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.
161.7 million people? That's like 10% of China's population!!! I seriously doubt this number is correct. Anyway, if the article is translated, I find it suitable for ITN. --Tone08:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm rather new to this procedure, but anyway, I really think it should be included in the Main Page. Last time I checked, aka a few days ago, the news said at least 54 people have died. This is also the first big snowstorm in Shanghai, since what, 1984? Anyway, the Premier of China is promising that Internet (?) and train service will be fixed by Chinese New Year, so people can go home for the holidays. The article will probably need a lot of work, but anyway, I think this is a very important news story and should be in the Main Page. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)21:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is this not on the main page yet? 10% of China's population has been affected (source:AFP). January 2008 Chinese winter storms is the English version. This had made international headlines for the past two weeks. Unlike any of the other mikey mouse news currently on the main page. Shapiro-israel (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Anyway, I fixed the link to the English version. We need more interwikis!!! At least 63 people have died, and snow is falling very heavily as far south as Guangxi and Guangdong, which really isn't far from Hong Kong, this is unusual and definitely needs to be on the main page, global warming perhaps? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow is even falling on Taklamakan desert! Hundreds of millions of people are affected by this crisis. More than 160 cities and counties were still suffering power and water shortages. I don't know why this ain't on the main page. Is no administrator available for this. Shapiro-israel (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! I mentioned interwikis because this article needs to be avalible in more languages, Sinple English, for example, is a good start. We also need images, such as the ones from the Chinese Wikipedia, given that they're not copyrighted (see talkpage for article). Can we get a free satellite image of the area, from NEXRAD maybe? Should we also mention some of the meteorological complications that resulted in this storm, and when forecasts expect it to end? This is like a predecessor from The Day After Tomorrow (in slow motion, of course)! Since many people will likely be reading it if it gets put on the main page, we need to improve the article a little, but I must say the author did a pretty good job. Also, I think someone may have mistranslated 万 (wan4), which means ten thousand, not million. Million would be 百万 (bai3 wan4). Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)22:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to do any of those things you've said. Lol. But the Internet earthquake story above seems to have hardly any interwikis. Is it a criteria? Shapiro-israel (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a criteria, but I suggested it because an important topic like this deserves more versions in different languages so people in those languages can read it as well. Also, the Undersea Earthquake thing should have interwikis, because many of the affected areas speak Arabic, Hindi, Bengali, French, Urdu, etc. It's possible to take images from the places, making sure they are free, saving them to your computer, then uploading them here with the right liscence and a description. However, I can see you are a relatively new user, so I don't blame you for not knowing these complicated matters that are giving me a migrane because I have used the computer/TV too much today. Anyway, where are the admins? Please read this. Use your eyes to absorb the information and put it onto the kingdom of Main Page! Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian government has announced it will issue its first formal apology to Aboriginal people when parliament resumes next month. (a future event but I put it for consideration now. I think it should be ITN when it happens.) --Tone19:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unexpected death is not the only criterion for a listing on the main page; "the deceased was in a high ranking office of power at the time of death" is another, which this seems to meet. --Iamunknown19:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We put Suharto up, so there really is no arguement we can give that isn't really hypocritical... However, we have one death up there already, which is enough, and Suharto outranks this guy in terms of notability, apparently. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second the request to include this. When a man significantly affects the the daily lives of 13+ million people, that counts as significant, regardless of your beliefs. The third qualification for front page inclusion regarding deaths is "The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets the third criterion." I can think of a dozen or more entries that will need to be updated due to his passing. Thus he qualifies for inclusion based on rule 1 and rule 3.
Yeah, why not? There is no World Championships this year, and every world champion has been a European nation, so European champs are definately the top event in the world this year, and it is an international sport. Breaks the Anglophone interest domination. Kevin McE (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. The European basketball championships were not added. A few are suggesting that the Australian Open should not be added, but we add the European Handball championships? ---CWY2190TC17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the European basketball championship doesn't involve all the top teams in the world. All the handball top teams appear to be in Europe so it's a somewhat different situation. Having said that, I don't agree with this. I don't mind having the World Championships for handball, but I disagree with the European ones even if they involve the top teams in the world they're still not the top level champsionship. I'm not that supportive of the Euro being on ITN either (although again that doesn't involve the top teams in the world) unless the result is really unusual and I strongly suspect football is a bigger sport in Denmark and Croatia then handball... If we really want to open up to more sports, how about we start having things like the top level of other sports, e.g. badminton (which is dominated largely by non anglophone countries), volleyball etc rather then including clearly non-top level championships... Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would question the relevance of whether football/soccer/Association football (don't go there) is bigger in the countries involved. If that criterion were applied, we would only ever have one of Baseball, Basketball, American Football and Ice Hockey! Kevin McE (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, if a non top level championship of a more minor sport is included then clearly it would make sense if we also include the non-top level championship of a more major sport. Ergo we should definitely include the Euro if we are going to include the European Handball Champsionship. But as I've stated I don't support the inclusion of the Euro barring something unusual and think many others don't as well. As I've already mentioned, I don't necessarily have a problem including the top level championship in handball even if football is more popular then the countries involved then handball. But and I repeat this to make it clear, it makes absolutely no sense to me to include a non top level championship because it's 'non anglophone' when we are ignoring the fact the people in these countries are far more interested in football then they are in handball and we aren't going to include the Euro which is a far bigger event then the non-top level European championship of handball. Besides that you missed cricket which is far more popular sports in a number of countries (e.g. India, Pakistan) then any of the four you mentioned and rugby but again I'm not saying we should only include a sport when it is the most popular in the countries involved simply that it doesn't make sense to include a non-top level champsionship of a more minor sport when we aren't going to include the more noteable non-top level championship of a more major sport Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have Stanley cup and cricket stories as well and they are not worldwide either. Handball is a pretty big sport in Europe, including Denmark and Croatia. But I agree, there needs to be a better criteria about when to include a sport event. --Tone18:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Aren't people always complaining about ITN being - or turning into - a sports ticker? If we allow the European championship results of a minor sport then don't start complaining when people argue for the African Cup of Nations to be put up, or every tennis Grand Slam final result. I don't understand why we can't draw up a list of "acceptable" sporting events to be allowed on ITN - it's not like we can't see them coming. Instead we wait until the event happens, then spend days arguing over whether it should be allowed on. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with whether or not handball is worldwide. This has all to do with the fact it is the European championship not the world championship and the world championship as far as I can tell is the biggest thing in handball not the European championship even if all the biggest teams are from Europe. We only include cricket stories about the world cup and when there is something particularly unusual although there is no top level championship in test cricket anyway making it a bit tricky to say what to include there Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing then? But anyway, are we going to put every grand slam (4 each year)? Just to make it clear for the next time. --Tone19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, not in this area of expertise, I know not whether my suggestion above would be fitting. Comments welcome. —Kurykh06:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Any death which fits the current criteria should go on. His death doesn't. There has already been a discussion about Suharto a few weeks back Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The man was president of the fourth largest country in the world for over three decades, and had a huge impact on the shape and direction of the country. A week of mourning has been declared. He was their Roosevelt or Lincoln. If Lincoln died tommorow would his death make ITN? (Suharto's death is excluded from ITN while the results of the men's world handball championship are highlighted?) Yes, there should be a significance threshold, but this clearly falls on the right side of this. Suharto's death is a significant event - he had great influence even in his last years. I was stunned when I couldn't find his death in there - it was the lead item for many international news services yesterday, including the BBC and SBS. We also need to be aware of systematic bias issues, and try not to privilege the deaths of Americans and British (as we are so good at doing. Often I feel like the consensus among editors and admins here is that this is Anglopedia.)Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I support inclusion of Suharto. The above argumentation says it all. Reagan was in the ITN, if Suharto gets a state funeral and a week of mourning, this is of same importance. --Tone09:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We used to add grand slam results all the time.... bit excessive actually if you ask me. I'd rather choose only one. The soccer supremacists may become angry since their sport only goes up at least once (every UEFA CL final). --HowardtheDuck09:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, every time is a biase towards other prominent sports... But to choose only one slam it would be a biase to other slams. Hm, what about posting only if the winner is in a way special (for example: Federer winning 5th time in a row or a complete underdog winning or something like this?) --Tone10:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has to go up. If the Aussie Open doesn't go up then none of the other three majors should nor any of the PGA Majors. ---CWY2190TC16:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be put on. Not only that it is Grand Slam but also the first title for Djokovic and new record as the youngest winner of AO. --Avala (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Italian PM Romano Prodi loses a Senate confidence vote that threatens to bring down his government. - What do you think, ITN or wait for further development? --Tone20:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know but I put it on top because it's today already. I'd also say this is ITN material, given the tensions in the region and that Egypt isn't doing anything to stop the influx of Gazans (which is the whoa factor for me in this situation). How to reword this, I don't know, however. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it fair to describe the previously sealed border between Gaza and Eqypt as being due to Israel's blockade. If Egypt wished that to be a more easily crossed border, they could have done. Such attribution of blame could be constued as POV. Kevin McE (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
French banker Jérôme Kerviel of Société Générale has been alleged to be responsible for the loss of €4.9 billion in fraudulent trading, leading to the largest fraud investigation in banking history. -- I don't know what the BLP considerations are, but this is being reported in every major world news outlet, and he is currently on the run. Joshdboz (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some good news for a change, after several deaths and stock market crash. I support adding but I would like to see some more info in the main article. It already basically says what the peace deal is about but try to expand it a bit. --Tone15:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding, personally I dont mind when artcles dont have much expansion on them yet, often once they are posted on ITN dozens of editors will jump in and start expanding it far more then it otherwise have been. If this gets posted I dont think there is much concern about it not being long enough within a few hours. Russeasby (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be taken down, he's a fairly unknown actor. I can think of few people further from the criteria of "key figure"; Maybe this would be an acceptable posting if it were Robert Deniro or someone like that. I doubt we would post it on the main page if some low name recognition cricketer or basketball player died, this should be taken down on the same grounds.
