Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2007

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


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

December 31

Tatiana the Tiger
Tatiana the Tiger
Only one person was killed, so "fatally attacks three visitors" is inaccurate. The story is 6 days old now and not ITN worthy IMO anyways. Russeasby (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2007 Kenya riots redirects to Kenyan presidential election, 2007#Aftermath? Kenyan presidential election, 2007 is already on ITN. --76.64.77.205 (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

I strongly endorse putting this up, but I would recommend including the allegations of fraud, and Odinga claiming victory as well. AecisBrievenbus 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this as a topic for ITN. How about:
Perhaps the rioting should be mentioned too, although there's only one line in the article about that. There's a free picture of Kibaki available.-gadfium 19:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest using the word "amidst" instead of "despite". AecisBrievenbus 19:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suprised this still isnt posted, by all means its ITN worthy, and with a good picture too. Russeasby (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, although I'll let someone more capable switch the photos --Stephen 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In American football, the New England Patriots go undefeated 16-0 with their victory over the Giants. This is significant for several reasons: They are the first NFL team in more than 35 years to go undefeated, and the only team in history to go 16 and 0. Along the way, they have set several significant team records (most points scored by a team, most touchdowns scored by a team, highest point differential and more) and individual records (most touchdown passes in a season by Brady and Moss and more). On top of all of that, it was broadcast in a historic (and unprecedented for any sporting event) three network simulcast (NBC and CBS - plus several non NBC/CBS local affiliates - carried the NFL Network's feed). A ton of significant information that should be in ITN, but I stumped on the wording and how much of this to include, so I'll leave suggestions to others. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a momentous and historic event in American sport. I'll add it to the template shortly, and if you (or anyone else) have any comments and suggestions about a tweak to my blurb, please let me know, as some of my previous entries have been a bit off in terms of the manual of style that is generally used here. gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I'm happy to implement your suggestion, either way is fine with me. In fact, I actually just basically copied and pasted your since-removed suggestion onto the template itself, so just let me know which version you think is better; I'm fine either way gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new one is great. (But what do I know, heehee). --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is now up (and I myself have been involved in some of these debates regarding sports on ITN that are now archived) my question is how long it this is going to take before some non-American Wikipedians (perhaps many) start complaining that it should be removed because it is not a championship or is not significantly international news, or why similar records in other sports are never included, etc. Good luck... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope I did a good job communicating the significance of what has occurred above. A few weeks ago there was a cricket thing in ITN... so if our friends across the pond need some reference, imagine a football (soccer) team in one of the top leagues going undefeated (assuming that such a feat is as rare in soccer as it is in American football), and the ultimate game being shown simultaneously on Sky Sports, BBC1, and ITV, with international media coverage, and the team shattering a half dozen records. It's certainly a big deal in the sport of American football, in North America in general, and according to at least one reporter at a post game press conference, Japan (go figure). --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such a feat is very rare in football (soccer). It happened once in Brazil (Flamengo, I think it was), Arsenal achieved it once or twice in England and Ajax achieved it once or twice in the Netherlands. AecisBrievenbus 13:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't Arsenal FC did this before? They had draws/ties though. This can't be compared with soccer since several teams compete in several competitions (league+cup+continental competition) at the same time so having an undefeated season is impossible. Anyway I don't think this is ITN material, since the Pats haven't really accomplished anything yet (unless the NFL gives them a trophy or something, but not cash). If they win 3 more times then they can should be posted at the ITN. --Howard the Duck 17:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This isn't ITN worthy if you ask me. - Shudde talk 22:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an Australian who often argues against American national sport being on in the news, I actually don't have a problem with this, and think it is quite interesting news (even for someone like me who has no idea or knowledge about anything gridiron related). However, I must say if something like this were to happen in, say, the Australian Football League, it wouldn't have a mention (for example, the results of the Superbowl were put up on the main page, but the results of the AFL Grand Final weren't, despite me suggesting it).
I'm a big football fan, but I would argue against inclusion here. I'd rather include the BCS National Championship Game result on Jan. 7 and wait for the Super Bowl for our NFL mention. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. With 2 big american football stories we know will be coming in the next ~5 weeks, having this regular season story seems a bit like overkill. --W.marsh 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. Generally, I am not a sports fan and would rather not see any sports related items ITN, but I realize I am in the minority on that. But really, I think this is a bit excessive. I do get annoyed with the anti baseball/american football arguments in general, but they have a point on this one. Russeasby (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the threshold for ITN should ever be X ammount of stories per Y time period relating to a specific subject. This is notable on its own merits or its not. If a lot of countries had their elections during the same few weeks, would that mean that we should not include all of them? This isn't just some random sports record either. It's the biggest team record in the most popular sport in the US, where the vast majority of native speakers live. It's been done for the first time in 35 years. It matters. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of speakers part isn't a valid arguement. If it was, every American thing would get on ITN. And, somehow, I don't see this happening if a CFL team went undefeated next year, which would be the first time in sixty years. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the US is where the majority of native speakers live is a valid argument. This is an encyclopedia for English users, and primarily for native speakers. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia. Either way the US is one of the largest (if not the largest) demographics of English speakers on the planet, so the most popular sport to them is by default a popular sport for English speakers. This is a major record in this sport. It's notability was well articulated by the first poster. Millions of people in the UK, Canada, Japan, and other countries follow the NFL. I can't for the life of me see what the problem is. I promise you that if one of the Premiership (either football or rugby union) teams finished the league undefeated and undrawn you'd be all about posting it.
Also, the idea that every American story gets posted is absolutely ridiculous. Every notable American item gets posted just like every other country in the world. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I think it's gotten to the point where any sports accomplishment in a top league will be suggested for ITN. When another sports team goes undefeated, there will be a lot more resistance then this one cause it's not NFL. And you didn't listen to me, did you? I said that, if ITN did have an American bias due to population, then everything would get on. And Don't twist my words, thank you. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also an American football fan, and I think this should only have been mentioned if they won the Super Bowl.--Boznia 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No argument from me against the inclusion of this, but the 16-0 phrasing is very much U.S. usage: to other English language users, 16-0 in the context of a sports related piece would look like the score in a particular fixture. Could I suggest In American football, the New England Patriots, with 16 wins in 16 matches, become the first NFL team to finish a regular season undefeated since 1972.  ? Kevin McE (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We say "games" instead of "matches," but how about: "The New England Patriots become the first National Football League team to finish a regular season undefeated since the schedule was expanded to 16 games in 1978." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as long as we don't add a blurb if they lose in the playoffs, I'm fine with it. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a huge NFL fan nor generally a big booster of sporting events news on ITN, but IMHO the Pats' 16-0 regular season does barely nose over the line. A few weeks ago, it mightn't have, a few weeks from now, it mightn't have, but right now in the context of what's on ITN, it's passable. To be fair, it's a remarkably difficult achievement, particularly in light of the parity level between clubs in the NFL in the modern era (a Scottish league football club going undefeated, for instance, would be considerably simpler undertaking, IMHO). This won't be a record that will be repeatedly falling next year and the year after, and this isn't a cricket or baseball-like situation where everyone and their grandmother seems to have an all-time record or two in some statistical category somewhere that falls every few months.
However, in response to the preemptive suggestion that the BCS Championship Game will be bigger news and merit automatic posting, I strongly disagree. After a few years of back-and-forth on this, something as best approaching a tidy consensus as is possible in these things has emerged: in the case of annually-held club championships in which nothing extraordinarily earth-shattering occurs aside from the game having a winner/loser, only one per year, only a straightforward blurb after the event is complete, only if it's the overall final championship, and only if it's drawn from the league/tournament recognized as the representing the most elite level of competition for the sport in question.
Firstly, you're not even going to find many NCAA fans who agree that the BCS National Championship Game is unquestionably the "national championship" for college football--the convoluted BCS ranking system ensures that a win there doesn't really establish a consensus opinion of overall dominance akin to how the basketball championship is decided via March Madness. But even if it did, we've come out against university sport championships in the past simply because they don't meet that pinnacle-level requirement. The best team in the world at American football is the one that wins the Super Bowl. The best club team in the world at Football (soccer) is the one that wins the UEFA Champions league. The best club team in the world at ice hockey is the one that wins the Stanley Cup. In every one of those cases, there are alternate leagues and championships and tiers of competition, all heavily watched and many with strong cases from purists of the sport that they represent the game in question at its best. And that's just wonderful. But Wikipedia is not SportsCentre. The Tom (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we say the Pats didn't win anything? For most parts of the world, an undefeated season means a championship. --Howard the Duck 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

