two sentences mentioning previous closures; two paragraphs on the current event. That's it. I really don't think this, coupled with the debatable larg-escale and long-term significance of the event, warrants keeping it. Shimgray | talk | 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This seems more like a major inconvenience than a disruption of international economy (particularly on a Saturday). -- tariqabjotu 02:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, I'm not convinced this item is ITN-worthy. Indeed most of the international economy suggestions seem to be very crystal bally to me. The Burnley tunnel probably wasn't either but since it was never on ITN/C from what I can tell it's pointless to complain about it not being on ITN as anon did Nil Einne 02:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I initially thought, but I had doubts about this. I was reading a news article, and it seems that this road was a major route between Canada and Mexico (there are probably other routes, but this is the most widely-used). It could hamper international transportation, and as a result, could slow some parts of the economy. However, there's no certainty as to what this can to do, so adding it to ITN would be crystallballing. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody add the news that South Africa has won the rugby world cup onto the page? after all it is a major worldwide event. The sunder king 20:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Due to a fast news day, the Rugby mention lasted for only a few days. --Howard the Duck 05:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of any of the weekends big sporting events, such as rugby or F1 on the page?! Its full of boring articles regarding polititcs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.195.166 (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You gotta blame the election people, they schedule them right after the RWC and Lewis' Kimi's championship. --Howard the Duck 04:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the politics of foreign countries is quite boring (except major ones like Italy, Russia, the UK, etc). But others find sports just as boring. Besides, we have the World Series coming up, and once thats over it gets mentioned. And, I also suggested adding a blurb about the upcoming NFL game in London on WP:ITN/C. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 18:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The World Series? Is it of international interest?  ;) violet/riga (t) 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not very international, since only American teams are involved, but it involves some of the top players of many different countries, it's watched around the world, and it is one of the biggest sporting events in the world. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus, its understood that the Championship of major sports leagues is listed. NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA, and European soccer leagues amongst others. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 20:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually that argument often gets rejected. Although I have no problem with it, it's supposed to only be the sports major tournament/event, and is only supposed to be on main page once it's over. - Shudde ^talk 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Those things were included, but have since been removed. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-22 18:57

People may be confused by the fact that ITN has been rotating items nearly as fast as an actual news site over the past week or so, as opposed to the normal lingering for days and days. It's welcome, if a bit disorienting. - BanyanTree 08:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the headlines now reads:

• Scandinavian Airlines permanently discontinue services based on the use of its Dash 8 Q400 Turboprop after a series of crash landings, the latest in Copenhagen.

To clarify it, it should read:

• Scandinavian Airlines permanently discontinues services of its Dash 8 Q400 Turboprop after a series of crash landings, the latest in Copenhagen.

The change is the conjugation of "discontinue" (which may be correct already, if so, please disregard that part) and the removal of the words "based on the use," which implies that the whole of the fleet, every aircraft owned by the company, and not just this one type of plane, have been grounded. Thanks for listening. —ScouterSig 16:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Done already, thanks. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody replace Cristina's picture with this one? I've uploaded it. It's FIFA's official announcement about 2014 World Cup. Once it's a newer event, I think it could be replaced. // Matheus Wahl //, 17:34, Wed 31.10.2007.

Jacoplane's version looks balanced to me. Picaroon (t) 01:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

According to OED (in sense 24 of the verb), Of an employee: To refuse to continue work; esp. of a body of employees, to cease working by agreement among themselves or by order of their society or union. So we don't need to go on about "going on." Potatoswatter 06:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless, someone objects, I would like to put the recent Afghan suicide bombings at a factory today as there were at least 80 perhaps even over 100 deaths.--JForget 15:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please de-stub quickly. Thanks. --PFHLai 16:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah probably I've been a bit too quick but now it is no longer a stub and we will probably hear from the international community soon as far as reactions is concern. Also because of the many conflicting info about the death toll, I've revised it to at least 35 based on lowest numbers per the reliable sources so far.--JForget 19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

States of emergency are really more the realm of natural disasters and the like, what Musharraf really did is he declared martial law, which is a much bigger deal. A better news blurb would be:

• President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan suspends the country's constitution and declares martial law. --Benplowman 02:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Is there any precedent for posting strike actions on ITN? I feel there should at least be a discussion on this particular one. Hammer Raccoon 20:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a good item to me. Johntex\^talk 01:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is precedent although I'm not sure. However while at first found the item dubious, on further consideration and reading the article the item seems fine to me. For better or worse, American television has great influence throughout the world. This strike presuming it lasts say at least 10-12 weeks is likely to have a great influence on the television scheduling and also may have great economic effetcs. Already daily shows are off air Nil Einne 05:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Everyone watches American TV. Well every culture with TV anyway. Potatoswatter 08:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree this has international significance. It is possible, though, that this all blows over in a week and as such doesn't really affect anything all that much. I await being proved wholeheartedly wrong... Hammer Raccoon 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to changing the guidelines to 3-7 items, as it seems that ITN is however many bullets are needed to balance TFA? --Stephen 21:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not have old, stale news hanging around for too long. It's fine as is. What we need is DYK is stick to their guidelines and not make the leftside of MainPage too elongated with more than 8 items. Both ITN & DYK are edited daily and should easily adjust to TFAs of various lengths for a balanced MainPage. --PFHLai 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is news to me. I've observed ITN mirroring the TFA length for internal column symmetry, which is why ITN is cut down to a bare minimum when we get those rare five sentence-long TFAs. From this point of view, ITN items get stale 'cause Raul isn't merciless enough in FA summaries. ;) I would actually be OK with changing the guidelines to state "ITN comprises, at maximum, enough items to balance out the TFA blurb to the left", or something like that. - BanyanTree 02:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Another option of course is to include wordier hooks, which will take up more space. - BanyanTree 02:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's give TFA a word limit. --74.14.16.199 05:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the criteria for adding entries is "A story should be listed at Portal:Current events, or one of its subpages." There is however nothing recent about the intervention of Belgian King Albert II in the 2007 Belgian government formation. The last one about Belgium is on November 6, 2007 and neither relates to the King nor to his intervention. An English-language source to verify this would be nice. (International significance also unclear). I have removed the entry. --Edcolins 10:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems this one does not meet the criterion either: "Glasgow is chosen to host the 2014 Commonwealth Games after voting by the Commonwealth Games Federation in Colombo, Sri Lanka." Shall I remove it? --Edcolins 10:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re Belgium: I have added it to Portal:Current events, with a Dutch language source. It is true that there are very little English language sources for this specific case. The developments of the last few days have received a lot of international coverage though, see [4]. This shows an international interest. As far as the international significance is concerned: Belgium is an important European country, and is home to the capital of the EU, Brussels. These specific problems in forming the government are as significant as the election result itself (which was posted on ITN) and as significant as the succesful formation of a new government would be. Many analysts and politicians have described this government formation along the lines of "the beginning of the end of Belgium", "the final nail in Belgium's coffin", etcetera. I don't want to go crystalballing and ORing, but the doubts about the future existence of Belgium have probably never been bigger. Just under 45% of the people in Flanders support independence, and about 63% feel that Flanders will become independent. The same in Wallonia: a recent poll showed that about half of the people there feel that Belgium is now beyond repair. I think that is highly significant. The intervention of the king is very recent, btw, as it happened yesterday afternoon. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I wonder, is the intervention of the King specifically significant from an international perspective? No government for more than 150 days seems significant, the specific intervention of the King at this point in time does not. From 2007 Belgian government formation, the King appears to intervene often in the process. Another item could be suggested on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, with emphasis on the 150 days without government, rather than on the King intervention. A source in English in Portal:Current events to verify this would be nice as well. --Edcolins 20:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add it again focusing solely on the record 150 days then. English source: [5]. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-10 21:34

Thanks. Nice addition. I have slightly reworded it for better reflecting the linguistic reality and to explain that Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde is (essentially) an electoral district. --Edcolins 23:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, administrators have no more acknowledgement than other editors. In same way, have a lot less. This is just a technical function. So, why just administrators can edit in 'in the news'? Parallel33 17:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Parallel33