Also, as of right now the page has a giant photo of a penis in the center of it, the vandalism needs to be fixed and this needs to be taken down 138.192.147.136 (talk)
I am all in favour for putting it up, but due to the controversy that has surrounded Hilalry and Fischer, it can't stay up. It needs to be taken down. The death certainly satisfies all the criteria, but it still can't stay up. RIP Heath. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Hillary and Fischer debates were over unexpectedness, more than notability. I think in this case the question is how much "key figure in his field" he is. Evil Monkey - Hello22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This should be taken down, he's a fairly unknown actor. I can think of few people further from the criteria of "key figure" Are you serious,? Brokeback mountain was a huge landmark in motion picture history, and you can bet that at the Academy Awards, Ledger will be remembered for his work, and I say that Wikipedia needs to honor him by letting its users know what's happening in the world around them. Fultron89 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's pretty famous ever since Brokeback Mountain... His role as the Joker has been attracting alot of hype, and the death as certainly unexpected. This really falls into the same boat as the Chris BEnoit story last year. IT's really hard to say if they were a key figure or not, even if the deaths were unexpected. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This event is not too dissimilar to the death of River Phoenix in the 1990s - I suppose my question is, in hindsight would the story of River Phoenix's death have made the main page if Wikipedia had been around then? -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its significant that you point out that he's just a nominee, he's never actually won an Oscar. Just being nominated isn't an indication of being at the top of the acting field, I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to Eddie Murphy as a great actor (or even comic actor). Its a distinction, but not a really great one.
The guy was found less than a few hours ago, and chances are most people haven't yet heard about it. Give some time for regular (non-fanatic :) ) editors to have their say before unilaterally announcing "consensus". GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised to see it taken down from ITN after going up. Seems that he fits the criteria better than most and fwiw it's one of the lead news stories in the UK at the moment. Yorkshiresky (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also say no. After Hillary and Fischer not going on, it is hard to put Ledger. As for "key figure in his field", I would also say no to that. I would argue that an Oscar nomination is similar to a Pro Bowl appearance, and that wasn't enough to get Sean Taylor on ITN. ---CWY2190TC00:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely stupid. Hillary and Fischer were giants, will be renowned by history. This is a no-name actor who I haven't even heard of. 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There are also international sources reporting the details of Sarkozy's love life but that doesn't make it ITN material. This actor doesn't meet the criteria for notability because he's not a leader in his field. No matter how many news sources report his death that fact won't get less true.
Actually, according to Google News more sources are reporting the Sarkozy thing than are reporting this actor's death. EtTuMercader (talk)
Well, Google news takes a lot of things into account. I think it's edited by people like us. Besides, when I went on CNN.com, a global news source, it's the biggest headline on the homepage. At least it is on the time I posted this comment. ætərnalðrAعon10:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's helpful to bring the Fischer or Hillary cases up. They weren't put in because their deaths weren't unexpected. Heath Ledger's death however is a good example of what we mean by unexpected. The reason he shouldn't be on ITN is because he's hardly a key figure in his field of expertise. As other's have pointed out he hasn't even won aan Oscar nomination which is a good hint he's not. Of course there are some actors who haven't won one but could probably have been described as key figures. Harrison Ford may be one for example (although he's getting a little old). But Ledger isn't one of those either Nil Einne (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is a different question to that involving Fischer and Hillary (although there is a general debate about whether the criteria for deaths are so stringent that they will invariably result in deaths being removed). I'd point out though that he has won an Oscar nomination, he didn't go on to win the actual Oscar. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that was what I mention to say, I've corrected it now. Anyway debate is fine but what is clear is that this didn't belong because it didn't fit a different part of the criteria. But if it had, if he had been a key figure in his field of expertise then there would be no justification for including it, no matter people's opinions of whether Edmund Hillary or Bobby Fisher are more 'famous'. If the criteria is changed then in future we may do things differently but as I've said many times before, until the criteria is changed, it's not helpful for people to say here 'this shouldn't go because XYZ didn't go' when XYZ is a completely different case. Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't me. I said "wasn't that well known", not "relative unknown". ITN deaths should be "was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically". Ledger wasn't a "key figure in their field of expertise". Now if Tom Cruise was lynched by psychologists, then that's news... dunno about Britney since everyone sorts of expects her to die any moment now. --HowardtheDuck04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry about re-adding the item again. I forgot that our criteria only lets us add a death to ITN if it involves a messenger from God (who died tragically, unexpectedly, and at the prime of his or her prophecy). -- tariqabjotu21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer waiting for a new official flag but then certainly ITN. The same was done in Georgian and Venezuelan case, as far as I remember. --Tone22:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stock markets throughout the world fall, resulting in the US Federal Reserve cutting US interest rates by 0.75% to 3.5%, the largest single cut in interest rates since August 1982.
Is it just me or is the current sentence overly US-Centric (as is the article, to be honest). This was a worldwide crash, not just in the US. The Australian stockmarket lost 7.1% of its value (over 100 billion dollars), which is in my opinion just as notable, if not more so, as the US interest rate cut. I think the second part needs to be taken out. PageantUpdatertalk • contribs00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agreed, it seems horribly out of place as is. This is hardly just a US-centered stock market crash - although granted the subprime crisis is largely the reason behind it, the effects are nowhere near central to the States. Seems bizarre as it's currently worded. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 06:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - I worded the sentence based on what was being said in other media. For the record, I'm not from the US, but it's clear that the US probably caused the market dip, and it's highly notable that the interest rates were cut as they were. -Halo (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definate support, signifigant world record and acheivement. I will admit bias in being a sailor myself, but that aside, this is fresh, its new and not the same old "ITN" and certainly international in scope (a world record). Russeasby (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is included, I recommend using "more than two weeks" instead of the archaic term "fortnight", which might create confusion for non-native speakers. AecisBrievenbus01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was 'fortnight' archaic? I use it in regular conversation (I speak New Zealand English), as do my friends who speak Australian, US, and UK English. I don't see how it is an objectionable word choice at all. "More than two weeks" is a clunky and awkward phrase that should not be used in place of a commonplace word. - Axver (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though everyone is going to call this biased, I'm a native speaker of English, but I've never, ever heard of fortnight used in the US. I wouldn't call it commonplace in the US. "More than two weeks" alleviates any confusion. Fortnight looks sort of like "four nights," and I had to look it up. SpencerT♦C13:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Former world chess champion Bobby Fischer dies at the age of 64 in Iceland. One of the most accomplished chess players of all time, his 1972 World Chess Championship match has been called the Match of the Century, and is regarded as a significant event in the Cold War. (This part may be omitted, but explains current relevancy) He remained in the news in recent years for his bizarre diatribes and radio interviews, in which he called for terrorist attacks against the United States while exiled from his homeland. DOSGuy (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this item passes criteria 5b (the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically) because Bobby Fischer's death at age 64 is unexpected. That he was a key figure in his field of expertise is selfevident. DOSGuy (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Front page news around the world. Bobby Fischer had been ill for some time, but the latest Icelandic news suggested he had mostly recovered. This was completely unexpected. Even though he hasn't played for a very long time, Bobby Fischer is perhaps the second most notable chess player after Garry Kasparov. I most definitely believe that this is worthy for ITN. 213.84.96.177 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)(This is User:Msikma without logging in...)[reply]
I would say more notable (not referring to chess strength) because the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match is still regarded as one of the most significant events in the history of chess, and of the Cold War. DOSGuy (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This was unexpected, and will be big news in chess circles. It is also making headlines on general news sites as well. I will understand though if people feel it is too much like WP:MEMORIAL. Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support it going up, however the BBC is reporting that he had been ill for some time, so it might fail the 'unexpected' criterion if we are pedantic about it. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pavarotti had been ill for some time. There was an unseemingly wrangle about that. There is no rush here. Can we have a consensus to point at before anything gets put up? Carcharoth (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Bobby Fischer is a significant enough international celebrity to warrant a news item even if his death wasn't 100% unexpected. It was, nevertheless, entirely unexpected to me, and probably a great majority of chess fans. Being only 64 years of age also makes it somewhat surprising. DOSGuy (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a bad idea to me, we just had the same argument with Hillary although his death was obviously a lot more 'unexpected' then this given his more advanced age (although he was also ill but recovering), doesn't seem to me we should be ignoring the criteria when we've had so many arguments which more or less settled with us not ignoring the criteria until a new criteria was settled. Plus as others have mentioned Pavarotti's death was also somewhat unexpected. The only thing which to my mind makes this different from Pavarotti is that he had pancreatic cancer instead of simply some unspecified illness and as I mentioned at the time, even without knowing pancreatic cancer apparently has a very high fatality rate, it's fairly obvious that any cancer in a 60+ year old probably has a fairly high fatality rate. I think perhaps some people are missing the point about the unexpected criteria. It doesn't mean no one was surprised by the death, it's intended to mean a death which considering the circumstances was a complete unexpected, i.e. most likely an accident or perhaps a very unusual cause of death. David Beckham having a heart attack is unexpected. Steve Irwin getting stabbed by a sting ray is unexpected. Even Kimi Raikkonen being killed in a Formula 1 accident is unexpected. Diana being involved in an accident in a French tunnel is unexpected. George being murdered Laura after catching him having sex with someone else is unexpected. A 64 year old man who had been reported ill several weeks ago is not unexpected even if he was supposedly recovering. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had wondered who had to fail to expect a death for it to qualify as 'unexpected'. Given your clarification there might be a better way of phrasing the criterion, although it escapes me at the moment ('sudden' is a bit old fashioned, but might be an improvement?). ReadingOldBoy (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is in a way similar to Hillary last week. I suggest we reach an agreement on death criteria first so that we don't discuss every case separately. My only concern in this case is that we can easily have 2-3 deaths in the ITN all the time and it will look as a memorial. And I wouldn't want to have that. --Tone14:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perennial problem. My view is that we should be more willing to replace one type of ITN item with another, rather than have three election results, or three disasters, or three deaths, or three sporting events. But if anything is proposed, it is likely to be (incorrectly in my view) shouted down as instruction creep. Carcharoth (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea. Well, since elections usually have somehow a bigger impact than sport events, up to two could be in the ITN, possibly merged into one notice (like: This guy wins elections in country A and that party wins in country B). The only problem is that there are likely to be arguments for each replacing (how can this be more important than that???...). And even this can be addressed with more frequent changing of the news items. --Tone14:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much risk of the ITN becoming an obituary page. There are enough significant world events that it ought to be reasonably balanced. Someone reasonably notable dies every hour of every day, but it's not every day that an international household name passes away. If you maintain the standard that a person has to be internationally recognizable, I don't think it will be a problem. DOSGuy (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I was surprised too. He is the greatest chess player of all time and his death was quite unexpected (completely unexpected in my case). --Mankar Camorantalk16:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can come up with a criteria of how we define someone being internationally recognisable and reach a consensus on it then sure. But as I said with Hillary, we shouldn't randomly decide to add people arbitarily since it's going to give us big problems when it turns out we can't actually reach consensus on a revised criteria when people keep bringing up Fischer or Hillary or whoever we added that went against the actual criteria we have now. Incidentally there are proposals on WT:ITN which are languishing Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hilalry was removed because he faield some criteria. This guy more then fails the same thing. Hillary was the first man on top of Everest, what did this guy do? PLayed a chess game that was considerd important? So? Paul Henderson scored the goal that won the Summit Series - another notable part of the Cold War. Does that mean we are going to put him on when he kicks the bucket? --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. What a fantastic double standard this is. Because there are more chess fans than mountaineers on the internet, Fischer is suddenly more popular despite not being on a country's five-dollar bill and occupying one of the most prestigious spots in history for climbing Everest. The death criteria need to be settled; this is an insult to everyone who nominated Hillary in good faith last week. Zeality (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of you disagreeing with this appearing, I think the fact he "played a game of chess that was considered important" is more than slightly understating things. He's considered one of, if not the, best chess player in history. He became world champion, then stopped playing and disappeared for basically 20 years and played an illegal game with Serbia basically got him exiled out of his own country. -Halo (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So? Hillary was a hero. Fischer was a champion twenty years ago; even if he is considered great, that does not make him a key figure anymore. On the greatest chess player in the world article, I didn't even see any lists that named him the best. Whether he was banished from America or said something about America is irrelevant. The fact taht this guy gets on the template while Hillary or Pavarotti didn't - two people who were alot more important then this guy - is proof that there needs to be a huge change with this template. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to get across Fischer's importance which you seemingly dismissed. Your reasoning is somewhat hypocritical - equally, I could say "Hillary climbed Everest 55 years ago; even if he is considered great, that did not make him a key figure anymore". Fischer was a champion twenty years ago, but only lost the championship as FIDE removed it from him, and has always been an elusive and controversial figure. He did much more than "play one or two games of chess". "Greatest player" is of course debatable, especially considering that he stopped playing for so long, but he was certainly among the greats. I don't even have a great interest in chess and find the fact he was hugely important obvious. -Halo (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hillary was important because he was the first man to climb Everest. A feat much more important then a game of chess, no matter what the countries involve think about it. There have been dozens of chess champions and many people who are called the greatst chess player of all time, but there is only one man who is the first to climb Mount Everest. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty shocked, bordering on outraged, that anyone could think that this was appropriate for ITN when the death of Sir Edmund Hilary was pulled from there. The claim of "unexpected" death is fairly tenuous. This is taking double standards a little too far. PageantUpdatertalk • contribs01:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I am against Fischer being included after Hillary wasn't. The only reason this was somewhat unexpected is because his disease was not made public. If it was, this wouldn't be too unexpected. ---CWY2190TC02:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Hillary was a hero who not only conquored the tallest mountain in the world, but also did built schools, hospitals, airstrips for impoverished Nepalese. As a huge Wikipedia fan i feel more than a bit let down - no offence to Mr. Fischer's memory - this news section needs to be fixed. She broke. Boomshanka (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that Hillary and Pavarotti didn't make ITN. I think they are significant international celebrities who are definitely notable enough to get a mention. I think Fischer belongs, and I think Hillary belongs, but I don't think that Fischer should be removed just because Hillary was. Two wrongs don't make a right.
At any rate, I justified this nomination with 5b. Hillary was 88, so his death was hardly surprising. Pavarotti was only 71, but was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, so his death also wasn't entirely unexpected. Fischer's death came as a surprise to most people. According to Chessbase:
His friend Einar S. Einarsson informed the international media that in Iceland sickness is catagorized as private matter, and being sick is not a subject of media reports. The Icelandic press honored this ground rule and many news services – including ours – followed suit.
My point is that Fischer appears to meet the present criteria for nomination, and I can understand why Hillary's doesn't. I still think that Hillary's death deserves to be noted, but that needs to be debated on the policy page. Fischer making ITN has nothing to do with Hillary not making it. Don't remove Fischer as some sort of retribution for Hillary. DOSGuy (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping him on will only serve as fodder next time someone dies. Until we change the obituary rules, there dhould be no deaths on itn. I promise you ext person who dies, someone will say "Fischer was on, why not ______" --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. As I mentioned above, his illness was reported. The seriousness of it may not have been but it was reported. The fact that many people weren't aware of his illness beause it wasn't widely reported doesn't change this fact. And the death of a 64? year old man with an undefined illness is hardly unexpected. More unexpected then the death of an 88 year old man or a 71 year old man with pancreatic cancer but still not unexpected Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree x2. Hillary was the first to climb Everest - the first to traverse Antarctica via motorised vehicle. While i'm sure mr. Fischer is famous in his own right ... 64 is young and unexpected? Did anyone see the guy before he died? He looked terrible - no disrespect intended.Boomshanka (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that you should read some articles about the importance of the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match. It may be hard for the current generation to understand just how significant an event this was in the Cold War. Henry Kissinger personally contacted Fischer to urge him to go through with the match because of its importance to the nation. The United States and the Soviet Union both put a lot of credibility on the line, allowing that the winner of a chess match between their nations would not merely be the smartest man in the world, but would represent the smarter country. The weight of this match just can't be understood unless you lived it, or have read as many books and articles about it as I have. Chessbase is presently running a serial about it. To put it bluntly, any article or documentary about the Cold War that doesn't include this chess match is incomplete. I'm very sorry to see so much ignorance of history in these responses. Fischer meets all of the criteria for ITN, but a few people who think he just played some meaningless chess match feel that he somehow fails 5b. He was an important historical figure, and his death is a surprise. If that's not good enough, the bar may well be set too high for any future death notices on ITN, and I think that's a shame. DOSGuy (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think people have a problem with his notability, its just that the "unexpected death" criterion in this case seems a bit tenuous. Sure people were surprised, but I was pretty surprised (and sad) myself when I heard Sir Ed had died. Regardless, I think there's a clear need to rexamine the policy. PageantUpdatertalk • contribs14:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say there's a pressing need to re-examine the policy. Neil Armstrong is going to die someday, and at his age, it's not going to be a surprise. It would be ridiculous not to mention it on ITN. We need a sensible set of criteria ASAP. DOSGuy (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can't compare a man who played a game of chess to the first man to walk on the moon. Of course we are going to add Armstrong, regardless of how he dies or how old he is. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm going to assume the man who accomplished the greatest feat in human history would be notable once he died. Armstrong will probably get a state funeral or something, as well as international attention... Yeah, makes sense. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is right: the problem here is the application of the criteria, not the criteria themselves. The problem is that the criteria have been applied inconsistently to Hillary (who was excluded even though his fame relies not just on the conquest of Everest but also on his subsequent career) and Fischer (apparently because his death was unexpected- don't really see how the death of a 64 year old man who has been out of the news is unexpected). What should happen is the Fischer notice should be pulled and the policy applied until there is consensus for its change. If the important thing is the 1970's chess match, then the correct place for this is On This Day.MAG1 (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting it on the main page. I think it would be better to make some provisions to include people like Hillary and Fischer. Bobby Fischer was definitely a major ITN figure, not just because he is the greatest chess player ever, but also because of some of his outrageous political statements (he also had an IQ higher than Einstein's). May be people just lost interest in him because he was too reclusive. --Mankar Camorantalk13:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two separate points after reading some obituaries, and a point of trivia:
(1) Notability. Fischer is clearly as notable as Pavarotti and Hillary, as shown by the following:
Mr. Fischer won with such brilliance and dramatic flair that he became an icon, an unassailable representative of greatness in the world of competitive games, much as Babe Ruth had been and Michael Jordan would become. "It was Bobby Fischer who had, single-handedly, made the world recognize that chess on its highest level was as competitive as football, as thrilling as a duel to the death, as esthetically satisfying as a fine work of art, as intellectually demanding as any form of human activity," wrote Harold C. Schonberg, who reported on the Reykjavik match for The New York Times, in his 1973 book, Grandmasters of Chess. New York Times obituary
(2) Was his death unexpected? The unexpected news of his death seems to be due to his reclusive nature, but also due to a natural tendency not to advertise an imminent death - only the most famous people get to have the world's media on their doorstep as they slowly die (eg. Pope John Paul II). In this case, it seems that Fischer was dying from an untreatable illness, and had been sent home to die. In some ways this is similar to Pavarotti (pancreatic cancer). I think Hillary had been hospitalised for some time as well. The story for Fischer can be seen here:
"Four months ago he went into hospital for treatment of long standing kidney problems but after a couple of months he was sent home to die as there was nothing more the doctors could do."TWIC obituary
(3) Morbid trivia - Hillary: "He lived for 88 years and 175 days, and as 175 is 48% of 365 days, it can be said that he lived for 88.48 years. Mount Everest is 8,848 m high." Fischer "He lived for 64 years, one for each square on the chess board".