This should be added around 21.30UTC tonight. He will be released at 8.00am tomorrow morning (South Australian Local Time). .....Todd#661 06:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please add this now? He has been released now.
Posted, thanks --Stephen 05:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only relevant updating in the David Hicks article in the past two days was the addition of a single sentence with no references. This should not be featured on MainPage. I might remove this from ITN, where we feature articles well updated with news-related materials, if I see no improvements in the next few hours. --PFHLai (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are 20 or so edits that have been adding and tweaking information that has come to light over the past couple of days. The release was (poorly) cited here [1], but I've added another. And his release is the final point of a 6 year story, which is covered with over 100 references and 20 plus external links, making this probably the best referenced article in recent ITN days! --Stephen 09:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this article has excellent refs throughout, and I only have a problem with the part that is relevant to ITN -- Hick's release. Thank you for adding the ref there. --PFHLai (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 27

I think that the way she was killed in the attack should be clarified because she was shot by the bomber but as it stands I would think she was killed in the bomb. Peanutter67 (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might be good to add that she was an opposition leader as well as former PM - for example, "Former Pakistani Prime Minister and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto (pictured) is assassinated in Rawalpindi, Pakistan." David Mestel(Talk) 18:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This might infer that she is the single opposition, and the BBC, for example, have Nawaz Sharif as the main opposition leader. [3] --Stephen 06:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we also mention the fact that the Pakistan Peoples Party has elected Bhutto's widower Asif Ali Zardari and their son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari to lead the party? AecisBrievenbus 15:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 26

Turkish forces claim to have killed hundreds of Kurdistan Workers Party rebels during a bombing campaign in the past 10 days.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim by Turkish forces on their attack seems a little one-sided. Is this an internationally significant attack, or just a continuation of long term hostilities in this war-ravaged area? --Stephen 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be significant to me. It's AFAIK the first cross border raid since parliament approved this amidst some controversy back in October (Turkey-PKK conflict which is a bit confusing since events are out of order). Also the numbers seem resonably significant. From Casualties of the Turkey-PKK conflict (which is sadly rather confusing in the way it's organised) about 100 rebels had been killed up to the middle of the year. The single biggest operation resulted in 30 rebels being killed. Presuming there aren't several mass casulty incidents that are missed 200 rebels in this single campaign/operation would be a lot IMHO. Edit: Actually it appears to not be the first. But it appears to be the most major one including involving ground forces crossing into Iraq. Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

Add a link in the first story to Nepalese monarchy. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Kurykh 01:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 23

Islom Karimov
Islom Karimov
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please post at Portal:Current events first, and then Found it! --PFHLai (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC) elaborate a little more in Politics of Nepal and Nepalese monarchy. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the decision to abolish the monarchy is definitely relevant and notable enough for Wikipedia. The political situation in Nepal has received a lot of attention in recent years. This is certainly an important development. Aecis·(away) talk 12:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 22

We need a emboldened, updated article for the state elections. --Stephen 22:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No response. I've added it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 21

Schengen border crossing
Schengen border crossing
This is an important event and the article has been updated. I support the inclusion on the main page. --Tone 10:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely endorse putting this up, but I think that rewording the proposal blurb would make it easier to understand. As it stands, I think the passive form with a bit too many elements in the blurb makes it unnecessarily complicated. I would recommend something along the lines of "The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia join the Schengen zone of the European Union." AecisBrievenbus 13:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

  • It took a while, but it appears that Belgium will finally, finally, finally get a new government, after a cabinet formation of over 190 days. That is to say, the outgoing Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has been asked by King Albert II to form an interim government, that is intended to rule until March 23, 2008 (Easter). In the meantime, Yves Leterme will continue to try and form a new government, that will take over from Verhofstadt after Easter... Not suitable for ITN at the moment, but the final decision is expected in the next few days. Something to keep an eye out for. AecisBrievenbus 00:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question, will Verhofstadt of Leterme be the Prime Minister of this interim government? Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Verhofstadt. According to Belgian media, it will be sworn into office on Friday. AecisBrievenbus 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we'll have sth new on ITN on Friday. :-) Please draft a headline regarding 2007 Belgian government formation. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about "An interim Belgian government has been formed until 23 March 2008." Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"After a cabinet formation of over 190 days Belgium has formed an interim government" -- 85.149.120.16 (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good wording, but I see two problems with it. First, Belgium itself hasn't formed anything. Secondly, the wording implies that the 190+ day cabinet formation is now over. It's not. The cabinet that is intended to take over in March still has to be formed. I would suggest: "An interim government led by Guy Verhofstadt is formed in Belgium. It is expected to rule until March 23, 2008." AecisBrievenbus 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, but without the March 2008 detail which made it a little wordy. --Stephen 21:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 19

Let's not re-post another editor's opinion on WP's MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a while to get what you meant but I got to it, I just needed to wake up fully :) Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 09:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 18

Yulia Tymoshenko
Yulia Tymoshenko
2007 Ukrainian political crisis and Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 were already on ITN earlier, right? Not sure why we should bring this back. The Yulia Tymoshenko article didn't get that much new materials the past two days, just one new sentence.--PFHLai (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 17

Not mentioned in Portal:Current events --Stephen 00:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, 81% of the votes have been counted. I suggest holding off on this one until we reach the 95% mark. AecisBrievenbus 00:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think these Central Asian countries love voting unanimously so it seems that waiting for the 95% mark would be stretching it. --Howard the Duck 04:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While we wait for the official vote counts from Kyrgyzstan, how about the Swiss elections on #December 12? The oil spill (Dec.9th?) is really old news now. --PFHLai (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just posted the blurb on Swiss Federal Council election, 2007. --PFHLai (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 16