Because all sections on the main page are "admin only", to prevent vandalism. Every part of the main page that has been lefopen for all editors has received extreme vandalism in the past, and it was judged that for our main page, this was unacceptable. But while admins are the only ones to edit it, everyone can have their say, and admins are not the ones to decide what's on the main page against the consensus of all editors. Fram 08:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Its a toy recall, one of many that happen weekly. I don't quite see the necessity of listing it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just completed a stub on Ventarron, which is news for November 11, 2007. Perhaps it would be worthy to include it as a headline. --Thus Spake Anittas 05:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:ITN/C. --74.14.16.199 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this item live up to the ITN-criteria? It is a poorly updated stub, and I understand that the item was posted without being nominated. I'd suggest it be removed for further consideration. --Camptown 12:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it, but I think that it meets the criteria. It's a national strike involving multiple industries, unlike the 2007 Writers Guild of America strike, and I would disagree that it's a "poorly updated stub". The strike only started yesterday evening, so the article is bound to be expanded as the events unfold. But I'll leave it up to other admins to add it back. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-14 17:51

I added 3rd level headings to the Nov 15 section, as a test. The readability of ITN is a bit difficult, as conversations generally ramble across and all over each other from multiple topics. • Lawrence Cohen 17:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this in ITN? This does not fall under the category of "story of an international importance, or at least interest" (quoted from Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page). Though this is major in the United States, this is of no importance to most of the world. I believe that it should be removed, and the folks over at WP:ITNMP haven't even reached a consensus on if it should be added to the main page yet. I think this should be removed until consensus is achieved. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 05:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not confuse the term "international" with the term "worldwide." I'm not the least bit interested in Major League Baseball, but it's of a great deal of interest to people in various countries other than the United States. As Barry Bonds is one of the biggest names in MLB history, I don't see how this could possibly not meet the criterion in question. —David Levy 05:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bonds being sentenced for steroids is ITN-worthy, his indictment isn't... might as well add baseball's spring training news as well... --Howard the Duck 08:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that analogy; Bonds' indictment is far from a routine occurrence. —David Levy 10:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indictment is "a formal accusation of having committed a criminal offense." With that said, this shouldn't even be news, as nothing's been proved and nothing really happened; it's like suing someone, don't tell me if someone big was sued then we'd list it; it's like an announcement of elections, nothing really happens, what's important is the result of the election; in this case, a decision by the court. --Howard the Duck 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you're comparing this situation with something routine and mundane (the announcement of an election).

Barry Bonds' alleged steroid use and related activities are at the center of a major ongoing controversy. Guilty or innocent, the fact that he is to stand trial on related charges is a significant development of interest to many people in multiple nations. This is not comparable to someone being sued (which is unlikely to have this type of impact on an issue of such tremendous international interest). —David Levy 13:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone else as big as (or bigger than) Barry Bonds gets an indictment (or anyone that stands trial) then we should post it? No, it is just an indictment, a routinary activity, then we should post jury selections, blow-by-blow accounts of cross examinations of witnesses ("Witness A testifies...Bonds used steroids...", judgment (The jury found...Bonds guilty of steroid abuse...) and sentencing (Judge...sentences Bonds...for steroid abuse") on this case. Also, it appears that the selection of Bonds out of several other more notable cases smacks of bias, an unassuming reader might even conclude Bonds is already guilty of steroid abuse (assuming a person doesn't know what an indictment is). I'm waiting for the day Imran Khan gets indicted. --Howard the Duck 13:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Please don't advance arguments on my behalf (and then refute them). I didn't say that "if someone else as big as (or bigger than) Barry Bonds gets an indictment (or anyone that stands trial) then we should post it." I plainly stated that this particular event is noteworthy because it's a significant development in a major ongoing controversy. Irrespective of what occurs during the trial (and your "blow-by-blow" examples are rather silly, particularly given the fact that Bonds hasn't been charged with "steroid abuse" or anything similar), the mere fact that there is to be a trial is big news.

2. Which "more notable cases" do you believe have been omitted from ITN? (Keep in mind that the relevant criterion is not the charges' severity, but the general public's interest.) Have the pertinent articles been written/substantially updated and the blurbs submitted?

3. We're linking directly to our indictment article, so someone who "doesn't know what an indictment is" can easily learn. —David Levy 15:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1. It is NOT a significant development, he was indicted, so what? He's guilty already? What's a big development is if he's sentenced. Several high-profile cases gone through the indictment stage and they won't be on ITN. It's like an announcement of an election, summer league, spring training, the UEFA Intertoto Cup, a cornerstone. It's all just the first step of something MORE significant.

2. How about the Enron scandal? I dunno if the indictment of the offenders made it to ITN but it was a big scandal back then.

3. It doesn't matter if every word in the blurb is linked; most of the time the readers won't click to know it. It happened several times before on talk pages when they ask what the article is saying and they wouldn't want to click the appropriate link - just tell them what happened, in plain man's English without jargon. --Howard the Duck 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If Dick Cheney (or a politician of similar stature) were indicted for similar charges, would that be newsworthy? And would it be of more or less international note than an election in Denmark? Danthemankhan 16:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To take the above a step further, Howard, would you be claiming that "it is NOT a significant development" if a sitting head of state/government had been indicted? Would we need to wait for a conviction/sentence before reporting anything? (Bonds' indictment is not on that level of importance, of course, but perhaps you'll reconsider your belief that an indictment is inherently insignificant.) —David Levy 17:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "So what?" So now Bonds is to stand trial. This is of substantial international interest. You can claim that "it is NOT a significant development" all that you like, and it won't change that fact.

Regarding your "He's guilty already?" rhetoric, I'll once again ask you to kindly stop putting words in my mouth. I explicitly noted that Bonds' guilt/innocence is not the relevant issue. The fact that he is to stand trial is.

You say that "several high-profile cases gone through the indictment stage and they won't be on ITN." Please name them (and if any have generated this degree of international interest, let's seek to rectify the matter by ensuring that the proper steps are taken to get the appropriate blurbs listed if they remain timely).

An announcement of an election, summer league, spring training, the UEFA Intertoto Cup, or a cornerstone is a routine, mundane occurrence. The indictment of one of the world's most famous athletes on charges related to a major, long-term controversy (one that generated congressional hearings) is not.

2. So...you can't cite any actual examples of "more notable cases" being omitted from ITN despite the fact that the necessary criteria were met? You're just assuming that this is so? (Incidentally, here you go.)

3. What do you suggest that we do about this? —David Levy 17:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1. An indictment is of a "routine, mundane" occurrence, a sentencing isn't (most indictments doesn't even pass through the trial stage). Yes, it is the news, but that's not what ITN is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we should be shelling out news items as it breaks.

2. How about the Parmalat scandal? Again, I wouldn't know since I haven't visited Wikipedia during the early 2000s, hahaha. Or Charles Taylor, sure we said that he was arrested, but did Wikipedia said that he was "indicted"?

3. Instead of indicted, why not say "accused on court". Also, add the word "alleged" before "steroid abuse." --Howard the Duck 17:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1. No, an indictment of one of the world's most famous athletes on charges stemming from a major, long-term controversy (one that generated congressional hearings) is not a "routine, mundane occurrence." Feel free to dispute that, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Indeed, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we have an encyclopedic write-up of this situation. It's of substantial international interest, so it qualifies for inclusion in ITN.

2. I'm asking you to corroborate your claim by citing concrete examples (instances in which "more notable cases" were omitted from ITN, and not due to the lack of a sufficient article authorship/update or the lack of a suggestion). Taking random stabs is not productive.

3. This is not the simple English Wikipedia, and "accused on court" is not a conventional term (and therefore is confusing).

The item doesn't contain the phrase "steroid abuse," so we cannot add the word "alleged" to it. —David Levy 18:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Did the indictment generate Congressional hearings? No, that means it's not notable.

2. As I've said, I haven't been at Wikipedia on the early 2000s, when financial scandals were the staples of the news. Also, it seems that ITN can bed edited by anybody so anyone can add his news item without using WP:ITN/C so it will become irrelevant since it won't need admin intervention.