What's with the morbid trivia stuff? I don't see why this is still on. The majortiy obvious wants it off. Even if he did what DOsGuy sadi he did (And then in that case I refer back to the Summit Series argument I presented above), his accomplishments pale in camparision to Hillary or Pavarotti. Keeping Fischer on, after the majority of people want him off, will only make people argue "Fischer was on, and _____ is much more important" --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the post for now. We need a consensus on the topic in general. There is really no point in endless arguing whether someone is notable at the exact moment over and over again (I am repeating myself...) This is going nowhere. There are debates here, on the talkpage and probably somewhers else as well. I will create a page Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Death criteria (feel free to rename it) and let's have a centralized discussion there. Thanks. --Tone21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for Bobby Fischer:
It looks like someone removed Bobby Fischer from the "In The News" section queue. Can we put him back in the queue?
I thought I'd put this up for discussion. The subject matter is controversial, and although this is claimed to be ground-breaking, it doesn't appear that they've gone beyond creating blastocysts, which may not be viable. It's the creation from adult cells which is the important bit.-gadfium18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Gordon Brown link is tenuous. There were several thousands of people at Heathrow, he happened to be one of them. Woody (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of this incident appears to hinge on the fact that this is the first time a major incident of this scale has happened to a Boeing 777 - is there a way to factor that in? -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the claim to fame is that this is the most major incident to date to occur to any 777 aircraft, not just to this particular airplane - specifically, that this is the first incident likely to lead to a hull loss, which I think means "write off". Since the hull loss is not yet certain, according to the article, I think 82.3.68.123's writeup above is the most suitable. I think any jumbo crashing with a full load of passengers is notable enough without needing an extra hook.-gadfium01:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is going forward. This isn't a familiar area of teh Wiki to me, so take my comments for what they're worth, but I think an airliner crash landing with no loss of life is a pretty spectacular event. I also like 82.3.68.123's proposal, but maybe the double-engine failure could be mentioned also. Like I said, news isn't my area of expertise, so I'll defer to those who know more than me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted the suggestion by 82.3.68.123, but if someone can come up with a succinct way of talking about the past reliability of the 777, it should probably be changed to reflect that. - Mark05:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that there have been no incidents where the main structure of the aircraft has suffered significant damage on a Boeing 777 before. In this case significant damage is likely, due to evidence that pieces of the fuselage came off before the plane came to a standstill. The full extent of the damage won't be known until the plane is moved later today, however BAA specialists on various news programmes in the UK are saying that the damage is likely to result in the plane being written off, thus making this a first. -- Roleplayer (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is the wrong way to go about it, but I was thinking that something could be mentioned about the alleged hostage taking of two anti-whaling protesters by the crew of the Japanese whaling vessel the Yushin Maru [7]60.240.41.159 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no specific article about this event, the Sea Shepherd article has been updated though, but linking to that specificly might be a bit POV. This is a hot button issue, I do think this has good potential for ITN, as it is certainly an international event of interest that has been well covered by the press. But not sure anything NPOV enough exists on WP at the moment to justify highlighting this in ITN. Russeasby (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but I don't see why this is such a big deal. It's a dispute involving a few people. How is this a bigger deal than the 2008 Bathurst van collision, which would never go on ITN but involves the deaths of eight human beings? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Antartic waters, US organisation, Australian and British detainees, Japanese whalers. It's a little more international that a tragic Bathurst crash. --Stephen05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I don't see what the big deal is. Greens sneak onto whaling ship and get caught. I'm sure it's a big deal for the people involved, but it's hardly Earth-shattering news. This is the kind of news story that gets a single paragraph buried with the briefs in the back of the newspaper, if it gets mentioned at all (at least in North America). Unless the ship sinks with the loss of 100 lives or spills 11 million gallons of oil, it just isn't really international news, no matter how many nationalities are involved in the incident. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ITN isn't just for earth-shattering news, it's for stories of international interest and there's enough media coverage. It's getting coverage in UK, Australia and presumably Japan. North American coverage is not relevant. --Stephen05:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that make any story involving an English speaking country, apart from the USA, Britocentric? If you definition is that broad then obviously you will feel that Wikipedia is Britocentric. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howard, Britain doesn't own the Commonwealth at all. The Commonwealth members are all independent countries. Some of them have the same monarch as Britain, yes, but that doesn't mean that Britain owns them. AecisBrievenbus13:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it literally (the word "own"), Britain still has significant clout on the Commonwealth, no matter what they say. Heck, several Commonwealth nations have the British flags on their own national flag. --HowardtheDuck13:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the UK has a lot less clout in the commonwealth then you may think. They have had great trouble enforcing their desires in suspending members of the commonwealth, e.g. Zimbabwe [8] (who were eventually suspended before they quit, but the UK's influence on the matter appeared to be minor). Even for coutries which maintain close ties with the UK, Australia in particularly was noteable more concerned with the US the they were with the UK under John Howard. As for the rest of the Commonwealth, do you notice how most of them don't really give a flying flip what the UK says? Like the way the South Asian nations have taken to dominating the ICC recently? Simple fact is, most of the commonwealth are much more concerned with India, China, Japan, Russia, the US and the EU then they are with the UK in particular. Heck Malaysia and Singapore obviously have much closer ties with other SEA members like the Phillipines then they have with the UK. Indeed for obvious geographical reasons, the commonwealth members they are concerned with are more ones like India and Australia Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that Zimbabwe and Pakistan were suspended, and there was uproar to Mahatir's comment about Jews, etc., reinforces the fact that the UK virtually owns the Commonwealth. And any regime change from the Commonwealth nations that doesn't conform to Britain's economic liberalism will be dealt with. Not to mention Aussies and Brits watch mainly the same TV programs (as opposed to Americans watching British programs).
Anyway, the topic has veered off-course already, the comment was simply to underscore that Wikipedia is Britocentric more than Americocentric if you consider their size, especially with the 3 Commonwealth entries in today's ITN :o... if anyone wants to discuss this impending British, and by extent, Commonwealth deluge, just go to my user page or to the userbox's talk page. --HowardtheDuck17:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's just commonwealth related, I heard it received significant attention in Japan which is apparently unusual for whaling related news and the Japanese officials involved have branded the protestors terrorists (as have the protestors branded the Japanese whalers). I was actually fairly sceptical of mentioning it when this was first proposed but it seems to be expanding involving high level government on both sides [9][10][11], Australian PM Kevin Rudd on one side and Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura on the other. The whaling story is perhaps receiving more attention then normal because other then this incident, there is the wider case of the Australian court declaring the whaling activities illegal and it remains unclear what, if anything the Australian government is going to do about apparent illegal activities occuring in what they consider to be their territory Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese news sites [12], [13] & [14] all mention it although not as the top news (which is generally about commerations of the 1995 Great Hanshin Earthquake). For one (MDN), it's in their secondary top news, for Japan Today, it's in the top politics news, for the final one Kyodo, they have 5 top news items (which includes 3 about the quake) and the rest are sorted by time. Nil Einne (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Howard is perhaps having a little game with us judging by his comments above (either that or his knowledge of history, geography and international politics is seriously lacking). I wouldn't necessarily put this story up myself because it's not a particularly major event, but from a detached perspective it certainly seems to meet the criteria. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Edmund Hillary, New Zealand mountaineer and explorer, dies.
This may not quite fit within the criteria for deaths in this section, but Hillary was widely regarded as the greatest living New Zealander (and also the best known) and he played an active role in New Zealand society up until a few weeks ago. See [15] for some of the tributes. If a longer blurb is acceptable, then:
New Zealander Sir Edmund Hillary, who was one of the first two people to reach the summit of Mount Everest, and who visited both the South and North poles, dies.