Refs here:[5] [6] [7]
There needs to be a single, updated, bolded article to include in the hook --Stephen 21:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article Departments of Bolivia would be the most appropriate place for this, but needs updating. - Shudde talk 02:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Skomorokh incite 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really think this should be ITN. Strong support. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Topic-wise, yes, this is probably ITN material. However, we don't have a wikiarticle on the dispute. The Departments of Bolivia article is a stub with no background on why autonomy was declared, no info on what actual changes have been made in the government besides politicians making the announcement. This doesn't seem ready to be featured on MainPage, IMO. --PFHLai (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dmitry Medvedev
Dmitry Medvedev
The decision is possibly more important than the upcomming election. --Camptown (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Medvedev running unopposed? --Howard the Duck 10:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a handfull candidates, but as Medevev has been endorsed by the President AND all parties in the Parliament except the Communists, the election is probably going to be just another formality.--Camptown (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about this, BBC News doesn't have this as a story so it seems to be unnotable now. Perhaps it can be ITN-worthy after the elections. --Howard the Duck 11:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I don't endorse this either, but, Howard, you are aware that there are other sources than the Beeb, right? Grant.alpaugh (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever's not listed at Auntie Beeb's website is more than likely not listed anywhere else. --Howard the Duck 04:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While that might very well be true, "more than likely" isn't what we do on wikipedia. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News is a reputable news source, and they report from anywhere, even the news U.S. news orgs fail to report on, so I'll keep on using that as a source in this regard, whether it's "more than likely" or whatever likeliness. I tried using CNN (International) but the last time I used it here say it's biased, so I have no news org to use as basis anymore, unless you tell me to use Xinhua and pay for my Mandarin language skills... --Howard the Duck 04:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point by miles and miles, as usual, Howard. If you really want to avoid bias, try checking more than just one source, regardless of how reliable it is. There's no reason why you can't check CNN(I), BBC, MSNBC, FOX, etc. Just checking the BBC is, well, lazy. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's all the same really, both CNN and BBC have the Pakistan train crash as top stories. MSNBC and FOX are too U.S.-centric. What usually appears on the BBC homepage appears on CNN(I) homepage. Dunno about the 2 U.S. news sources, though.
The only way for me to check out other news sources is if the wannabe ITN entry is borderline notable. --Howard the Duck 12:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Howard here at least about Fox. Having watched it on TV on some occasions I have to say it's clearly not international news. It's clearly intended to be US news or for US audiences. For that matter, even though it's broadcast in a number of countries it never actually claims it's international news. (CCTV9 is similar although it perhaps has an even greater Chinese focus then Fox has a US focus) The three best sources are perhaps Al Jazeera English, BBC World News and CNN International. If you do want to add something else I would suggest perhaps German (Spiegel or DW-world perhaps) English news, Chinese (Xiahua I guess) English news, Indian English news or something. Definitely not Fox News. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't this same blurb nominated on December 10 as well? AecisBrievenbus 12:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but the item was opposed by editors who thought this was just a simple endorsment in a traditional democracy. As Medvedev runs practically unopposed (all serious contenders have decided to back off) - the endorsment is the practical decision of succession. --Camptown (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was opposed by Nil Einne and me, and we both acknowledged that this endorsement would make it almost inevitable that Medvedev would be the next president of Russia. AecisBrievenbus 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. The decision has very important implications and Medvedev will now for sure be the next President of Russia. Bondkaka (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Say that when he wins. This is only notable when he becomes President. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion: just a picture of Pervez Musharraf. -- Reaper X 02:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see what's going on in the oil spill picture. It just looks like some sunbathers on holiday at the beach. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 02:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Submit a properly formatted hook, with an emboldened updated article, and it will be considered. --Stephen 08:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about: The 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference concludes with an agreement to refine and expand the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. 91.65.0.36 (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support this one. One might add "by 2009" to the end of the item, but I don't know that it's particularly important. Joe 19:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support the premise but not the article. If I recall there was controversy over the US's refusal to support some of the original proposals and they were even widely booed, they finally accepted a compromise. Developing countries also rebelled against some of the suggestions. The head of the conference broke down after accusations the conference was not being run properly. Some of this might be too 'newsy' for an encylopaedic article but definitely as is the article gives very little idea of what happened and what was achieved Nil Einne (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, the article is a poor representation; listing that the conference happened and leaving the details to a list of news report external links --Stephen 03:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

Not new items but this is now ready to be on ITN and is newer then some of the existing items

support Grant.alpaugh (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(date 11 or 13 December) Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong support Grant.alpaugh (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thinks we've missed the boat on this one, it was downgraded on the 13th. --Stephen 08:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, provided the story can still be put on ITN it should. It's a bit later now but even so it's still newer then 3 of the current ITN items (December 6, 9 and 9). Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, displacing some even older news. --PFHLai (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

I actually think England failing to qualify for EURO 2008 was ITN-notable material, but this one isn't. --Howard the Duck 14:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't think either are really noteable enough for ITN. Yes football is a massive sport and yes England is a very well known team and yes the failing to qualify for Euro was a resonably major upset but neither stories seem significant enough to me. Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just think both stories start an unfortunate precident. Do we start posting if the Yankees don't make the playoffs or if they hire a new manager? I just think we should only post significant championships, records, and unexpected stories as far as sports go. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the major difference between England-Euro 2008 and the Yankees-MLB playoffs is that the MLB playoffs occur annually and is arguably easier to reach rather than qualifying for the Euro championships which occur quadrennially. A better analogy would be the USA hoops team failing to qualify for the Olympics. --Howard the Duck 03:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Made me laugh that analogy. US basketball team would be favorite to win the Olympics, England football team would have been just another quarterfinal side in the Euros. 201.56.102.15 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy was on the place where the sport was organized (Basketball = USA, soccer = England) --Howard the Duck 15:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

Might need to wait a bit, and the international interest is debatable (I should think it would be internationally significant due to the wide variety of countries represented in MLB.) Grandmasterka 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs some work (and it will), but otherwise I support. This is very big news in the sports world that compares in importance to the 2006 Serie A scandal and the 2007 Formula One espionage controversy, both of which made WP:ITN. ---CWY2190TC 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely notable and ITN-worthy. This involves the highest level of competition in a sport that is very popular in the Americas and East Asia, with players from several notable baseball countries. AecisBrievenbus 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, strong support after a little more work. The international significance is not even debatable given the high level of interest in Major League Baseball throughout North America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Rim.Grant.alpaugh (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Major story in the baseball world (if not all of sports), comparable to scandals in Serie A and F-1. And two of the most notable players on the list were born outside the US (Miguel Tejada and Eric Gagné). ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 23:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, thanks --Stephen 00:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take out the concrete number. It's not sourced. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need a source for how many books are in the Bible? There just are 89 players named. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no there's not. --Ali'i 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, change it to 88, but I think the number of players is relevent to the blurb. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Basra article - which recently hasn't been updated at all - doesn't mention the road accident. It only mentions the UK pull-out in one short sentence. --Camptown (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The handover of control of security in Basra to the Iraqi authorities might be ITN-worthy, the death of a single soldier isn't. AecisBrievenbus 22:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the EU Reform Treaty ("Treaty of Lisbon") has been posted on ITN twice this year - so this wuold be the third time. I think we should wait with the third (!) posting until the treaty has been ratified (or possibly rejected) later next year. --Camptown (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. -- Mike (Kicking222) 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this been posted?? I hardly see any consensus for adding this, as it has been posted twice before and as of yet has not been officially ratified. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This really isn't news... --Howard the Duck 03:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, a very short article with merly a few lines of recent updates. --Camptown (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