3. This is the English Wikipedia, not a law textbook. Then why not "accused" linked to indictment? For example, the article covering a base is loaded with jargon and a user called the article "completely indecipherable". So why not edit steroid "investigation" to "alleged steroid use" since "steroid investigation" is ambiguous. (did he sell/use/buy/transport steroids? what?) --Howard the Duck 03:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Huh? Why would the indictment generate Congressional hearings? What are you talking about?

2. You stated that "several other more notable cases" were omitted from ITN due to "bias." I'm merely asking you to cite these cases. If you aren't aware of any, what was the basis of this claim?

I don't understand your point about admin intervention, but ITN cannot be edited by non-sysops.

3. "Indicted" is not an obscure word, and it's the most correct term to describe the event that has occurred. We don't reference Bonds' "alleged steroid use" because he hasn't been charged with such an offense. —David Levy 04:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. If the indictment was on a politician, there could be Congressional hearings, that's only an example; it could lead to a host of other things - in Bonds' case it could be retirement, erasure of his records, giving back his awards, etc. Nothing has happened on Bonds, he was only indicted, nothing else. If he retires solely because of this indictment it could be ITN-worthy... I guess not, since he's too old already; if he surrenders his awards or baseball erases/adds an asterisk to his records then it is ITN-material. As of now, it shouldn't be there

2. The Enron link you gave me showed me that ITN then can be edited by anyone; even an anon edited it. That means going through WP:ITN/C (if it existed then) wasn't needed since anyone can merely add a news item. Today, non-admins should go through ITN/C to suggest, while other admins bypass this.

3. Indicted is not a common word either, it's legal jargon. As for Bonds' allged steroid abuse, why was he indicted? Perjury due to what? He was absent for work? He gambled?

At the end of the day, it should be removed, the BBC doesn't plainly care about it now. --Howard the Duck 12:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. You continue to base your arguments on the opinion that an indictment is inherently insignificant. As I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

2. Sorry, I still don't understand your point.

Based upon your non-response, I assume that you are unable to cite "several other more notable cases" that were omitted from ITN due to "bias" (and lack any factual basis for this assertion).

3. "Indicted" is a common word, and people are supposed to read the articles! —David Levy 20:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Although he is notable enough (and the indictment is sufficiently interesting) for inclusion in ITN.'one of the world's most famous athletes' is pushing it (I'm tempted to suggest that you are being thoughtlessly Americacentric). We do have to be careful that this isn't used as precedent for every step of what is probably going to be drawn out legal process to make ITN. -- ReadingOldBoy (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've found that it's virtually impossible for an American to advocate the inclusion of an ITN item pertaining to an American topic without being deemd "thoughtlessly Americacentric" or something similar. Never mind the fact that I've argued against fellow Americans for the inclusion of items pertaining to entities from other countries. Never mind the fact that I've argued against the inclusion of (and personally removed) items pertaining to American subjects that didn't meet our criteria. I'm an American, so I must be "thoughtlessly" biased.

I don't care about baseball, but it is one of the world's most popular sports. The U.S. population alone (equaling approximately 61.5% of the entire European Union) ensures this, and its popularity extends to Canada, Central America, Northern South America, parts of the Caribbean, and parts of East Asia and Southeast Asia. Major League Baseball is widely regarded as the world's pinnacle professional baseball organization, and top players from fifteen different countries and territories outside the fifty United States (nearly 30% of all current MLB players) compete. MLB games are broadcast in 229 countries and territories and in 13 different languages.

Meanwhile, Barry Bonds is perhaps the most famous/infamous player currently in the game (due in part to the ongoing controversy). So yes, his name is one of the most recognized in sports today. —David Levy 00:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I only used the phrase 'thoughtlesly Americacentric' because of you apparent hypersensitivity earlier, it was meant only as a joke to defuse the situation, sorry. As an aside the comparison between the USA and EU population is fascinating, but seems irrelevent. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Sorry, I didn't realize that you were kidding. Please understand that I (and others) have been called similar things on numerous occasions, and I don't think that it's "hypersensitive" to be disheartened by such accusations when they aren't made in jest.

2. The population issue is relevant because a common argument against including items directly pertaining to American subjects is that the U.S. is "only one country." If we add up the number of native and non-native English-speaking people in Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the British Virgin Islands, Canada, the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, Guyana, Suriname, Ireland, Jamaica, Montserrat, New Zealand, Norfolk Island, the Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, Trinidad and Tobago, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United Kingdom, we arrive at a figure equaling less than 47% of the English-speaking people in the United States. And yet, some editors would argue that an event directly pertaining to any two of those entities is more worthy of inclusion in ITN than an event directly pertaining to the United States is (because the U.S. is "only one country"). It's as though we're to be punished for operating under a single federal government.

3. Please don't be misled by Dreamafter to believe that you need to post all replies at the bottom of a section. Your previous message was threaded correctly in the first place, and it should not have been removed. —David Levy 02:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought your reply pertained to my message, which made no mention of the fact that the US is just one country, so it seemed odd. The US vs Eu population stuff seems to relate to an argument in which I am not involved. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I digressed above. Initially, I was addressing my claim that Barry Bonds is one of the world's most famous athletes. My point was that the United States has a very large population, so his fame here goes a long way. —David Levy 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Without doubting that the US is a large country, we must be careful of suggesting that fame in the US indicates global fame. Although fame in the US is a huge help towards worldwide fame it is not sufficient. There is a careful balance to be sought between knee jerk dismissal of American sports and the assumption that the USA is more important than it is. You seem to start every argument from the assumption that people are trying to do the uS down. I'm not sure this is true, some of us are just assuming that the US does not equal the world. Bonds is clearly famous, but I suspect he is further down the list of 'most famous athletes in the world' than might be obvious to people for whom baseball is THE major sport. Thanks for the advice on positioning of posts.ReadingOldBoy (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not "suggesting that fame in the US indicates global fame" or even that Barry Bonds is globally famous. I'm merely pointing out that he is known to a very large number of people. "Worldwide fame" (or even worldwide interest) is not an ITN criterion. International interest is, and I think/hope that you and I are in agreement that this event is of significant interest to residents of multiple nations.

2. I certainly don't believe that the U.S. equals the world. If I seem defensive, it's because I frequently encounter people who assume that I (and other Americans) harbor such a delusion. Said individuals automatically dismiss United States-related ITN content as the work of horribly biased Americans, even when it's obviously comparable to content pertaining to other countries. We'll post the results of a British cricket tournament and an Australian soccer tournament, but when we include the outcome of an American basketball tournament, suddenly it's because those biased Americans are imposing their views on the world!

I'm not directing this complaint toward you (now that I know that your "thoughtlessly Americacentric" remark was a joke), but hopefully you can understand why I'm so frustrated. I don't assume that people are trying to do the U.S. down, but when I see that type of comment, it's usually indicative of the attitude that I've described. I don't even perceive said attitude as anti-American, but as the unfair belief that Americans are anti-everyone else.

3. I've never even seen an entire baseball game, so it has no special significance to me. I'm claiming not that Barry Bonds would top the list of famous athletes, but that he's among the most famous. I don't have a particular quantity in mind, but assume that I'm including any athlete who is one of the most famous in his/her major sport. Hopefully, that gives you a better idea of what I mean. —David Levy 04:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Aplogies again, I didn't mean to suggest that the story shouldn't be included, just contesting you suggestion that Bond's is ' one of the world's most famous athletes'. This was the sort of thing that seemed far more inportant on a Friday after a long week than it does now (and your new statment that you are not suggesting that Bonds isn't globally famous seems to suggest we are actually pretty close to agreement there anyway and it is just the details of what constitutes world's most famous that seperates us). Again apologies for instigating a petty argument when we agree on the broad issues. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, any my apologies for contributing to any misunderstanding that occurred.  :-) —David Levy 10:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Unindenting here so as to end the quest for the world's longest and thinnest thread on wikipedia. On to more pressing matters, I'm afraid I have to agree with David on this one. As David has already pointed out the US comprises the overwhelming estimated population of English speakers in the world, 2/3 if I'm reading David's statistics correctly, which again points to the the fact that while fame in the US doesn't necessarily make you famous world round, it does and should mean that fame in the US should necessarily mean more than fame in say, Jamaica (no offense here towards Jamaicans).