Unfortunately the rules for deaths on ITN are tight. Although he was a leader in his field and a great man, at 88 his death was not unexpected or tragic. --Stephen00:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this assessment. If he had still been adventuring/exploring and lost his life while on an expedition that would be one thing, but as far as I've seen he died relatively peacefully after living what I'm sure we'd all agree was a long and full life. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a New Zealander with a deep admiration for Sir Edmund, I wish this could be put on ITN, but I agree - his death simply does not meet the criteria. - Axver (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. It's kinda frustrating that the only objection seems to be that it doesn't comply with a rule/guideline—rather then a specific, justified reason for it not being there (such as non-notable etc). This is exactly the type of situation WP:IAR exists for. - Shuddetalk04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Shudde's argument is persuasive to me and I'm impressed that this has gone up - I hope it stays. I would suggest a change in phrasing though. Instead of "who was one of the first to reach the summit of Mount Everest in 1953", how about "who, in 1953, became the first person confirmed to reach the summit of Mount Everest"? Although it took over two decades for him to do so, he eventually stated that he was first to set foot on the summit, not Norgay. - Axver (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two people reached the summit together. That one was a few seconds before the other does not make that a greater feat. I believe this was Hillary's view, and it would be inappropriate to change the wording as you suggest.-gadfium05:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The item has been taken down, even though it was made clear in the edit summary when put up that it was a case of WP:IAR! This is despite the fact that this has been discussed here, and no one seems to object to IAR being invoked in this case (well obviously at least one person does, but they don't want to say so here). - Shuddetalk05:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - though I feel "one of the first" is a little vague. It doesn't make it clear that no matter which order they were in, Hillary and Norgay were the first (confirmed) people to the summit, not just "one of the first" to get there (which could cover other early successful attempts). I also think the "in 1953" should be moved, as it implies that they were the first to do it in the year 1953, not that they were the first to do it and the event took place in 1953. I also share Shudde's indignation with its removal, especially as there is still some non-story about a cheap car in place. IAR more than applies, and if someone begs to differ, they should comment and state their objection rather than just cutting the story in silence. - Axver (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I count at least three objections above that predated the addition. I will be the fourth. Allow me to phrase the general policy this way: the notability of the person is irrelevant. The notability of the death is. Discussion of the details of Hillary's death will never constitute more than 1 or 2% of his article. It was neither mysterious, controversial, fallout-inducing, unexpected or otherwise notable. A highly-notable and fascinating 88-year-old did something that 88-year-olds do, sadly enough, rather routinely. The Tom (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this isn't about whether you'd rather sit down to dinner with Jesus Christ, Albert Einstein plus one of either Hillary or Steve Irwin. It has everything to do with the death itself. At the time of his little incident, Irwin's was "a key figure in their field of expertise" and saw that career cut short because he "died unexpectedly or tragically". Hillary was a long-retired 88-year old whose sum record of achievement could hardly be said to be affected by his death of heart failure while in hospital. The Tom (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Steve Irwin's death was tragic/unexpected. Look I'm a New Zealander too and I agree with many others that this should not go on there for the same reason that Pavarotti, Friedman, some American's novelist who's name escapes me et al did not go on ITN. Their deaths were not unexpected or tragic since they were the natural consequence of growing old. IAR doesn't apply because there is a good reason why we shouldn't IAR in this case (and there isn't really a good reason why IAR should be applied either). The rule is there to prevent us becoming filled with obits. If we can come up with a rule which won't exclude these people but which will avoid us getting filled with obits then I may support it but this rule has to be made first. An ad hoc addition of someone's death to ITN despite it clearly violating the rules is not the way to go as it will cause no end of headaches whenever someone with a wiki article dies. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cant believe that the production of a new car, no matter what price it is can go ITN when something like this cannot. Although it is an exception to a rule he was definately one of the most notable people to come from New Zealand ever. He is even featured on one of the banknotes!Cstubbies (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this is a momentous oversight. If the rules say that Edmund Hillary's death cannot make the ITN section then the rules are wrong. This is exactly the kind of news story that spurs people into looking through Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. From Hillary to Nepal or to Mountaineering or to Antarctica or New Zealand or highest peaks. This is bureaucratic and ridiculous. The car story is pretty much just an advertisment. Why does it get pride of place in ITN when something far more true to the spirit of Wikipedia doesn't? The argument is presumably that the story isn't newsworthy, but since it was the number one story on both the BBC and CNN, and probably other networks, the argument is clearly flawed. Ben Arnold (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and he's getting a State Funeral. I don't know of any New Zealander who wasn't a Prime Minister or Governor-General who ever had a State Funeral. That may not be news in itself but it doesn't emphasise the significance of his death on New Zealanders, and on people of the world for whom Hillary's achievement was a crowning moment in the achievements of humankind. I'm willing to bet that Armstrong will get a mention when he dies peacefully in his sleep. Ben Arnold (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If the rules say that Edmund Hillary's death cannot make the ITN section then the rules are wrong." I could not have said it better myself. I wonder if he can possibly be included under a generous reading of rules 5b-c? As a "key figure in their field of expertise", any news story to do with aspects of mountaineering, Everest, and such can barely go five minutes without Sir Edmund being mentioned and quoted. He may have been 88, but what he said mattered and he retained a measure of influence in current events - and now that is gone. His claim to fame is not just what he did one day in 1953, but what he did for the remainder of his life, especially for the Sherpa people. Accordingly, his death has international merit, as it is significant not just to New Zealand but also - arguably moreso - to Nepal, not to mention India and Antarctica. I also think the comparison to Steve Irwin is misleading; Irwin was hardly the iconic figure of his era for Australians like Sir Edmund is for New Zealanders. He embodied what it means to be a New Zealander and I would say he is held in a similar regard and esteem that many Americans appear to hold George Washington. If the exclusion of Pavarotti and Ingmar Bergman from ITN was not enough to clearly demonstrate that the rules are wrong, then this more than sufficiently does. - Axver (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I argree entirely. There have been several times when the rule about death being "unexpected" as a critera for ITN inclusion has suprised me. Personally I have never heard of Edmund Hillary till now, but I think he certainly deserves ITN inclusion, as have many others who havnt been included in the past. I imagine the "unexpected" factor was added to deter ITN from being overwhelmed by deaths of famous people(as it easily could be). But I think a better guideline needs to be there. Certainly if certain famous figures die expected deaths they still will get ITN mention, imagine if Bill Clinton right now was suffering from lung cancer, and died tommorow (expectedly), seriously would anyone argue against that being ITN? Of course not. There are some deaths, expected or not, that are worthy of inclusion. While I didnt know of Mr Hillary until today, if his face is on NZ currency and is the national hero that he is purported to be, then his death is certainly ITN worthy. I think the "rules" reguarding deaths need rethinking (stict is good, but this is overly so) and I have thought so for awhile now. Russeasby (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the rules for reporting deaths on ITN need an overhaul. ITN is not updated nearly often enough to stay fresh. A year or more ago, I stopped objecting to stories which I thought were too minor or insufficiently of international interest, because (within limits) I'd rather see fresh material on ITN than good material. It may be slightly WP:POINTY, but I have nominated a story (from #January 7), which is less important than the death of Hillary, but entirely qualifies for ITN. I don't actually care whether it gets posted or not, but ITN does need new entries.-gadfium05:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could a new discussion about the rules be opened? The rules section claims they were reached through community consensus, but it seems to me that the furore over Pavarotti, Bergman, and especially Sir Edmund has demonstrated that the consensus regarding rule 5 has broken down. I also feel that in cases such as this, some people are adhering strictly to the letter of the law but not necessarily to the spirit of it. It seems to me that the rule exists to stop every single dead actor, sportsman, politician, etc. from cluttering ITN, not to stop significant and highly newsworthy deaths from being included. And Sir Edmund is easily the latter. His death is one of the most significant in New Zealand's history, easily. I can only think of a couple of other deaths that have so profoundly affected the country, and his goes beyond New Zealand's shores too. So I propose for now, we include Sir Edmund's death on ITN per WP:IAR, and then proceed to formulate a better version of rule 5. - Axver (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There are always cries for more international news, and there it stands. New Zealand, Mt. Everest, Nepal, Sherpas, mountain climbing, et cetera — it's important in several subjects. Zeality (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope it's not too late to say there are still people out there who would say that the inclusion of sir Hilary's death is more than proper? Come on, you've got some damn car up there. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated earlier, I and I think a number of people who have opposed the inclusion are not opposed to loosening the rules if someone can come up with a working solution that isn't going to result in more arguments then it's worth. What we are opposed to is arbitarily including one death in the absence of such a formulation precisely because it will lead to no end of arguments whenever someone resonably famous dies (and I think anyone who is a regular an ITN can atest we already get enough of this in other cases). I.E. If you want to come up with an alternative go ahead. I find it ironic that in both this case and despite the Pavarotti et al cases where people say the rules need to be changed, no one has yet done so (which is precisely the reason we should not IAR in this case). BTW the death of Bill Clinton would be significant perhaps his wife is actively campaign to be the next president of the US. However the death of other former US presidents probably wouldn't make it to ITN in the long run, as happened with Gerald Ford. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna take a jab at reasonably famous - IMHO he wasn't just reasonably famous, he was a freaking pioneer in what he did. He satisfies half of criterion 5b, and definitely he satisfies criterion 3. Maybe his death wasn't much of a surprise, taking into account his age, but his contributions and persona definitely warrant an inclusion - for his fame is definitely worldwide, and he'd be more important than some semi-successful music starlet suddenly (3b) overdosing in a nightclub (not calling names, just a general example). --Ouro (blah blah) 08:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's for sure - even the Prime Minister has stated that he was the most famous New Zealander ever. He would even be ahead of the likes of Rutherford. - Axver (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be completely missing the point. As I've said a number of times, I'm a New Zealander and I know how famous he was. I know there were like 8 pages in the Herald today dedicated to him. None of this is relevant since no one is saying he isn't very famous. The entire point of my argument is that when you arbitarily decide someone is famous enough to be on ITN despite his death not meeting the established criteria you almost definitely open up a floodgate of claims and counter claims whenever someone resonably famous dies. It doesn't matter that Hillary was significant more famous then all these people, it simply matters that it is a bad idea to go against the criteria if you cannot come up with an alterative criteria that allows him but excludes other cases. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there needs to be some sort of clause in rule 5 to allow the inclusion of the deaths of "historically significant" people. That rules out a flood of "seventies pop star who had two hits in the UK dies peacefully in sleep" kind of nominations, but would allow cases such as this. How do you define historically significant? Well, Sir Edmund certainly provides an easy measure: he is the only living person ever included on New Zealand currency (apart from the current monarch), and you don't put just anybody's face on the economic representative of your country. It would the Sir Edmund Hillary Test; if any blindingly obvious demonstration of highly exceptional notability can be established, they're in. A significant pioneer or other outstanding achiever who achieves not simply famous but truly iconic status like Sir Edmund could have their historical significance demonstrated with relative ease, while almost all other suggestions would have no hope of passing. I don't know if that is a viable idea or not, but I'll toss it out there anyway. I don't normally deal with Wikipedia bureaucracy; it's large and intimidating, and I'd rather stick with my specialist fields of Kiwi railways and geography. I'm sure that's why nobody has attempted to actually change the rules; they are intimidated and simply do not know how. I sure don't. I would gladly participate in any attempt to change the rules, but I won't - indeed, I can't - go it alone. - Axver (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea. I would suggest anyone trying to formulate a criteria consider recent cases such as Milton Friedman, Luciano Pavarotti, Kurt Vonnegut and James Brown and consider whether they would fit in to the proposed criteria and how easy it is to decide they fit in. With the current criteria they didn't fit in and this was I think resonably obvious to anyone who understood the criteria, the only disputes we had were from people who didn't agree with the criteria (although HtD may beg to differ in the case of Pavarotti). Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something like - The person had made pivotal contributions in his field of expertise or work and/or was in it a pioneer, and had profound influence on the culture and/or society of his time in his lifetime, it being very probable that that influence shall not at all wane after his passing? --Ouro (blah blah) 09:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Hillary has been added illustrates a key issue that has come up as of late. Hillary did not meet any of the key existing criteria for deaths, but the criteria were either changed or Ignore All Rules was invoked in order to include him. This was of course because of the extraordinary importance of Hillary to New Zealanders and his contributions to the exploration of the earth. This can quite easily be compared to the issue of whether to include the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary results. The existing criteria stated that an item of sufficient international interest and import can be on ITN, but the decision was made that the rules on elections were hard and fast, and only the results of a national election can be included. Despite the arguments of many that this was of clear international coverage around the world and of significant international importance given the first African-American to win a primary in the United States, this item was left off ITN because again the rules were hard and fast. I understand that each candidate on ITN is treated independently, but given how close these examples came and how incredibly different they are in real international importance, I think that this is an interesting showcase of the need for a revamp of ITN. I don't think there's anything wrong with both of these items being included, but for a set of criteria to exist where the Hillary is included and Iowa and New Hampshire are not is absolutely shocking. Might I suggest that if Hillary wasn't from the Commonwealth, but instead a US citizen, his inclusion would be laughed off, rather than championed? Grant.alpaugh (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let it go grant. The primaries aren't going on. The death of the first man to reach the summit of Everest is much more encyclopedic then a single primary. And Wiki is not anti-American. When Neil Armstrong passes away you think there will be anyone in the world who will bject to that jsut because he is American? --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't even be Armstrong in your analogy, it would be Buzz Aldrin. Norgay was the first to summit Everest, but because he wasn't of European heritage, nobody gave him credit.
To be clear though, I'm not saying that Iowa and New Hampshire should go back up, but given the change in policy made on account of Hillary's death, I think the same rule should have applied for Iowa and New Hampshire given the massive international interest and importance of those two contests in determining the next President of the United States. Again, I'm not asking for them to go back up, but I think if they had happened after Hillary's death they would have, and I want everyone to acknowledge that and keep it in mind if and when we go about revamping ITN. The rules were changed in this case because of the percieved importance of Hillary. The same importance is placed on the Iowa and New Hampshire contests and there was more than adequate coverage of them to make ITN. And I don't think I'm being ridiculous to suggest that anything having to do with the US raises an immediate red flag and has to have an especially clear consensus for it to make it ITN. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The revamp of the rules follows a long line of highly notable figures not being included becuase their deaths weren't unexpected. Hillary was just the last straw. There is no point in doing the primaries, if we do, there will be fifty of them on. That is too American-centric and you know it. We do not do that kind of thing for any other country - in fact the only other Canadian political thing I have ever seen on ITN was part of the sponsorship scandal. ITN is not CNN. It is not BBC. the results of a primary are not encyclopedic. The nominations for each party is; the next president is, but the results of a primary isn't.
"Norgay was the first to summit Everest, but because he wasn't of European heritage, nobody gave him credit."
Sorry but I think that is not something that you should say without a little research first. Please see the Tenzing Norgay article which is reliably referenced to see that this is a false statement.Cstubbies (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to do all 50 because of the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire are universally recognized as the two most important races because until a few years ago they were the only ones that were always before Super Tuesday. You just admitted that there was an exception made in Hillary's case, so I think its only fair that there's one in this case. This isn't the candidate selection process in some sub-Saharan or Eastern European country that has very little effect on its region let alone the entire world, its the United States, which has an abnormally long and important process in which hundreds of millions of dollars are spent and literally hundreds of thousands of reporters from around the world are dispatched to cover it. My point is this: Just as Hillary was not "just another famous person," Iowa and New Hampshire are not "just another preliminary before the general election." Just as an exception was made in Hillary's case there should be an exception made in this case. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, for one, the Michael Jackson trial spent a lot money and was widely covered by everyone. Even my local morning show began their program with a live broadcast when the police raided Neverland (early morning in our place = daytime in California).
And the only reason why Iowa and New Hampshire are big news is because they're the first elections, after like 3 years of inactivity. I doubt if any one of the other states in Super Duper Tuesday will have the same amount of coverage, or those after. Not to mention the number of delegates elected on IA+NH will determine the nominess alone. --HowardtheDuck05:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the edit [17] the item doesnt fit the criteria (though I think the criterea should be changed personally), I am suprised it stayed up as long as it did. Russeasby (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this going to draw complaints about us recognising sovereignty to Kosovo by referring to him as "President of Kosovo"? I don't know enough about the political situation in that region to know. - Mark07:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure but from what I can tell Presidents of Kosovo existed prior to the current problems. You can have a president without having to be independent so potentially the role of president in itself isn't controversial Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not good wording for the Georgian elections: "Mikheil Saakashvili wins the Georgian presidential elections amidst allegations of vote-rigging." While it's true some accused the elections of being rigged, both OSCE and the EU said that overall the elections were conducted well. In contrast, the same cannot be said for the recent Uzbek presidential elections, which the OSCE called "pointless", saying they "failed to meet many of the commitments that OSCE states have made to hold democratic elections." Yet "In the News" read simply "Islom Karimov is re-elected President of Uzbekistan with over 90% of the votes cast." The point: the current wording is very misleading, especially when compared with headlines for other post-Soviet elections. If you are going to mention how the Georgian elections were conducted at all, the OSCE's statement that "This election was the first genuinely competitive presidential election, which enabled the Georgian people to express their political choice" seems far more newsworthy. Someone please change the wording. Thank you. Otebig (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that we have a significant number of people who are disatisfied with the result, and the result is close (in terms of a run-off) and the OSCE did in fact say there were significant problems [19] 'While the 5 January presidential election in Georgia was in essence consistent with most international standards for democratic elections, significant challenges were revealed which need to be addressed urgently' and 'The election campaign was conducted in a highly polarized environment, marked by a lack of trust and pervasive allegations of violations. The distinction between state activities and the former President's campaign was sometimes blurred, contributing to an inequitable campaign environment.'. We probably should have mentioned the OSCE's concerns in zbekistan, the fact that we didn't is unfortunate. But we really should ignore 'precedent' and consider specifically what this case entails. The claims of the opposition may have little merit but from what I can tell, there is widespread support among the opposition for this view and the opposition is rather large (potentially representing up to 48% of those who voted) and therefore ignoring it is probably a bad idea. The views of those who took part in the election is ultimately what matters since they are the ones who have to accept the result and if a significant proportion of the population doesn't accept the election then you have a problem. N.B. In the Uzbekistani case it appears the primary problem was that the voters were basically offered no choice. There was one candidate and all the other candidates were show candidates. While there is some concern over the vote turnout figures by the OSCE, there doesn't appear to be much suggestion that the vote itself was invalid simply that the vote was meaningless. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The opposition's views aren't ignored - they are addressed in the article. My concern is with this headline. The wording gives too much focus to the opposition's as yet unproven claims. The OSCE report does not mention direct vote-rigging. A better headline would be "Mikheil Saakashvili is re-elected as the President of Georgia", or something along those lines. This includes only verified facts, not potentially false accusations. Otebig (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not state that the vote was rigged, but the opposition's claims of vote-rigging, and unwillingness to concede defeat, is a verifiable fact from the article. --Stephen01:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The headline only mentions vote-rigging, not the unwillingness to concede defeat. So, why don't we mention that observer groups have found it generally a well-run election, to counter-balance that? It's also a verifiable fact from the article. With our current headline, we're giving voice to one side's allegations (which, again, haven't been proven) and nothing to counter that. I think it's best to leave all of that in the article, and just say there was an election and who won. Or, at the very least, switch "amidst allegations of vote-rigging" with something about the opposition refusing to concede - the latter is, as Stephen said, a fact. An allegation is not a fact, and should not be on the main page. Otebig (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've been looking over ITN for the past few years. For presidential elections, specifically those in post-Soviet countries, we usually say simply who won, with no commentary about the fairness one way or the other (including elections deemed by groups like OSCE to be unfair - see the last Kazakhstan election and Uzbekistan election). We didn't mention those elections' very real problems, yet we highlight "alleged" problems for Georgia. The current headline needs to be changed to follow WP:NPOVOtebig (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I said, the problem is as I said that the concerns of the people are much more significant then the concerns of the OSCE. In the Uzbekistan case from what I can tell there was no outrage over the election or the results. Yes it may not have been a real election but this doesn't change the fact the results were generally accepted, probably because it was largely how the people voted. In this case there is widespread concern over the results by a large percentage of the electorate. The fact that this concern is probably invalid doesn't change the fact that the concern exists and it's ultimately not up to us to editorialise and decide we shouldn't mention the concern because it's invalid (that wouldn't be NPOV). If people don't accept the result then they are the ones who are going to sue, riot and otherwise potentially make Georgia an unstable place. Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is editorializing to mention unproven allegations without presenting something from the other side countering those claims. Have you read the article? One opposition candidate (Gachechiladze) has accused the government of vote rigging (that means the other five opposition candidates do not claim vote-rigging occurred). He got less than 30% of the vote. The only outside mention of vote-rigging was from an OSCE observer who later took back his statement and said the elections went well (again, read the article). So, less than a third of voters possibly believe this, assuming everyone who voted for Gachechiladze believes it - hardly a "large percentage of the electorate" (or even of the opposition). Add to that the fact that he's shown no proof of vote rigging. Yet, here it is on Wikipedia's main page without any mention of the internationally backed reports saying rigging did not occur, nor the fact that the other 70% of voters (the real "large percentage of the electorate") may or may not share those concerns. There's not enough room in ITN to present both sides, which is why ITN should remain neutral -- saying there was an election and a winner, perhaps mentioning that one candidate isn't conceding. Anything beyond that is editorializing. The way the headline is now is editorializing. It is not NPOV and needs to be changed. Otebig (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary we are simply saying the result and then after that we mention that these allegations were made (and they were). There is no editorialising there. It's not as if we said 'In an election marred by vote-rigging and fraud, whateverhisname is elected by a narrow margin of 2.2%'. We are perhaps implying that allegations are widespread but they do appear to be. Something supported by potentially up to 25% of the electorate is definitely not a minor thing. As I've said, the OSCE opinion is somewhat irrelevant here. Elections are about an electorate not interational observers (yes they are vital for a fair democracy but that's not the point since wikipedia isn't about promoting democracy). The key thing when it comes to an election is 1) what is the result 2) did the election go off without a significant problems or are their widespread complaints from participants? (i.e. voters and candidates). ITN is only intended to sumarise what went on not to explain the finer details of a fair democracy to partipants. BTW, I'm well aware of the details you mentioned becaise I'm the one who added them which got it onto ITN [20] because after 2 days and no one bothering I got sick of seeing that item sitting there on ITN/C waiting for an update which wasn't forthcoming. I'm not the one who formulate the headline but after considering it, it seems fair to me. Perhaps if you can re-formulate the headline to mention Gachechiladze's objections instead that would work better although I'm somewhat unclear if he is the only candidate who has objections given that one of the other candidates was arrested for plotting a coup... Incidentally from what I've read the observer comments are somewhat unclear. They seem to be saying it was a lot better then previous elections but still had major problems. They don't seem to think there is a major discrepency between the result and what people voted but it's somewhat unclear to me if they're ruling out the possibility that the key 2.21% could have been unfairly gained. P.S. It's articles like this [21] and I'm sure I read something lik that before which make me think the opposition to the results is more widespread then simply the one candidate. Also the candidate who was accused of plotting a coup appears to be the third most popular with 7.1% of the vote and presuming I'm right and this non-reliable source suggests I am[22] then we have ~32% not ~25% Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the headline includes one party's allegations of fraud without mentioning anything about the successful aspects of the elections can quickly give people the impression that these were completely rigged, unfair elections. If that turns out not to be the case, it would be a shame ITN was the guilty party for encouraging that opinion, especially in light of the other reports noting that this election has shown major improvement over previous elections (albeit with need for further improvement). There are many "facts" we could mention in the headline. The choice to highlight a negative without mentioning a positive (or a counter to that negative) is a form of editorializing. As I said before, there should be a NPOV headline - simply say there was an election and who won. This would follow with the previous examples mentioned above. However, since not many people seem to care (save Nil Einne - thanks for your time and thoughtful discussion), and since I'm leaving town in a few hours, I'm leaving the matter be. I still believe that it needs to be changed to meet NPOV standards, and I hope someone does so soon. Otebig (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, normally news that has a major impact and covers significant international coverage goes there. For the car, it's too soon to tell if it would make a impact. Also sets a bad prescinet because it seems like wikipedia is promoting the car or the company. Secretaccount02:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding international coverage, tell me how does the news regarding Clara Rojas fits in. In no way is Wikipedia promoting Tata Motors. The news is just about the unveiling of the cheapest production car in the world. And tell me, how is this not a big news considering its price-tag? --MAJones (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This item can be found at the BBC News webpage... when you press page down. On CNN (I), it's the poll question but the news item can't be found. --HowardtheDuck03:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the inclusion of both. But I just wanted to point out that the Clara Rojas or more accurately the FARC hostage release is the top story onAl Jazeera (permanent link) and CNN (permanent link) and one of the secondary top stories on BBC (permenant link). This isn't surprising since the release of hostages in a very long running conflict after 6-7 years is a significant breakthrough and always going to be very big news. The Tata story is big news because it's very cheap and speaks a lot about India's growing industrialisation and industrial success at a time when there is increasing concern about the price of petroleum and global warming and pollution in developing countries. Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally are there any reports which mention what's probably the second cheapest car? I looked a bit and while most reports agree it's the cheapest none really discuss how this compares with the current cheapest before this. This may be helpful in convincing those who are uncertain that this is indeed big news since I'm pretty sure the other cheapest are quite a lot more expensive even though other manufacturers like Renault are now working to develop a competing product Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point then. Half the price which is something like what I expected. Highlights the fact that this is quite a significant breakthrough, it's not simply a slightly cheaper car Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is ITN serving as a product placement website? Surely Tata is paying us for all this free advertising? Anyway, i really don't see why this is such a notable event, i mean a new car was just released onto the market..... so what, happens all the time? The argument that this is a notable (for ITN standards) event simply because it is the cheapest car ever produced is in my opinion BS. Should we then also include the most expensive car ever produced, i mean it is 'notable.' Should we include the car that's produced in the largest selection of pretty colors? ITN has rarely, if ever served as a place where new products are put on display, and just because this car is cheap it should be? The only time I can recall products being placed on ITN was the $100 laptop thing from a while ago, but as i recall that was a non-profit group working in cooperation with many governments to promote laptop ownership by schoolchildren worldwide, a slightly different situation than this. I understand this will probably stay up but i've lodged my raging portest anyway. Thethinredline (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most expensive car ever produced holds limited interest to most people as it's not significant other then as trivia. However the cheapest car even produced has raised various concerns and also reflects on the state of the world and as such it has gained a lot of attention. Are you really telling me that a car which because of it's price puts it in the reach of many, many, many people who previously could not afford one is the same thing as some triviality about the number of colours or most expensive car ever produced? BTW I'm pretty sure we mentioned the first flight of the Airbus A380 and also the launch of Harry Potter 7 on ITN Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think i remember something i once read about not every car costing it's factory price, it think it was called 2nd hand or something, and those are availible to people who aren't able to afford brand new cars; my first car was 2nd hand and i was a relatively poor college student at the time. And while you've got me on the Airbus thing, Harry Potter would also fall under arts & culture rather than simply consumer products. Thethinredline (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2nd hand cars are quite a different thing from new cars though. And 2nd hand cars are actually very popular in some parts of the world including NZ but that's somewhat of a different point. BTW [24]. HP was a very significant product launch and AFAIK it was on ITN primarily because it was an amazingly large book launch not because of art and culture. Nil Einne (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to disagree with you on the Harry Potter thing, although i wasn't around for the debate concerning the posting. Going back to ITN way back when the blurb read "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the seventh and final book in the Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling, is released worldwide" [25], not really focusing on any kind of special launch, although as you say some non-cultural elements also formed a part of the whole thing too. Our differing views on the importance of the Harry Potter book do much to highlight our posistions on this issue as well i suppose. At any rate i would've rather seen this item go up (if it must) at the time when the car goes on sale, rather than now. I do hope that when the 'release date' comes around, we wont mention this again here in ITN. Thethinredline (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Harry Potter part going up was way more notable then this. I don't want to sound like a nerd or anything (I'm not a fan), but that was the last book in a cultural phenomenom, and argurably the biggest series of all time. Comapring a cheap car to Harry Potter is like comparing an apple to the president. Hey, soft drinks are a big business, are we going to put it up when someone comes up with the cheapest cola? --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The price of cola is already so cheap it's somewhat irrelevant even if someone reduces the price of cola by half. It's not going to make a significant difference to the number of people who drink cola. Indeed I'm pretty sure the price of cola has little to do with the production cost of cola. Also, I'm not denying HP was big and a lot more significant then this, simply that the cultural phenomenom had little to do with it being on ITN. Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring primarily to the discussion that took place around the item and IIRC the discussion agreed that it should stay not because of some view of the 'cultural importance' of the launch but because the launch was the largest book launch by far (not just because of the number of books sold but because of the number of people interested in it) Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. I don't come to Wikipedia to get a hot tip on the world's cheapest car. It seems to me that all the arguments for this car's notability are crystall-balling. It has yet to be proven in the marketplace. What's more, people normally seem to be so concerned with Wikipedia's reputation and want to ensure its encyclopaedic nature prevails over misconceptions - and then this piece of free advertising comes along and ends up on the main page! How do you think it looks that Wikipedia appears to have deemed some unproven car as significant purely due to its price, while it is ignoring the death of Sir Edmund Hillary, a man whose notability and influence is more than sufficiently established? The car story should be removed immediately. - Axver (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the car hasn't been proven. But this doesn't change the fact that 1) It is the cheapest production car by far (it's half the price of it's current competitors as highlighted above) 2) Its launch had led to widespread concerns about the sustainability of the world's development, the increasing use of petroleum, the effects on the environment etc 3) Its launch occured in one of the largest growing markets for cars 4) Its launch has highlighted the growing industrialisation of the Indian (or for that matter the developing world's) economy and the success thereof. 