Christoph Blocher
Christoph Blocher
I understand that it is not yet finally decided whether Chr. Blocher will be included in the new cabinet or not. --Camptown (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is now; he's out. Sandstein (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as
--PFHLai (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has this been mentioned ITN before? If not, then support. Thue | talk 17:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The IOC stripped her today, this is breaking news as of today, couldn't have been posted before - don't know about her voluntarily handing them back though... --Bob (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was. She voluntarily surrendered the medals back in October. I suppose she was still on record as being the winner and no longer had the physical medals. But today's vote just took her name from the books. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was added here ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thue | talk 17:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, Bob, news items are written in present tense, so please attempt to write suggestions that way. Second, the article is a sub-stub. I, personally, would never post anything to the top of the main page that would link WP readers to a six-sentence article. -- Mike (Kicking222) 19:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

Feel free to change the wording, as this is my first submission for ITN, and obviously the casualty figures will need to be updated with time - I just took the ones from the article. Ygoloxelfer (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added, thanks. Thue | talk 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not significant enough. Thue | talk 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is definitely significant enough. It's probably the biggest piece of news in the music industy this year. Twenty million people is pretty damn significant. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner
No, there is no need to include Fernández de Kirchner again as she has already been on ITN when she won the election. ITN wont benifit much should sucessful politicians be posted twice (winning elections + taking offices). --Camptown (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We included the news about Rudd being sworn in as Australian prime minister. I don't see a reason to not include this. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is precedence on this matter, then it should be listed again. --Bob (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know. Rudd was a special case since it was the change of PM for Australia after 13 years which is considered a very long time for Australia, and also a change in party. If I'm not mistaken Cristina is not really a change, she's just continuining her husband's legacy due to the ban on her husband serving for longer 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should be in the habit of doing this too often. Extremely notable exceptions are one thing (and I'm not saying the Australian election is one of those), but since we already hold elections to be sacred (which already is controversial), I don't think we should extend that privilage to innaugurations. I mean what's next after that the opening and closing of legislative bodies in every country? Grant.alpaugh (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that was really a special case, or they would have added something about him being the first prime minister in 13 years. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the change from John Howard to Kevin Rudd was considered a rather major change in Australia (bear in mind JH is the second longest serving Australian PM) along with the change from the Coalition to Labor. However in retrospect I don't think the actual swearing in had so much attention beyond his signing the Kyoto Protocol. It was after winning the election with JH's loss and concession speech that the major change occured even if he didn't take office until a few weeks later. In any case I wasn't arguing in support of mentioning the Rudd story just pointing out that the Rudd case was not really comparable to the Argentina case. Edit: Actually she is the countries first female president evidentally. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second, actually. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pass on this one, just because it was already up there for the elections, and since there are other more notable things to post currently. Lawrence Cohen 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much on the subject, but from what it sounds it seems pretty important. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A conviction I think would merit inclusion, but I don't think the actual trial is notable enough. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we did list the extradition to Peru a few months ago, but I'm not sure the start of the trial warrants ITN. A verdict would be another matter, obviously. AecisBrievenbus 00:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, however a verdict comes down, it will be notable enough to warrant a blurb. A conviction just makes it overwhelmingly so. Lawrence Cohen 16:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just in - he's been convicted and sentenced to six years in prison. Ygoloxelfer (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A endorsement isn't enough for ITN. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Plasma Twa 2 on this one. While this endorsement/nomination makes it virtually certain that Medvedev will be the next President of Russia, common practice is not to list candidacies, and only focus on the election outcome. Having said that, I'm not sure if we're gonna stick with it if the Republican Party and the Democratic Party announce their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates next year. AecisBrievenbus 00:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Aecis etc here. Yes he's almost definitely going to be the next Russian president but we should wait for the election. As for the US, we've had discussions about this before, so far most people have agreed we should not put the Republican and Democractic? (is that the right word? I'm a bit confused since I understand Democrat is offensive in some contexts) candidates. There is some uncertainty about whether we should mention if there is something special such as the first female presidential candidate from a major party or the first black/African American candidate as we did with Royal but definitely if it's just an ordinary case I haven't yet seen much support for it (although I suspect someone's liable to do it anyway) Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given timeless Russian politics and the present playing field there is little chance of an upset. He is the new leader, at least as this story is being reported "in the news". Support Potatoswatter (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 7

Proposing this but I don't know if it quite qualifies for ITN. Any state of disaster is automatically up there in the list of candidates for me. And according to initial estimates the cost of this may be up to US$330 million which I would say is resonably large. The region appears to be rather pristine environmentally speaking with at least one national park. Also the cost may fall onto international insurance companies (although I'm a bit unsure of that, see the article talk page). The story was the top story on Al Jazeera and BBC an hour or more ago but is no longer (overtaken by the EU-Africa summit in both cases) although it remains one of the top stories on both places (and also on CNN and Xiahua). Finally this appears to have spread more then intially expected. However in terms of oil spills, this one is actually fairly minor in size, about 1/4 of the size of Exxon Valdez which in itself was evidentally in relative terms, fairly minor except it happened in a very bad place (this one is bad but not nearly as bad as the Alaska Sounds). A lot seems to depend on how far it will spread which is seemingly not helped by the bad weather and some mistakes by the SK goverment but remains a bit uncertain I think. Oh and finally I don't know if the article is quite up to ITN standard yet. Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, the article seems in reasonable shape, and the event seems significant for the area. --Stephen 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been bold and moved the article to ICA meat repackaging controversy, which better covers the content and avoids the pov terms Cheat and Scandal. I'm not sure about putting this on ITN though. This appears to be confined to Sweden, and it's not even on the Main Page there, and it has a very small section in sv:ICA. AecisBrievenbus 18:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article before moving it? It's not only about repacking... Moreover, what happens "there" (Swedish WP) is totally irrelevant, and I remember that Aecis supported the inclusion of the French strike at ITN, an article which was even nominated for deletion "there" (French WP). Bondkaka (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article, and all it mentions is repackaging. In the first sentence: "A scandal surrounding the repackaging of meat..."; in the second sentence: "...revealed that they had repackaged out-of-date meat..."; in the first sentence of the Scandal revealed section: "...employees at four featured Maxi ICA Hypermarkets relabeling outdated ground meat, as well as grinding down other forms of out-of-date meat to make ground meat..."; the next sentence: "...picking up outdated pork chops from the floor, repacking and relabeling them." The first sentence of the next paragraph: "...the company knew that meat was being illegally repackaged as early as 2003." Two sentences on: "...many stores engaged in practices such as repackaging meat in order to change the best before date, saying that "they even re-minced meat that had already been out on the shelves, before repackaging it and putting it back out on the shelves," Sausage meats that had become old and sticky were also repackaged after rinsing, he said"; in the final sentence of the Reaction section: "...and only focus on the meat packing scandal." I think ICA meat repackaging controversy covers the content of the article quite well. Ofcourse I'm always open to suggestions and alternatives. Have you got one? AecisBrievenbus 23:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, if you reread the discussion on the French strikes a few weeks ago, you will see that I endorsed the nomination when the high speed train connections to Belgium and Germany were sabotaged, which is quite an international perspective. You aren't even comparing apples and oranges anymore, you are comparing banjos to zebras. AecisBrievenbus 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very childish way to argue, especially as you endorsed that article while it was still nominated for deletion "there". Bondkaka (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is intersting news covering food safety and irregularities in the retail market of a multi-national grocery store chain, the article should be posted. Bondkaka (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have filed a move request for the article, to have it moved from ICA Meat Cheat Scandal to ICA meat repackaging controversy. AecisBrievenbus 00:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "2007 ICA meat repackaging controversy" would be even better? --Camptown (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this relevant to have on the Main Page? This probably happens in almost every store in every part of the world and it's not even mentioned by any international news agencies! Funsides (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 6