Now, as someone who's dad played minor league baseball, I must confess that I am by no means the world's biggest baseball fan, though I am an American, but again I must confess I'm by no means the country's biggest "patriot" if you will. Coincidentally, I'm actually a big (European) soccer fan (my favorite teams are Arsenal and Celtic), a fact which makes me a decided minority here in the US. This, I think, gives me a unique prospective on the issue of what is culturally American and what is culturally non-American, because I am constantly fighting for soccer to be appreciated by those in this country and also trying to erase the idea that Americans don't like soccer in the minds of Europeans.

No one I'm sure would dispute the fact that Barry Bonds is one of the most, if not THE most (in)famous sports figures both in his sport and in the US at the moment. While it might be incorrectly assumed that baseball is "THE major sport," most Americans will concede that in the past two decades or so (since the period leading up to and including the 1994 MLB Player Strike) American football has become the preeminent sport in the US. That being said baseball is still a very popular sport in the US, and (a point which I think has been lost in the conversation even though it was brought up by David) in many other countries in the world from the Pacific Rim to Northern South America. It is pretty hard to argue with the notion that baseball isn't one of the most popular sports (if not the most popular sport) in Japan, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and others (even if its no longer the "national passtime" here in America).

Another very important issue that has been entirely ignored is the fact that sports as a whole have been under seige by allegations of cheating in the past few years whether under the name/form of steriods, blood doping, or others from baseball, to American football, to cycling, to track and field and others. To Americans (and many others) Barry Bonds (rightly or wrongly) is the symbol of this period in sports because of both his great skill and the numerous records he has broken in his career, and while he has yet to be formally convicted of anything as of this writing the fact that he is being charged, not by some sporting authority like Major League Baseball or WADA, but by the US Government in relation to a steroids investigation is both interesting and internationally noteworthy.

If nothing else, the fact that he is being indicted, not on charges that he used any controlled substances, but on allegations that he lied to federal officials and perjured himself, has a sort of Capone-esque ring to it that makes it that much more interesting. Anyway, thats my two cents take them for what you will. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the Cheney/other head-of-state, it depends if something else happened because of that. But in Bonds' case it won't cut it. Why? Because nothing happened. It's not like there'll be riots in the Bay Area. Now if someone of Cheney's stature was indicted, and it caused something rather than the routine indictment procedures, then sure, go ahead.

(I also want to know how to dig up ITN's (or any article for that matter) history, especially the very old ones.) --Howard the Duck 17:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Are you seriously suggesting that the hypothetical indictment of Dick Cheney would not be noteworthy enough, but a resultant riot would be?

2. Are you familiar with the "history" link? —David Levy 18:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1. No. An indictment that leads to something else is news. An indictment per se isn't news.

2. Don't insult me intelligence (LOL). I'm asking on how to dig deep the article history without clicking the "next 50" links for like 20 times. --Howard the Duck 03:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. How did you arrive at this determination? It seems rather odd, particularly given the amount of coverage that various indictments have received in the news media. (And yes, I realize that Wikipedia isn't a news site.)

2. I'm not trying to insult you. I simply didn't understand what you were asking.

I do precisely what Fyre2387 described. I believe that it will work with numbers up to and including 5000. —David Levy 04:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

(un-indenting)Well, for viewing a lot of history quickly, one trick I've done: go to the history page and pick a given number of pages. Once that's loaded, look in the address bar. After the page's name, you'll see "&limit=X", X being whatever number you chose. You can replace X with any number you like, including numbers larger than 500. Keep in mind, though, loading a page with a lot of entries like that can take a while to load.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the main page? Stay on topic, guys. If your chats have nothing to do with the main page, use your own talkpages. --74.13.128.245 (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

He asked a question, I answered it. Lay off.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. --Howard the Duck 05:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument has grown too long for me to read it all but for the record, I can't remember ever seeing the result of an Australian football (soccer) tournament on ITN and if there really ever was one unless there was something highly unusual (which I doubt since I can't remember anything in recent years) then it should not have made it and it's inclusion is irrelevant. AFL final results may have made it to ITN before which I personally believe was a mistake but AFL has nothing to do with football (soccer) and in any case, the argument made was that as it was the ultimate tournament of a professional sport it should be on ITN. This is somewhat different from the Barry Bonds case. Personally, I no longer have any problems with the 'World' Series results being on ITN but this is something else and although I'm not intrisincly opposed to it, I don't think it's helpful to compare this to posting results of a major sports series. Also, I find again people appear to be concentrating on native speakers and while I'm not denying they are important, I think it's highly offensive to ignore non-native speakers as if they don't matter. According to English language the number of second language speakers alone may be up to 600 million (nearly double the US population although obviously this includes some Americans) and the total may be up to 1.8 billion... BTW, while I'm not intrinscly opposed to it, I'm not supporting it either. I'm not convinced it's justified, it would be the same if it were Shane Warne or Sachin Tendulkar or Ali Williams or David Beckham or Ronaldo so please don't accuse me of anti-American bias in this instance...... Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it is very productive to join into a long discussion that you admit you are not too familiar with. If you want to partake in the discussion at least take the time to familiarize yourself with the arguments being made. As for the AFL or Australian soccer tournament results being included in ITN, I feel confident in assuming that that analogy was made out of frustration as an example of some of the more suspect sports items that have been included in ITN. I don't think he was being entirely serious in suggesting that ITN had at one time contained those blurbs. What is important is not that the Barry Bonds indictment took place in the purview of a sporting competition (the Giants didn't really feature prominantly in the NL West race down to the wire), but for the reasons I mentioned above the item is still a worthwhile inclusion in ITN because of baseball's importance in the sporting culture of many different nations (Pacific Rim, North, Central, and Northern South America and the Carribean), Bond's importance within the sport of baseball, and the recent rash of steroid/doping scandals that have embroiled sports worldwide from Le Tour de France to world record holding sprinters to baseball. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Please forgive me if I confused one sport with another, but those were merely random examples; my point has nothing to do with the specific subjects. I'm not comparing the Barry Bonds case with the results of a major sports series. I'm addressing the fact that some people (not you) automatically attribute the inclusion any United States-related ITN content to American "bias," even when we've included comparable blurbs pertaining to other countries.

2. I'm not focusing solely on native English speakers. While I compiled a list of countries and territories in which English is widely spoken as a primary language, I included their non-native English speakers as well. My point is not that people in India (or anywhere) are less important; it's that people in the United States aren't less important. As I said, some users would assert that an event directly pertaining to any two of the countries/territories on my list is more worthy of inclusion in ITN than an event directly pertaining to the United States is (because the U.S. is "only one country"). Some would even approve of an ITN item pertaining to only one of those countries/territories, but would inexplicably complain about "American bias" if a similar blurb pertaining to the U.S. were to appear. —David Levy 20:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not overlook the fact as well that baseball is absolutely huge in Japan and nearly all of Latin America, which also has many English speakers. • Lawrence Cohen 21:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but remember the point is not that there are English speakers in the countries that follow/play baseball, but instead that there are simply a multitude of countries that follow/play baseball. ITN isn't supposed to contain events that are important to English speakers, as if that was the case then the election results of X Central African country or Y Eastern European country wouldn't qualify for inclusion in ITN. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not ITNewsworthy. I hope it is removed swiftly. Jooler (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's all you got for us? Several pages of discussion and the best you can do is a two sentence assertion that you're correct? From the look of your talk page I would submit this as one of the prime examples of non-Americans exhibiting "thoughtless anti-Americanism." Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My talk page? To what are you referring? Jooler (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've encountered Jooler on various talk pages on numerous occasions, but only in "U.S. vs. the world"-type discussions. —David Levy 05:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's how you see it. In point of fact it's basically on this page where you've encountered me on such issues. Usually related to the international import of Baseball. Jooler (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you recall a certain "gasoline"/"petrol" debate? (At the time, my username was Lifeisunfair.) I'm also familiar with your involvement in the infamous "yogurt"/"yoghurt" controversy, and I've seen you pop up on other pages (such as Talk:Cheque) from time to time, invariably to argue against perceived American bias. I don't always disagree with you, but I find it odd that I've never (to the best of my recollection) encountered you in any other context. —David Levy 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I argued against petrol being moved to gasoline and yoghurt being moved to yogurt.As for cheque I have voted to keep that spelling. I have an interest in preserving articles which have British spellings. If you perceive this as 'US versus the world' then so be it. I might counter by saying that I've only ever encountered you in The World vs US type discussions. Is that your fault? Jooler (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

1. You know very well that Yogurt was moved to Yoghurt (where it remains) and Gasoline was moved to Petrol (and eventually moved back). All of these are suitable titles, incidentally.

2. There is broad agreement that articles on British topics should use British English. (This, of course, applies to Australian topics/English, American topics/English, Canadian topics/English, et cetera.) It also is widely agreed that when an article's subject relates to no countries in particular, it usually should retain the English variety in which it originally was written. An exception is when there is a specific benefit to switching, such as the elimination of parenthetical disambiguation. You might have noticed that I supported the move from Check (finance) to Cheque for this very reason. I also would like to see Pavement (material) moved to Road surface.

You, conversely, appear to indiscriminately fight for the "British" option in every case. It doesn't matter if an article was written in American English and switched to Commonwealth English purely because someone happened to prefer it. If a conflict arises, you invariably take the "British" side. (I'm using the quotation marks because I don't view these disputes in the same light.)

And this doesn't apply strictly to spellings/terminology. If there's an argument about whether or not something should appear on the main page, you automatically support the inclusion of British topics and oppose the inclusion of American topics (and attribute the reverse to American bias).

3. No, I don't actually perceive this as "the U.S. versus the world," but you seem to. It would be very nice if we could move past that attitude and seek fairness for everyone. I'm not trying to assign "fault"; I'm simply noting the fact that our paths haven't (to the best of my recollection) crossed in any other context. This stands out in my mind because when I repeatedly encounter the same editors, it generally is in various contexts. —David Levy 10:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of the general arguments here. I think (without accusing anyone) that everyone needs to be careful about becoming part of what they are attempting to criticize. Unfortunately many non-Americans hold the general view that Americans are by default pushy, uninformed, xenophobic, and generally wrong about whatever it is their talking about. While I agree that there are certainly many individuals that fit this profile, not all of us do, and assuming so can and I'm afraid does lead to inappropriate behavior on the part of non-Americans. Please be careful to realize that just because America doesn't make up the whole world doesn't mean that America isn't part of the world either. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And what was at aeroplane was merged into fixed wing aircraft and athletics (as it was originally titled) was moved to athletics (track and field) and River Plate was moved to Río de la Plata I can keep on giving you examples whether the first come first serve rule has been overruled weither by the inbuilt Amercan majority or by people who don't know any better. For example toilet humour was moved to toilet humor without discussion and if I hadn't intervened that's where it would still be, but since then it's been changed back about 5 times - see Talk:Toilet_humour&action=history. This kind of thing happens AL THE TIME and someone has to watch out for it. That's one of the things I do. Someone changes the spelling on most British articles every week. I have to regularly check on the pencil article that someone once again hasn't change colour to 'color'. I am British and I generally edit British-related articles, so it's no suprise that I argue from a British perspective, get over it. As for this page - as far as I am concerend hardly anyone outside of the US (particularly Europe) is interested in baseball but most of the world is interest in football. That is my belief and that is the position I argue from. I've never heard of this guy Barry Bonds and this story has not figured in any newspapers or TV stories that I've seen. It is of all but ZERO interest ot anyone in this country and probably most of Europe or Africa and most of Asia. That is why I said it is not ITNewsworthy. I didn't think I needed to elaborate or get into an argument about it but you drew me out by making an ad hominem attack. Jooler (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

1. You've cited instances in which there were valid reasons to change the status quo (just as the aforementioned move from Check (finance) to Cheque was valid and moving Pavement (material) to Road surface would be valid). I don't see how the River Plate example is relevant.

2. Yes, it's common for people to arbitrarily switch articles from Commonwealth English to American English. This is inappropriate and should be reverted. By the same token, it's equally inappropriate for someone to arbitrarily switch an article from American English to Commonwealth English. The problem is that you condemn the former and condone the latter. If an article was written in Commonwealth English and arbitrarily switched to American English, you strive to get it changed back (rightfully so). If an article was written in American English and arbitrarily switched to Commonwealth English, you strive to uphold the change. Irrespective of the circumstances, you argue in favor of the Commonwealth English version.

Incidentally, the Pencil article originally contained the spelling "color," which appears to have remained in place for more than three years until you arbitrarily switched to British English (your first edit to the page).

3. Your belief that hardly anyone outside of the U.S. is interested in baseball is patently incorrect. In case you didn't realize, Toronto, Ontario (where Major League Baseball's Blue Jays reside) isn't in the United States. Baseball is hugely popular in many countries outside of North America as well.

4. The fact that you haven't personally heard of someone is a ridiculous rationale. How would you feel if an American made that argument about someone famous in the UK?

5. I'm not attacking you. I'm criticising your hypocritical behavior. (Note that I like to use the Commonwealth spelling of "criticising" and the American spelling of "behavior." Aren't I kooky?) —David Levy 15:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm... re Pencil. If you actually bothered to read it you would have noticed that the page already contained the word colour before the dif that you have highlighted which added the word color nand that it carried both spellings for a considerable period. As for the rest of it. I simply stated that I didn't think it newsworthy. I'm not saying because I haven't heard of something its not newsworthy, I'm saying that this story receives all but zero coverage anywhere not interested in Baseball, which is quite a lot of the planet. I didn't come here to argue. It should have ended there. Jooler (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Regarding the pencil article, I see that I was mistaken. My sincere apologies for the error.

Indeed, the "colour" spelling was used first. (This was by a Candaian editor, so on that basis, the article should be written in Canadian English, not British English (though the distinction might not matter).

I also see that the "color" spelling appeared nine edits (and approximately four months) later. As you noted, the article then carried both spellings for more than two years (until this edit removed the "colour" spelling). The article was then stable with the "color" spelling for well over a year (apart from a section added in January 2006, which was standardized with the rest of the article after a bit more than two days), until you reverted back to the original "colour" spelling (as well as the original spelling of "sulphur," which had remained "sulfur" for more than a year).

And I'm fine with that. Likewise, I assume that you'll be fine with me reverting the Apple article (whose history is similar) to its original English variety. It was written in American English until this edit introduced British spellings. The usage remained mixed until this edit, wherein the same user replaced the American spellings with British spellings. So you'll have no problem with me reverting to American English, right?

2. You stated that you'd "never heard of this guy Barry Bonds and this story has not figured in any newspapers or TV stories that [you]'ve seen." Those are silly reasons to oppose the item's inclusion. Just as the United States doesn't equal the world, the same is true of the United Kingdom. (As noted elsewhere in the discussion, however, the BBC did report this.)

Your belief that baseball is strictly an "American" sport stems from ignorance; it's comparable to someone claiming that no one outside of the UK cares about the "British" sport of cricket (which "quite a lot of the planet" has little interest in, but you don't see me arguing that we should exclude from ITN).