Christopher Weeramantry
Christopher Weeramantry
I know, the Nobel Foundation might hate this prize, but it is a rather remarkable inititative by a private donation; and it is indeed endorsed by the Swedish Parliament. --Camptown (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support this unless their field of work was given. --Stephen 03:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that is sort of a key component. Otherwise, support. Lawrence Cohen 15:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the award winners' articles could be updated more with materials from http://www.rightlivelihood.org/laureates.html?&no_cache=1 ? BTW, Dekha Ibrahim Abdi has a Commons pic, too. --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be notable enough, no? Lawrence Cohen 15:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support here. Maybe inclusion of expected end date so as to eliminate attempts to include closing of event as well would be appropriate. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is notable enough. The Asian Games yes, but the Southeast Asian Games? AecisBrievenbus 21:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just figured if we'd display a mini-Olympics among mini-countries we might as well add a mini-Olympics among medium-sized countries. --Howard the Duck 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the IAAF World championships, which determined the world champion as recognised by the official world governing body of disciplines in one of the most widespread sports in the world does not, in HtD's opinion, merit inclusion, but this event, which establishes a regional champion in events, many of which are virtually unknown in the rest of the world, whose governing bodies have unclear relationships with the event organisers, and where the standard of competition is such that a competitor can win a medal without ever having played the sport before [8], should be included. Hmmmm... Kevin McE (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The IAAF WC weren't even in the news... the only mention I saw on the web (aside from here) is on a photos website where the posters were drooling over a Swedish runner (LOL).
With that said, we should've added the Boxing and Taekwondo WCs since they were also "World Championships".
Granted this year's SEA Games aren't even on the news either, maybe because there's very little English-language sources unlike the 2005 version that made it to the ITN. --Howard the Duck 13:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I'm not even saying we'd put the gold medalists on every event; just the simple "The 24th SEA Games begins...", just as what I've said on the IAAF WC suggestion. --Howard the Duck 13:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I proposed for the IAAF Championships, and which you argued against, repeatedly. As for the IAAF World Championships nopt being on the news, I can only surmise that they were not reported on the particular news source that you favour. Please do not mistake that for some kind of arbiter of all that is global news. Kevin McE (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that the IAAF WC is a single sport (Athletics/Track & Field), and on sports festivals with a single sport, we'd mention the team that won the championship - in case of Athletics, we'd mention the country with the most medals. In any case, the IAAF WC failed to provide sufficient press to be on ITN. For the SEA Games, it seems it failed to gather any publicity too; the birthday of King Bhumibol Adulyadej had more press. Lets see in the closing ceremonies if becomes "news" or if something extraordinary happens when the games are underway. --Howard the Duck 02:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has about the same amout of merit as the IAAF. But they both appear/ed to suffer from the same problem, their articles are hardly 'ITN standard' Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

Improvements on the wording of this suggestion welcome. – Swid (talk · edits) 23:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Will include it when TFA updates in a few mins time, to make sure it is a balanced page. Woody (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you have the time, you (or another admin) should also keep tabs on the article and supporting news articles for the next few hours (so that the dead/injured numbers remains accurate). – Swid (talk · edits) 23:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. Will keep an eye out until I log off. Woody (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this news entry has been removed. I propose that it be put back up as soon as possible. Abog (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed removed, because the article Westroads Mall shooting has been nominated for deletion. AecisBrievenbus 01:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFD nom has been closed as keep, so I'm going to take the liberty of bringing it back up. Tuxide (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't take long for you to notice :) Harryboyles 03:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this is of international importance how? Plus the article in question is using a disputed image. This should be removed, it satisfies very little to none of the criteria to be a ITN item. The great kawa (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something occurs in the United States doesn't mean it doesn't have international importance. I would expect a highly-covered news event of similar magnitude occurring in another country to be featured as well. Abog (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am just surprised an admin actually posted this. My concerns have not even been addressed and this seemingly satisfies none of the criteria. A rogue admin? The great kawa (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