You might not have come here to argue, but when you express an opinion (without providing any rationale, and subsequently citing a rationale based on sheer misinformation), you need to expect it to be challenged. —David Levy 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Jooler, did you even bother to read my last comment? What you're describing as a rationale for your argument is EXACTLY what I was talking about. So what do Latin America and the Pacific Rim not matter anymore? Some of baseball's best players are Japanese, Dominican, Cuban, etc. There is a huge following for baseball outside the United States. The Little League World Series is an international event. Japan beat Cuba in the finals of the World Baseball Classic a few years ago. Baseball matters to countries outside the US, even if the UK isn't particularly interested. Your argument is like saying that no one outside England cares about the Premiership because there are only teams from England in the league, ignoring of course that hundreds of millions of people from literally dozens of countries follow the league and some of the best players are from other countries. Or, (as I pointed out before) there are only about a dozen countries that play cricket (England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Windies, and maybe a few more), but that doesn't mean it should be kept out of wikipedia. Also, please note the fact that international doesn't mean worldwide or global. If this was the case then cricket definitely wouldn't count because the Americas don't care about cricket except for the West Indies, or for that matter does the vast majority of Africa or Asia. Your last few comments are exactly the same kind of ignorant, pushy, xenophobic, and intellectually lazy behavior that you accuse Americans of. Again, just because America doesn't equal the world doesn't mean that American isn't IN the world.Grant.alpaugh (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm now completely lost, since I dunno where my last comment was placed (LOL). Maybe it's time to remove this since practically all news sources have removed this item from their front pages. In fact, baseball fans aren't really even talking about this; they're talking about A-Rod signing with the Yankees. --Howard the Duck 05:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't remove ITN items due to staleness. (If we did, we'd have nothing to replace them with.) We add new items to the top, pushing the older ones down (until they're knocked off to make room). If you want to see this item removed, I suggest that you work to get some new ones listed. —David Levy 05:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And to be fair there are many ITN items that I don't recall appearing in any news sources I frequent (various internet news sites and the cable/national news stations I get here in the US). The ubiquitous "Country X's election results" example seems to apply most readily here. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this year's Stanley Cup Finals? It was removed after 5 days since they said a team is allowed to keep the cup for only two days, so after 5 days, it was removed (LOL) despite there were other older items. --Howard the Duck 05:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I see one shorter item with the same date tag that remained. —David Levy 06:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, only hockey was targeted on that edit. Maybe some editors remarked that it should be removed. Like on this case. --Howard the Duck 09:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

New items were added and old items were removed. What leads you to believe that "hockey was targeted on that edit"? —David Levy 09:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The hockey item was the 4th oldest item on ITN; Zzyzx11 removed the two oldest and the 4th oldest and left the third oldest. Perhaps the G8 item then was more important. And not to mention other edit summaries on that time reflect the idea that the Stanley Cup was relatively unimportant, like this indictment. --Howard the Duck 10:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We remove items to make room for new ones. As I noted, the G8 item carried the same date tag as the hockey item and consumed less space. —David Levy 10:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Admins remove items on a basis of chronology; the oldest item even if it has the same date with the newest item gets removed first. Seeing that an admin bypassed that convention, it can be concluded that an admin can do that now. --Howard the Duck 11:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, we remove items to free up space. The hockey item was nearly as old as the G8 item, and the former consumed more space than the latter did. Do you understand? —David Levy 11:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

More space isn't a problem unless DYK is especially long or if the FA blurb is short. The fact that the fourth oldest item is removed while the third one left means that hockey wasn't that important. --Howard the Duck 11:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

When adding new items, it's necessary to remove old ones, while hopefully leaving the columns as balanced as possible. Sometimes, this entails going slightly out of order, and that's okay. You're asking us to remove the second-newest item because you personally dislike it. —David Levy 12:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't just a baseball story. This is comprable to Lance Armstrong being indicted for lying to investigators in a blood doping probe. No one has answered the arguments made about baseball being of great importance to many countries around the world and Bonds's importance in relation to baseball. Also, no one has answered the argument I made about this fitting into the international phenomenon of athletes being suspected of/caught using steroids or other artificial enhancements to achieve better results on the field. This is clearly an international story regardless of whether the BBC thinks it is. I mean seriously is it really that big of a deal for a story that has something to do with American culture to be listed on ITN? Take a step back and look at how blindly xenophobic you are being. I know personal attacks are out of bounds here so I really do hope that I am wrong in my attribution of motive, but at this point I can simply see no other option. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing any of those (as a matter of fact, I even fought for inclusion of the WS on ITN), the thing is, this is not news; the fact that news websites dropped this item while retaining other items such as the Pakistani state of emergency (even though that started earlier) spoke volumes that it shouldn't really had been on ITN. --Howard the Duck 09:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that reflects the fact that the Pakistani state of emergency is an ongoing situation of tremendous importance. If ITN's purpose were to report breaking news, the Barry Bonds blurb would be long gone. But that isn't ITN's purpose. —David Levy 09:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not just that it is of tremendous importance, but it is expected to drag on for a long time. The Bonds case is relatively unimportant and most likely news for a day; I'm not saying the Bonds issue is not important; I'm saying his indictment per se isn't important, especially now. --Howard the Duck 10:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more about the fact that YOU don't find this to be important. Here in the United States it is a major sports story and in the countries repeatedly mentioned in this discussion it is an important story as well. You can't tell me that there are still international news services that are still covering the shifting electoral majorities of Danish politics as one of their top stories either. And yet somehow this story remains uncontested and on ITN as it should be. This proves that the brightline test you seem to be dead set on is flawed and you need to either come up with another basis to contest this story's inclusion or drop the issue and move on with your life. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if there's bigger baseball news than this, it's A-Rod signing with the Yanks, not this. Also, ITN is not really news, but ITN should now when to drop items and which item is important to more people. If Bonds gets indicted, would the Bay Area burst into riots? Not that I know of... now if new Danish government screws up, would the Danish people be riot? --Howard the Duck 10:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed the "WP:Riotting Must Be A Potential Outcome Related To A Story In Order To Qualify For Inclusion In ITN". Stop coming up with ridiculous brightline tests. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bonds' indictment isn't merely "baseball news." It's news that pertains to a baseball player, but its ramifications extend far beyond the realm of baseball. I agree with Grant that you want to see this item removed because of your personal disinterest. —David Levy 10:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not disinterested with this issue, I'd even bet a while back that Bonds would win his record-breaking HR on the Washington game, and it gave me money (hahaha), the thing is this indictment doesn't mean a thing.

Also, riots are only one example, another could be a "shareholders revolt" like what happened at Enron. This story has achieve nothing, Bonds is still free as a bird. Now if Bonds gets arrested, that's another story. --Howard the Duck 11:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You may have been interested in Bonds' home run record, but you clearly aren't interested in his indictment (which you've deemed insignificant and "not notable"). —David Levy 11:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as the people who were plainly disinterested with hockey? --Howard the Duck 11:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? Do you even have one? —David Levy 11:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is the item is not ITN-material. You haven't noticed all along? --Howard the Duck 11:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What is your point about some people being "plainly disinterested with hockey" (aside from the implied acknowledgment that your personal disinterest in Bonds' indictment is fueling your complaints about the relevant blurb's presence in ITN)? —David Levy 12:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're aware of how the legal system in the US works. Bonds is going to turn himself into authorities in the next day or two otherwise he will be arrested. This also means that his career is basically over because instead of preparing himself for tryouts with other teams for next year (his contract with the Giants was not renewed after this year - largely due to the baggage associated with the allegations of steroids/HGH abuse), he will be awaiting trial and for the same reason as the Giants no other team wants to deal with his baggage regardless of whether he could still be a DH in the American League. Now, will Bonds post bail? Almost assuredly, but rest easy that he is no longer a "free man," until he is aquitted by a jury of his peers or a grand jury decides that there is not enough evidence for trial (something that almost never happens especially in this high profile a case due to the hit a District Attorney's reputation would take for dragging a citizen's name through the mud without having enough evidence to bring the case to trial. So don't you see now that this is a big deal on many, many levels? In a few days the story will be on the way out because of other stories, but for now this deserves to be included in ITN. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You've made a great point, the only way for this to be ITN material is if Bonds posts bail. Only then it'll be ITN-worthy. Indictment is the first step, the spring training, we don't usually include "first steps" unless it's larger than life. --Howard the Duck 11:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but again you are mistaken. In the US indictments are the final result of a long process of investigation, especially in this case. The Feds have been working on this case for years now. If you're not familiar with the subject please check the BALCo article here on wikipedia. And please, you're the one who doesn't understand the US legal system not me, so stop insulting my intelligence by continuing to put this in baseball terms as if I won't understand the argument you're making unless you do so. This is a perfect example of how people on wikipedia assume all Americans are xenophobic morons. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How the heck is someone posting bail a bigger story than the actual indictment? —David Levy 11:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Indictment may be the "final" result of an investigation, but it is NOT the final result of a legal case; although your explanation made it clear to me that the investigation period is like signing of free agents. Indictment per se is nothing, sure he may lose his job (he's old already so losing his job isn't that big of a problem) but if Bonds is arrested, he may lose his liberty.