Posted. Thanks, BanyanTree 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have the passing of a single bill by a national legislature on the main page? I mean, sure there are going to be some implications for two countries in the world, but the US has enacted many kinds of similar laws with other countries over the last few years, and I cannot recall having seen those up (but correct me if i'm wrong on that). Unless it's something multilateral like CAFTA or the like i really don't think this merits any mention. I'm sure that very few people in either country even know about this law, and this is reflected in seeing nothing on either CNN, MSNBC or (as a control) BBCNews websites concerning this. Maybe it's not ITN significant. Thethinredline (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the criticism. Unless there are some very significant riders on this bill, in which case they should be mentioned in the blurb and not just the law being passed, I don't think this merits inclusion. Another possible exception is that this bill represents some sweeping change in US foreign policy, again in which case that should recieve the primary billing in the blurb. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is insignificant. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good that it was removed. --Howard the Duck 10:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this removed? I don't see any substance in the arguments raised against it. Thethinredline is quite wrong when he says that very few people in either country even know about this law, because although that's the case in the US, in Peru this ratification is the main news item in all of the country's media. As for it not being multilateral well, you can just take a look at the following proposal which actually made it to ITN and has stayed there. As for the ratification not being mentioned by the international media, that's totally wrong see for example BBC News or The New York Times. After reading Grant.alpaugh comment, I think the problem here is one of systemic bias which is one of the flaws of Wikipedia. That's why Grant reasons "if its not important for the US then it is not important". I think that is a big mistake. --Victor12 (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the mention of a bill passed by the US legislature is evidence of a bias towards the United States? I agree with you bias exists in general , but this is simply a case of something that it not very notable. It is not the first trade agreement signed by either country, nor is it a significant reversal of policy which might make it noteworthy. If, as you say, it is the biggest thing in the news in Peru, well then that's not enough. Also i must disagree with you, Grant.alpaugh never said what you allege, but rathe that if something were to happen that would mark a significant shift in US foreign policy, that might be classified as notable, but this is not the case. Blood Red Sandman, who removed this blurb from ITN listed his reason as insignificance, as such five people have weighed in that this story was not notable enough to mention on ITN, and two people have felt that it was. I think that speaks of consensus not to mention. Thethinredline (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an example of US centric bias because a couple of users have argued that as it is not important for the US (it does not appear on MSNBC for example) it is not relevant enough for ITN. That's Grant.alpaugh argument, if the agreement does not mark a fundamental shift in US politics it is not important. For Peru it does mark a very important shift as it implies a long range commitment with the US for the Peruvian economic policy not only in trade but also regarding labor and environmental laws. This is really important for this country, as much as a change of government because it of its long term consequences. Please explain why this is not enough?
As for consensus, please read WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, discussions are decided by arguments and discussion, not voting. Of people opposing this item only two (Thethinredline and Grant.alpaugh) have expressed arguments, the other two have just agreed, not argued. --Victor12 (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I contested the inclusion of this item in ITN is because economic treaties between countries are a regular occurrance. The involvement between an industrial superpower like the US, Russia, China, Germany, etc. and a country in the developing world will obviously have more of an impact on the developing country than the industrial superpower. Therefore, the fact that this has a huge impact on the Peruvian community is simply not notable. Secondly, this treaty does not represent a very significant development opportunity for US interests, regardless of what the treaty's supporters say. Wal-Mart and Haliburton are not going to be relocating their corporate headquarters to Lima as a result of this treaty, nor are Peruvian goods going to start lining the shelves of Toys 'R Us and K-Mart in time for the holiday season here in the US. Also, I'm sure the AP wrote some procedural pieces for the BBC, MSNBC, the NYT, etc. to bury on their sites and inside their papers, but that happens for lots of things that don't make it to ITN. Listen, I'm sure this treaty does a lot of good for specific communities in both countries, but the simple fact remains that this story did not recieve significant coverage from the international media, nor is it of particular interest to very many people outside Peru, thus in my humble opinion, it does not meet the standards for ITN. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your comment about consensus proves that it should have been removed, Victor. The fact that the people opposing are making reasonable arguments against the inclusion, as opposed to the two people other than yourself who have supported simply by saying so, shows that the item should have been removed. Simply wandering by the page and throwing your two cents in doesn't hold equal weight to giving several reasons why this should not be included. If it was, then wikipedia would run like a democracy. Thank God it doesn't. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the treaty isn't even implimented yet!!! This was just a procedural vote by the Senate. Both countries need to work out differences between the bills before this can go into effect. You want to accuse me of bias, but you assume that because the US passes something it goes into effect!? This shouldn't have even been suggested until it went into effect, because as of now any purported benefits of the treaty are just speculation. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it civil Grant, there's no need for this. But I would like to agree with Grant's earlier points in principle, but i think drawing inferences from the effects this agreement will have is beside the point. Simply put the news of two countries signing a free trade agreement is just not notable. Neither Grant, nor myself have ever said that this was not importrant, but as Grant said these kinds of agreements happen all the time and as such are not particularly notable. Thethinredline (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was being perfectly civil. All I did was point out that the treaty hasn't even really been passed yet. The reason I might have been more aggressive than usual was the fact that I was being accused of having a systematic bias because my statement was misinterpreted, as you pointed out. I don't like having words put in my mouth, especially over something that as of yet is not even a story. Could it be that Victor is simply Peruvian and understandably thinks a big story in Peru is more notable than it really is? That being said I didn't mean to offent anyone, I just don't understand why this was even suggested. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... quite unconvincing still, let's see your arguments point by point
  • The reason I contested the inclusion of this item in ITN is because economic treaties between countries are a regular occurrence, the same could be said about elections, sport championships, and several other types of occurrences that happen regularly and make their way to ITN.
  • Therefore, the fact that this has a huge impact on the Peruvian community is simply not notable, under this argument, the blurb on the Venezuelan referendum currently on the main page should be removed as it only impacts the Venezuelan community.
  • this treaty does not represent a very significant development opportunity for US interests, there's a clear bias in this argument, are you implying that if it does not have a significant impact on the US it is not important?
  • Also, I'm sure the AP wrote some procedural pieces for the BBC, MSNBC, the NYT, etc. to bury on their sites and inside their papers, actually no. While the NYT put online an yesterday AP piece yesterday, they wrote their own story for today's edition
  • but the simple fact remains that this story did not receive significant coverage from the international media, the same could be said about the Togo election. Actually I cannot find a piece on the Togo election in the NYT.
  • This was just a procedural vote by the Senate. Both countries need to work out differences between the bills before this can go into effect, actually, you have misread the article. With the Senate vote the treaty has been ratified by both countries, there's no difference between bills approved in Peru and in the US, what remains to be done is to adjust each country's legislation to the treaty so that it can come into effect, that's just a procedural issue.
  • because as of now any purported benefits of the treaty are just speculation, that argument would imply that treaties should no go into ITN until their effects are known, years after their ratification.
  • Could it be that Victor is simply Peruvian and understandably thinks a big story in Peru is more notable than it really is?, ad hominem argument, irrelevant for the discussion.
To sum up, if you compare this piece with other items that get to ITN, it is quite clear that it is relevant and deserves inclusion. --Victor12 (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it is clear this will not go up again i'd like to make some further points. First, elections are sacred on ITN, they fall into a separate category by themselves and cannot be compared. While i agree with you in principle about the issue of the Venezuelan constitution amendments, the fact of the matter is that the story got quite a lot of attention (it got signficant attention from 24-hour news channels, articles and follow-ups were printed about it in the New York Times and the NZZ (the newspapers i personally read), it was mentioned on the front page of most news websites, so one could conclude thet it is a notable story, if only because Pres. Chavez likes to criticize Pres. Bush. That's the sad truth of the matter.
Peruvian trade with the US totals $5.7bn in exports and $2.5bn in imports according to the 2006 figures I obtained from the World Factbook on cia.gov. As such this deal will have an effect on approximately 0.00047% of global exports and 0.00021% of global imports. Unless this deal is the magic salve that is going to shift that decimal spot a few places to the right, are you gonna tell me that this is one of the more significant things occuring in the world right now? Thethinredline (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've over parsed a lot of my arguments, breaking them down into segments that by themselves are easy to misconstrue and argue against. That being said I still disagree with most of what you're saying. Point by point:
  • While you will never hear me arguing that the results of the Danish parliamentary elections or the Davis Cup final should be included in ITN, elections and sporting events have unknown outcomes, the results of which are reported, as opposed to a bilateral trade agreement which often do not represent a significant change in policy for either country (examples of changes would be if the US agreed to end the embargo of Cuba, everyone agrees to stop trading with South Africa because of apartheid, etc.). Because the US and Peru are simply strengthening an existing trading relationship and not altering it in unforseen ways this treaty is simply not notable.
  • Venezuela's referendum had serious foreign policy implications on the world because Venezuela is a major exporter of oil. Also, the fact that Chavez's regime is generally agreed to be controvertial, the fact that it could have gone on in perpetuity with the passage of the referendum was a major issue for many different governments and their citizens. This US-Peru agreement has little effect on the US as a whole and since Peru (while a great nation with a fascinating culture, people, heritage, etc. I'm sure) is not exactly the biggest world player politically, economically, culturally, etc. the impacts just aren't of widesweeping international interest.
  • I'm not saying that because it doesn't impact the US significantly it isn't important. What I am saying is that because it is a bilateral trade agreement the only countries it can affect are the US and Peru. As explained above the US isn't affected very much and the effects on Peru simply aren't notable as far as ITN is concerned.
  • What page were these stories printed on and how much webspace did the stories get. Local dog trace results get printed in the NYT every day. That doesn't mean they are widely reported or of international interest.
  • Again see my first point.
  • The fact remains that the treaty is not in effect right now, which means that until it is, it should not have even been suggested.
  • What I'm saying is that the best reason you have for the inclusion of this item in ITN is that it has a huge effect on US-Peruvian relations, the economy of Peru, etc. and that reason is moot because for whatever reason is the case the treaty is not in effect right now.
  • All I'm doing is pointing out that from looking at your user page you probably (and understandably) have a bias being that you are obviously proud of your Peruvian heritage. There's nothing wrong with that. Heck, I'm sure I'm overzealous of including US based stories. What makes wikipedia work is that we all work to check each others particular biases, and if that means I pointed out a potential bias on your part then color me guilty. I'm sure this is a huger than huge story in Peru, but here on wikipedia it just isn't. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite unsurprisingly a shooting at a US mall with zero international repercussions has got into ITN. It seems ITN just repeats the bias of international news agency (read English speaking international news agencies, mostly US based). As for what Thethinredline said, I know I'm fighting windmills, I'm just trying to make a point about the inherent bias in how ITN is constructed. If I understand what you are saying a story should be included only if it gets significant attention on English speaking news websites unless its an election, because elections are sacred. Then, Wikipedia is just repeating the bias of international news agencies which give more attention to US stories than those of developing countries. I bet that if the shooting had taken place in Congo or Laos it would have never made it into those agencies, let alone into ITN. The only attempt to rectify this bias is the inclusion of elections which, AFAIK is not a written guideline, just a usual practice. Why should it be the only exception? Shouldn't Wikipedia try to fight against systematic bias.