If someone posts bail, then that means s/he could be arrested if he doesn't post bail. Indictment essentially gives you the charges and nothing else; no personal liberties are removed, until the next step. --Howard the Duck 11:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unindenting again. Howard, you're being incredibly petty. The distinction here is minute. In the US an indictment means that a grand jury has returned charges and the case will proceed to trial. If Bonds were being charged with a violent crime there would be a manhunt out for him if he wasn't (as is usually the case) already in custody. The more peaceful nature of the crime means that Bonds, while not in police custody, is NOT a free man. Rest assured that if he doesn't turn himself in within the first day or two of next week, a warrent will be issued for his arrest (unless it already has been) and he will be forcibly brought into custody. If Bonds tried to board an airplane and leave the state/country he would not be allowed to do so. If Bonds tried to buy a firearm he would not be allowed to do so. Hell, if Bonds tried to get a job at Wal-Mart he probably wouldn't be able to do so because of a pending felony charge. Also, the fact that the Giants saw the writing on the wall with regards to Bonds's impending legal problems was the reason many a pundit attributed to the fact that the Giants chose to end their relationship with him at the end of this year. So this indictment really did play a large part in the ending of arguably the best player in a sport that is of international importance. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bonds doesn't need to play baseball anymore, board an airplane to Cancun or even work at Wal-Mart even if he wasn't indicted. Also perhaps a few more reasons why Bonds left the Giants is 1) He's too old, 2) he broke the record already so no reason to stay with Giants or even play baseball; it's all speculative anyway so it won't matter. Which is beside the point - even if he can't do any of those things, he can still vote, ride a bus or drink beer, while not essentially "free" as you put it, it doesn't matter since Bonds can afford not to work at Wal-Mart, board an airplane heading to a foreign country or play baseball. Now if his indictment per se leads to his awards, records heck even salary revoked then that's another thing, after all, Bonds is a baseball player, not a tourist or a supermarket employee. --Howard the Duck 11:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So first he's a "free man," now he's "essentially a free man?" When exactly will the goal line stop moving? Every time you make an argument I answer it, meanwhile most of the arguments I make you either agree with or ignore. Explain to me why exactly you continue to contest this story's inclusion in ITN, other than, of course, the fact that it pertains to American culture? Grant.alpaugh (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I repeat I do not protest for the reason that "it pertains to American culture", I protest since it is not notable enough then, and certainly not news anymore now. I don't care if Bonds played baseball in Botswana. --Howard the Duck 17:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You've yet to present a sensible explanation of why the event is "not notable"; your opinion that indictments are inherently insignificant lacks any basis in popular culture, and your assertion that "several other more notable cases" were omitted from ITN due to "bias" evidently has no basis whatsoever. —David Levy 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, Howard, you've drawn an arbitrary line that lacks any basis in reality. It's like claiming that a bank robbery isn't news until one of the hostages trips and stubs his toe. And I agree with Grant that your continual baseball analogies are downright insulting. —David Levy 12:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean seriously, Howard, I'm waiting for you to argue that it shouldn't be in ITN because nothing was broadcasted into space about it. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. ITN doesn't report about bank robberies, unless the money robbed was in the range of $100m. --Howard the Duck 17:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Howard, you're proving yourself a very petty fool, which is sad because your member page shows the contributions you have made to this site and they are commendable, clearly you have better things to do than protest this story's inclusion on non-existent grounds. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It was an analogy, Howard. I wasn't referring to ITN. —David Levy 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Only a small number of countries play the American sport of baseball, and only a small fraction of the people in those countries would be interested to know that a former baseball player has been accused of, gasp!, perjury (not the most serious of offences arround). The inclusion of this news item in the Main Page once again shows that global perspective in Wikipedia is far from becoming accepted. Loom91 (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He's not just any baseball player. He just broke what many consider to be the greatest record in North American sports, under dubious circumstances (the very same circumstances that he was being investigated for and subsequently lied to federal investigators about thus resulting in the charges), and is the center of a major American business/sports story of the collapse of BALCO. This fits into the international movement to end cheating by using steroids/blood doping/HGH in sports around the world. Baseball is the national sport of Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Japan, and a few others, and remains very popular in the United States, China, Korea, and throughout much of the Pacific Rim, Central America, and the Carribean. Barry Bonds is the most (in)famous American athlete in the country right now. This investigation has been going on for a few years, and the resulting charges have effectively ended the carreer of Bonds against his will as he had stated his intent since his contract with the Giants ended to attempt to make another MLB roster. Part of the reason he wanted to do this was to push the all time HR record effectively out of reach by staying on for a year or two as a DH. Americans comprise a very large percentage of English speakers in the world, so this story is of particular interest to this encyclopedia. And finally, the majority of reasons for this story being removed are variations of knee jerk anti-American bias provided by non-Americans. Every American network and newspaper covered this story along with Sky Sports, the BBC, and I'm sure several others. This is a major, international story for all of the reasons listed here and throughout the discussion above, and the fact that it pertains to America should not be a mitigating factor. Seriously move on with your lives and stop irrationally hating America(ns). Grant.alpaugh (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many perfectly rational reasons for hating Americans, none of which have anything to do with this discussion. You have presented many excellent reasons why this story is of national importance in USA, but none showing it is of international interest. Americans are a major demographic of native English speakers, not of English speakers in general (who are the target of this encyclopedia). Loom91 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just ignore the explicit references to other countries and to the broader ramifications (extending far beyond the realm of baseball).

Incidentally, it's absurd to claim that Americans are not a major demographic of English speakers in general. We're far from the largest demographic of English speakers, but not a major one? Rubbish. —David Levy 20:41/20:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And excuse me, but there are about as many "perfectly rational reasons for hating Americans" as there are for hating Jews as a whole or any other group of people. Stereotyping and generalizing all Americans as a whole is ridiculous and offensive, and quite frankly such comments have no place in this discussion. I think an apology and retraction is appropriate, sir or madame. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

300 million is a significant demographic of whatever number you're going to come up with for total English speakers (somewhere from .75-1.5 billion from what I understand). Second, I again present the same test for the Danish article. I doubt Sky, the BBC, the Times, or any other international source (disregarding entirely the fact that Pacific Rim and Latin American sources covered it), or the entire US mainstream/sports media covered the Danish story (or any other story involving the election results of random countries of negligable widespread significance) as much as the Bonds story was covered. I reiterate the line that David brought up: its as if the US is being punished for being one, large country. If the 50 states were individual countries like in the EU, this wouldn't be questioned. California alone represents one of the world's largest economies/populations. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is of widespread interest, please show me one general purpose non-USA newspaper of reasonable circulation where it has made the frontpage. Show me just one. Loom91 (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I present the same test for the Danish election article. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

When did you see me arguing for the inclusion of that? In any case, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Loom91 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you advocate that item's removal? You shouldn't. "Front page news" is not an ITN criterion. —David Levy 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, this has basically come down to two users contesting this item's inclusion basically on the grounds that it is of little interest in India and the Phillippenes (sorry for spelling). I'm sorry but as has been brought up before international does not mean worldwide. I think this is most equivalent to the inclusion ITN of the murder of the Pakistani cricket team's coach during the Cricket World Cup. Cricket is followed heavily by about the same number of people worldwide as baseball, and is of virtually no interest to vast swaths of the World and English speaking population (ie the Americas minus the Caribbean), and yet this story was not challenged for inclusion in ITN, and rightly so. It was of international intrigue and was very noteworthy as Pakistan's cricket team is one of the world's best. So to clarify the addition of this new section, please lets list the main reasons for contesting this story's inclusion so that those who believe it should remain in ITN until replaced in the same fashion as the other stories (ie newer stories pop up and replace them) can easily identify and attempt to answer them. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

QED. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, just to clarify it now seems fairly certain that Bob Woolmer wasn't murdered.ReadingOldBoy (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Cricket is followed heavily by about the same number of people worldwide as baseball" Is that true? I'm genuinely interested, as it sounds very unlikely (given cricket's popularity in the suncontinent). ReadingOldBoy (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, give it more than three hours! I have no quarrel whatsoever with this whole "international interest/significance" thing. My only objection was that Bonds has been under investigation by the Grand Jury for months anyway, and this indictment was surely just a logical step at the end of their investigation. Maybe its just me as a (British, if it really matters) San Francisco Giants fan, but you kinda get bored of all the speculation this and investigation that, so that nothing sort of a guilty verdict for perjury or a failed drugs test is really news of any note. However, I can't claim to have brilliant knowledge of the American legal system (aside from Law & Order...), so if people in a better position than I tell me that this is a significant enough development (which I'm sure has been done above) than I will defer to them.