As for what Grant.alpaugh said, the argument that elections or sporting events have unknown outcomes is clearly not true for all cases. Furthermore, the outcome of the Senate vote on the US-Peru TPA was not guaranteed as Democrats had campaigned hard against free trade agreements for quite a while. This is the first such treaty that has been approved since they took over a majority in Congress. Your second argument about Peru not being a major international player would just mean that little countries (read poor or developing countries) don't deserve space on ITN. As for how much webspace do this stories get, do news websites in Spanish count or only English speaking ones? As for the treaty not being in effect, that reasoning would imply excluding the signing of a new Kyoto Protocol or a major breakthrough at the Doha round until they come into effect which can take place years after their signature. --Victor12 (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not going to be reposted, so this will probably be my last post here. That being said, I've never argued that the shooting should be included in ITN, but if pushed, I think I'd have to support its inclusion on the grounds that the shooting was in a mall during the middle of Christmas shopping season. The economies of literally dozens of nations and billions of people depend on American shoppers during the holiday season, especially one about which there has already been significant ammounts of doubt as to the spending patterns of shoppers. Either way WP:Other Stuff Exists. Secondly, if you can come up with a better indicator of what is notable than coverage by the international news media, I'd love to hear it. Thirdly, unless a sporting event or election has been fixed, the outcome is inherently unknown. Either way it will not have been reported yet, which means its update (if sufficiently notable) merits inclusion. Fourth, if you honestly believe this treaty presents a significant change in US foreign of economic policy, that's an argument you'll have a hard time winning. The US already had normalized economic and dimplomatic relations with Peru before this treaty and vice versa. This treaty will have little impact on the US economy or foreign policy. The impact it will have on Peru has not been widely reported and as such is not sufficiently notable or of international interest. Fifth, my argument about Peru not being a terribly significant international player did not mean that stories concerning those countries are inherently not notable. What it did mean was that because to be ITN a story has to be an item of international interest, the effects (however large) on just one, small country do not meet that standard. Unless those effects fit into a broader, more internationally relevent theme or story, they are just not notable, and hence are not highly covered by reliable sources. Sixth, because this is the English language wikipedia, we generally grant more weight to English language sources, as they are a better measure of what matters to English speakers, who are our audience. That is not to say that only English sources count, but I would guess that the only sources that are widely covering this story are based in Peru, and not in Mexico City, Madrid, etc. Finally, the Kyoto Protocol is of MUCH greater significance than this treaty, and as such was the subject of much more international attention and media coverage, but I'll drop my argument that the effects have to be known before they are included. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So now that you dropped the effects argument, let's see what remains. As for the shooting, the whole "this can jeopardize the Christmas shopping season" argument is quite weak. I don't think anybody would buy it, it's not mentioned in the relevant article nor in news websites. So basically, this item is being posted in ITN just because it happened in the USA. As for your reference to WP:OTHERSTUFF that applies to deletion debates not to ITN. A comparison with other news items that get to the main page is quite relevant here as proposals are competing against each other to get into ITN, thus the same criteria should apply to all of them to decide whether they are included or not.
As for a better indicator of what is notable, the inclusion of elections ("sacred" elections) is a clear example that ITN does not follow international news agencies always, editors can decide to include other items that they think are notable. That's the whole point of this discussion page. News agencies are an important part of proposal discussions but not the only criteria. As for the treaty's impact on the US I've already stated above that I don't think it has major relevance for the US. What I tried to argue was that the outcome of this vote was not as predictable as you seemed to imply.
As for What it did mean was that because to be ITN a story has to be an item of international interest, the effects (however large) on just one, small country do not meet that standard that's an argument for the exclusion of elections in minor countries such as Togo, clearly that's not a principle set on stone for ITN. As for English speakers, who are our audience I haven't seen that written as part of Wikipedia policy, please point a link. The only thing remotely similar is that we should use the English language, but I've never read that en.wiki should cater to the interests and POV of English speakers. As a matter of fact, I think that would go against WP:NPOV which is a fundamental Wikipedia principle.
Finally, here are some links about the treaty coverage in Spanish news sources: several links in Spanish at Newstin, TeleSUR of Venezuela, La Tercera of Chile, El Tiempo of Colombia, Terra España, El Clarín of Argentina, Yahoo! España. What I'm trying to say is that ITN needs to at least try to avoid bias, that's the point of discussions here. How can it be that a minor shooting has a greater priority than a treaty that will affect the lives of 28 million people and a whole country? Don't you think this is a little strange? --Victor12 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I'm replying to this is that some of these last arguments are so ridiculous they must be answered. First, the idea that an English language encyclopedia targets people who communicate in English is so self explanitory, I don't think any more explanation is necessary. Its not even like this is the Simple English Wikipedia, which is for translating into other languages. Additionally, attempting to introduce your POV into this encyclopedia is not tantamount to defending NPOV. Your opinion as a Peruvian that an event which effects Peru and little else is worthy of inclusion ITN, does not mean it satisfies the requirements that an item be of significant international interest or importance to be ITN. Finally, I did not say that non-English sources don't matter, I just said that if there is no significant international coverage in the English language about this item, it would be very hard for it to make it ITN. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor12, I understand you care about this subject. Otherwise you wouldn't have improved the article, or nominated this for ITN. And I can understand that you're not happy to see it removed. But your ranting and the baseless accusations of bias will get you nowhere. Please assume good faith, and remain civil. AecisBrievenbus 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. Could I also take this opportunity to urge suggesters to feel free to pad their blurbs with some relevant detail? I believe we're up to 8 ITN items and still balanced with the, admittedly long, TFA blurb. Thanks, BanyanTree 04:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