On a broader note, it seems we get these kind of debates every single time certain news items come up (like stories relating to American sports). Isn't it time we saved a lot of time, effort and needless arguing by coming up with a page like the ones listed on Wikipedia:Precedents (I'm thinking along the lines of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes). The vague criteria at the top of WP:ITN/C might be useful in a basic sense, but they don't provide any information on precedents showing what is and is not notable. I remember my first suggestion to ITN - the FA Cup final result this year. It got posted, but then a large debate ensued over whether or not it should be on there. Other times I have been told that certain things aren't usually posted, or haven't been in the past. But how is the average user supposed to know this? Thus my proposal. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate the suggestion and I think its a good one. Actually looking through the common outcomes article I was suprised not to find a "Sport(s)" catagory. Maybe that is something that should be considered. Secondly, if you'll look back through the discussion you'll see that in the context of this discussion three hours is actually quite a long time (the discussion has gotten pretty heated so its not been uncommon for people to respond to posts within 10-15 mins).

Now on to the issue at hand, as an American Political Science student who intends to go to law school in the near future I can say that while I am no official authority on the law, I think I have more than a working knowledge on how things work. The BALCO investigation has been going on for a few years (as a Giants fan I'm sure you're well aware of this) and due to the fact that Bonds has yet to test positive even once for a drug test there was much speculation over whether there would be any legal merit to the investigation. Also, with Bonds having broken the record in a Giants uniform and his reputation with the press, the Giants decided to end their relationship with him at the end of the season. This means that Bonds was in the process of getting back into shape so as to try out for other MLB teams in the hopes of continuing his career for another season or two in hopes of pushing the new HR record out of reach for future sluggers (most notably Alex Rodriguez). The fact that he has been formally indicted means that his baseball career has been basically ended against his wishes. The fact that he's being charged not with using a controlled substance but with a legal formality adds, as I've said before, a Capone-esque feel to the story, which makes it all the more interesting and controversial. Additionally the fact that Bonds was by everyone's consensus one of the greatest players of all time even before he bulked up and began hitting boatloads of HRs, adds a tragic element to the story based on Bonds desire to break the single season and all time HR records even at the cost of his reputation if indeed it turns out he used steroids/HGH. Also, with the pressure placed on District Attorneys as elected officials, the fact that they brought charges means that on something like a formality it is more than likely an open and shut case (ie either they have recorded/paper evidence that he contradicted himself under oath or they don't), and unless Bonds makes a plea deal he will likely go to prison as a result.

Bonds is seen by most Americans as THE symbol of steroids/HGH use and therefore of the Western Hemisphere portion of the current issue of banning cheating in sports via the use of banned substances. This is an international issue that effects the lives of millions of people on a day to day basis. And even if this premise is rejected baseball remains a key sport in many countries throughout the world from the Pacific Rim to the Americas, and is of particular importance in the cultural history of Americans (who comprise a very significant portion of the total English speaking population of the world and an overwhelming majority of the native English speaking population in particular).

Furthermore the all time HR record is of particular importance to Americans (who place a particular importance on the statistical analysis of their sports) and is "the record of records." As such there really is no international equivalent because soccer doesn't really have much of a place for statistics. Even cricket doesn't have an acknowledged all time leader for sixes or centuries if I'm not mistaken (though admitedly my knowledge of the culture of cricket could be generously described as limited). I guess the closest I could come to an equivalent you might understand would be if Michael Owen had become the all time leading goalscorer for England and was indicted for blood doping or something. But even that record doesn't (as I understand it, and I'm a pretty big soccer fan) have the same significance as the HR record does to Americans.

Anyway sorry for the wall of text, but I think this will be one of my last contributions to the discussion as I have other things I need to do, but I wanted to summarize my arguments one last time before leaving. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE this story now. No one except Americans will care about it. Don't tell me that baseball is an international sport - in reality, it's not. Just because some other countries have minor teams doesn't mean it is international. America has a cricket team but that doesn't mean that suddenly America is a great cricket following nation. I have not heard one thing about this story on any news, it is not signifigant.

Comments like this are of very little value. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's off the Main Page now. This discussion is moot. Petty fool 12:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases its fourth report on climate change, indicating that Earth and humanity are now in permanent danger due to global warming. " in the headlines as long as possbile. I believe that people should become aware of it, even though in say several weeks it won't be news anymore. Nergaal (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Whats the normal process/rule for that? Arguably, this is the biggest news in decades. • Lawrence Cohen 06:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but unfortunately unless there are further developments with regards to that story/report in particular we are unable to do so. Deciding that this is so important we are going to change policy would be POV, especially given the (again, I disagree with this) "controversial nature" of the report and the issue. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, this occurs only when (English-language) media focuses entirely on one event. Both 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Funeral of Pope John Paul II ended up being "stickied" at the top of ITN for a period of time. I vaguely recall that the first London tube bombings were as well, but don't quote me on that. As with almost everything on Wikipedia, such things are decided through social interaction as updating users decide to add items under the "stickied" item and revert other users who cycle it down. This item appears to be an unlikely candidate for "sticky-ing", simply because I doubt there's are enough admins who both edit ITN and feel strongly enough to fight over the item's location and thus create a temporary consensus to ignore normal template procedure, especially since the hint of wheel warring is enough for emergency desysopping these days. Though I've been proved wrong before... - BanyanTree 07:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither the words 'permanent' nor 'irreversible' are in the article; where is this mentioned? --Golbez (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"the earth is in permanent danger"??

please don't put nonsense on the main page of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.88.18 (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} It hasn't sunk yet, and it might not if they can pump fast enough. news report updated an hour ago. Jackaranga (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever if you leave it long enough it might well sink... Jackaranga (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the lack of interest. Jackaranga (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of response. Next time, you may want to post at WP:ERRORS where response is usually quicker. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ABC's calling it, 9's calling it, Julia Gillard's claiming it... ...so what's Wikipedia standard protocol for calling an election victory? Kelvinc (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We generally prefer to wait for official results, but when supported by multiple tertiary sources and the incumbent leader and his likely replacement as (the new opposition) leader concede defeat and the other partie's leader makes a speech considering himself the new PM that's sufficient. Particularly when the official results won't be known for several ?weeks. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarless we wait. Labour could still technicaly lose. We record the result not what everything thinks will be the result.Geni 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is that the new Labour government is already in the process of forming the new government. If we were to wait for the official final results as you suggest then by the time we post, the new government would already have been more or less formed probably just waiting to take office and perhaps more importantly, everyone else would not care about the Australian elections anymore. I'm normally all for waiting for official and final stuff but there comes a time when it can be taken to far. When it means we are waiting weeks to annouce something which holds interest for days, it usually doesn't make much sense. The simple fact is, if all the tertiary sources etc turn out to be wrong then this is a much bigger story then anything else and there is nothing wrong with us mentioning the new story (provided the other criteria are met obviously) Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)