Support. Notable record unlikely to be beaten any time soon. Hammer Raccoon 16:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For context, there are only five people with 500+ Test wickets. Apart from Murali, only Anil Kumble is still active and he is 140 wickets behind and older and therefore unlikely to pass him. The next active player with 416 is Shaun Pollock who has been dropped and then it is Chaminda Vaas with 319. All are of similar age to Murali within 2 years and can't make up 400 wickets in 2 years (takes at least 7-8 years to get 400) [9]. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:For context and comparison, Barry Bonds' record milestone was acknowledged by ITN. The significance isn't, however, adequately conveyed by a single paragraph. Can it be expanded, perhaps with the reactions of Shane Warne and other contemporaries? SoLando (Talk) 18:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I've been convinced that this is considered significant, though the sport still seems like something devised by a person convinced that baseball is too fast-paced. ;) Thanks, BanyanTree 04:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not even the lead story in BBC Sport... --Howard the Duck 06:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YOUR'E not even the lead story on BBC Sport... :P
But seriously, this has to be included. Test cricket is the highest level of the sport and this is probably the most important record in that arena. This has to be ITN. Grant.alpaugh 09:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That means we ought to include records in the highest level of kabaddi, that's about 2 billion people who care about that sport. :P --Howard the Duck 09:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a major kabaddi competition that major, english news outlets in several countries are providing significant coverage of then yes I would support that for inclusion. Give us a handful of sources and you've got my vote. From my very, VERY cursory examination it appears this is little more than recreational activity. There don't appear to be any major leagues, and while there is a world championship, I would remind you that in this day and age of unprecidented travel and communications capabilities there are international championships for almost everything from watermelon seed spitting to lawn mower riding. You can't seriously suggest that the same level of attention is given to kabaddi as is given to cricket or baseball. I think you're confusing people being "aware that a sport exists" with "caring about it," ie how many people would pay money and/or travel to watch a competition, what ammount of media coverage does it get, etc. appear to me at least to be a better criteria. Grant.alpaugh 10:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings me to... this piece of news isn't widely reported. Ergo, it's not news fit for ITN. The Special One saying he'd consider the England job (take note, he was appointed, or even interviewed by The FA, he merely considered it) was BBC Sport's lead story when the news broke out. This hasn't had the effect of Bonds hitting the record-breaking HR. --Howard the Duck 12:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BBC Sport isn't the only source that matters. Again with these ridiculous brightlines, Howard? This was the top story on Sky Sports News (ahead of Mourinho's alleged negotiations with the FA) and many other news sources. Cricket is a gigantic sport worldwide, and especially on the Indian subcontinent. As you pointed out during the Bonds debate, hundreds of millions of English speakers live on the Indian subcontinent, where cricket is the most popular sport. This is a massive story, regardless of whether people in the Philippenes think it is. Grant.alpaugh 12:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should you mention Philippines? LOL. How about Yahoo Sports/Eurosport? When I checked my fantasy football team last night there was no mention of this item. The England-Sri Lanka cricket games, yes, but not this. The Indian subcontinent doesn't seem to care. I watched CNN (the International edition, not U.S.) World Sport and it wasn't mentioned. Therefore it is not news. --Howard the Duck 14:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC, Yahoo, and CNN being the be-all, end-all of reporting. Grant.alpaugh 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but if the BBC, Yahoo and CNN report it, why should our very own ITN be? --Howard the Duck 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hugo Chavez's constitutional amendments have been rejected.
Posted. Thanks, BanyanTree 06:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been the top news story for at least the past 24 hours for most news networks in North America, has disrupted integral parts of the transportation system, has interfered with campaign events for the 2008 U.S. election, and has been picked up internationally by places as far away as China and New Zealand. Abog 20:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. --Camptown 20:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Putin
Vladimir Putin
With more than 12% of votes counted + official exit polls give United Russia 62%. No need to wait until 100% of votes have been counted --Camptown 19:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the blurb could be edited to reflect accusations of the election being "not fair". See [10]. Hammer Raccoon 16:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain that I'd support this one, and I recognize that the underlying article may not be thoroughly updated (2007 Davis Cup World Group is more complete and might be a better bolded target), but I suppose the item ought at least to be thrown out for consideration, if only because our practice relative to international team sporting events hasn't been perfectly consistent. Joe 04:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking at the event from a very, very personal angle, but someone mentioned this yesterday: Not a single person in my office even knew the Davis Cup was happening, much less that it was happening in America, much less that the US might win. And my office is ESPN headquarters. On ESPN.com, it's only the fourth-biggest story. The first competitor I thought to compare our site to was Yahoo Sports, and it's not their lead story. I simply don't think this event has that big of an international importance or impact, but of course, this is just the perspective of a single person who happens to work in sports. I'm not going to post this, but unlike Sean Taylor's death, I wouldn't outwardly object if someone else did. -- Mike (Kicking222) 05:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
moved from Talk:Main Page:

Evil Knievel sadly died yesterday, and I believe that should be in the template 'In the news'. Cf38 09:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He does not fit inclusion criteria for famous deceased persons, I'm afraid (i. e. he's not a head of state or any multinational or global organisation). See WP:ITN, p. 5, for details. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 10:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back partially, maybe he'd fit under the field of expertise criteria, ask over at WP:ITN/C. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually while you're welcome to propose it it is unlikely it meets the criteria. As the criteria mentions for people who meet the key figures in the field of expertise criteria, it's generally accepted that the death must be unexpected or 'tragic' as well. (It's why we didn't have Pavarotti and Milton Friedman for long if at all) If Knieval has been killed while trying a stunt then it would probably qualify. But as he had been fairly sick for several years and was 69 his death wasn't exactly unexpected despite what some people may say about Superman not dying... Nil Einne 12:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Evel Knievel was quite famous, and while his death is sad, it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. —David Levy 20:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ BBC NEWS | Entertainment | 'Millions' rush for Zeppelin gig
  2. ^ People Plus: Fans pay upwards of $2,000 to see Led Zeppelin reunion - Salt Lake Tribune
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/December_2007&oldid=1145627232"