5) Many competitors are already developing cars to compete against this. Personally I don't follow the car market much at all. But it's easy for me to see why this has been seen as the most significant car launch in recent times by far. And whatever happens to this car, the fact that this perception was created remains just the same as the US$100/barrel story Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to each point individually: 1). My response to that is simply "so what?" Can we put up the cheapest railway locomotive, aeroplane, ship, bicycle, tricycle, or model railway locomotive? Being the cheapest doesn't qualify something for inclusion here. 2). Those concerns are already prevalent and are far more adequately addressed by scientific reports that have featured on ITN; they are also addressed nowhere in the article, let alone the ITN blurb. 3). Where it's launched does not make it any more (or less) notable, especially not in this day and age. 4). Actual statistics would show that much better - and a release of those probably would not make ITN - and it is again not mentioned in the article. 5). That's perfectly normal to business and really has nothing to do with whether something should be on ITN; furthermore, that just sets a precedent that we announce every single car and become the automotive equivalent of a sports ticker. I don't find any of the points that have been raised to be even remotely persuasive in favour of this topic's inclusion. All I see is some random car with a small price tag, and that is not even remotely ITN-worthy. - Axver (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, remove the car story already, there has been enough protest already. This was and is not even news, even news you'd put in an encyclopedia. ITN is not CNN, but if it wasn't significantly covered by several news outlets it makes no sense to be added. --HowardtheDuck10:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Golden globe awards are an internationally renowned ceremony and the writers strike is affecting most major countries. It is also likely that the Oscars may be cancelled
The awards will stil be handed out, there will only be no gala event. Regarding the Oscars, this is a pure speculation so far. --Tone21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are the Golden Globes and the writers' strike any more affecting internationally than the US presidential primary elections, which are headline-dominating news all over Europe but have been banished entirely from ITN? Cjs2111 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may not make it to ITN, but I'd like some response; otherwise I'm not sure if anyone's noticed it so far down the page.-gadfium17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently the biggest headline on Australian news outlets, Indian news outlets as well as Cricinfo, the world's leading cricket website and BBC - the UK is an uninvolved nation. There have been street protests/riots in India, and the Government of India is pressuring the Board of Control for Cricket in India to quit the tour. This is a series between the two leading cricket nations, financially and in terms of cricket rankings, with more 500-1000 million viewers. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Australian player Brad Hogg has also been charged with racism towards the Indian captain and vice-captain. The umpire officiating the match has been sacked for the next game as a result of his "incompetency". There have also been calls from prominent Australian jouranlists for the Australian team captain to be sacked. It's getting pretty big even if the series is coming back. Darrowen (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is widely considered (please, no {{fact}} templates) as the biggest international cricket controversy since Bodyline, given India's wealth and Australia's power within the games. I have added it to the template. Daniel00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt whether we can summarise what's happened in one line, and 'WP:BLP applies on the main page so Brad Hogg probably shouldn't be mentioned until he is "convicted"/"found guilty" in the ICC "court". Brevity isn't easy here :) Daniel00:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would be better to delete Singh's same and just say something like "amidst racism allegations" as Singh's case is also not yet final, considering the methodology of Mike Procter to receive a verdict has been contested. Darrowen (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt the controversial test match has been the biggest issue in cricket world lately. I think the sentence should appear on the main page. Gnanapiti (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly a major sporting issue, having political ramifications. Cricket is followed like a religion in India and the passion is no less in Australia. I think the sentence should appear on main page.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You people got excited. Racism is prevalent in sports. How could forget a hooligan shouting to Samuel Eto'o racist remarks? This has now disappeared from CNN Intl's website but is now in the BBC News website but as a minor story. And if you'll people we'll include this minor story, how about micro stories such as the New Hampshire primary? --HowardtheDuck03:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not sure about including the item on ITN, the controversy here is multifold. It isn't just about racism but also the ubiquitios use of technology which enables umpiring decisions to be reviewed in great detail and the quality of umpiring and also sportsmanship in a game which is still often called the 'gentleman's game'. Also the racism part is significant because it involves players not spectators. It also involves the undeniably best team in the world against one of (and some will say as a result of the recent controversy the) the most powerful in recent times. Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The FIBA Americas Championship 2007 Final was played by the top 2 men's teams according to the FIBA World Rankings. Also, several forms of technology are being used in every sport especially in the top competitions, such as the instant replay, HawkEye even lights that light up when time expires in basketball.
If this stays up can we change "row" to a more international/unambiguous term like "dispute," most people in the US have no idea what a row is. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine use "controversey" or any other word. In the US "row" meaning "argument or disagreement" doesn't exist. I only know what it means from watching way too much soccer coverage. People probably think you're talking about row boats or something. Literally 99% of us have no idea what that means. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't obvious I was talking about the top cricket team in the world. Significant problems between the top (test) cricket team in the world and arguably the most powerful (test) cricket team in the world is significant because there is no higher form of test cricket. Even more so when some people argue that the ICC, the international body responsible for the oversight of cricket has given in to the most powerful team in the world in an irresponsible way. If there was a very significant row between the top two men's teams in the FIBA Americas Championship 2007 then yes that should definitely have been considered but there wasn't so bringing it into the discussion is somewhat pointless. The use of technology in other sports is also somewhat meaningless, it's like when there were allegations that the referee in the 2006 World Cup final awarded the red card against Zidane based on instant replays. The fact that replays are used in other sports to make on field decisions doesn't change the fact it was against the rules and therefore very significant in the world of football. In any case, this doesn't really have anything to do with my point which was that the use of complicated technology has enabled serious questioning of the accuracy of umpiring decisions in a sport which still doesn't use technology much in making decisions and has therefore caused a very serious row (although somewhat ironically some of those technologies you were refer to were invented and first used in cricket coverage even if they are now used officially as part of other sports). My overall point is that this is a very significant row in cricket for a large variety of reasons which I have tried to explain to people who don't follow cricket. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no dispute that this is big news in the cricket world, the problem is for the rest of the world. I've sat through sport recap programs and the sacking of Sam Allardyce is bigger news than this. --HowardtheDuck13:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially opposed to including it but I've not come around. This issue here I think is that this isn't just big news in the cricket world. It's extraordinary news since it's one of the biggest controversies in recent times. This is probably bigger then England winning the Ashes in 2005 or for that matter the world cups last year. A bit crystal bally perhaps but this may also very well have implications for the diplomatic relationship between India and Australia (remember the Shilpa Shetty case?). Sam Allardyce in comparison is relatively minor news in the world of football. Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed he only has 2.5% more then needed for the victory and 20% of people polled refused an answer. Also I'm not even sure if the exit poll results are final the source say organisers stressed the results were provisional and the title says 'early exit polls' suggesting this wasn't for the whole day. Definitely not final enough for ITN Nil Einne (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's still unfolding. But when it's clearer, it's ITN material for sure. Let's wait a couple of days. --Tone16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would actually be factually incorrect as there are two nominations, but you're right that it should read "races". I'll change it. —Verrai05:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The change you made is right, but the point I'm making is that the race isn't for the "United States Presidential election" the race isn't for the election, its for the nomination for the Presidency. Please change that as well. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how is this news 'internationally significant’? It's not the results for the elections - it's just a party event on who the candidates will be. --Natrajdr (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the points being made by both sides about whether to keep it up, but if its going to stay up can we please have it be gramatically correct. See my above suggestions of changing "of the" to "in the" at the end of the blurb. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely important enough to be up there, I believe. I've seen this all over the news in Europe; it's apparently important to us, too. Remember that the vote for the American president is also a vote for the most powerful man in the world who will have a significant influence over other countries, so it's okay to give American affairs a bit more importance in these cases. (I'm Dutch.) —msikma (user, talk)07:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the whole US Presidential election is ITN-material, but a primary is too preliminary. AFAIK, ITN does not present presidential elections from any country till we have the final official results, unless there is something notable, such as election-related violence, the first ever female finalist, a long jailed dissident released and allowed to run, ...etc. Not sure why USA is so special that a primary, a very early step, gets on ITN. If there's something special, please say so in the headline on ITN. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should pay attention to what news about the US elections we put on the main page, we don't want to have a complete coverage in the ITN section, articles are for that. IMO, we should put the final candidates in the ITN, not earlier events. --Tone12:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its worth noting for my non-US friends, that a 95+% white state just voted a black man their Democratic choice for president in caucuses that had record turn out (almost 250,000 people as opposed to just over 100,000 for the Republicans). I honestly think this is as big a deal as a political prisoner being allowed to run in another country or the first woman being a finalist. This is not just another primary, is what I'm trying to say. I understand not putting it up if we decide that no primary whatsoever should go up, but this is the biggest story in US politics (other than election results) in about 25 years. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal because he just won one primary. Yes the US has racism problems but their racism problems aren't so big that a black candidate winning one primary is shocking news. This isn't th 70s. If he wins the nomination, then and only then will we mention it. If as a heart attack tomorrow and dies, his legacy will be fairly short lived and people aren't going to really remember him that well compared to whoever does eventually become the first black candidate of a major political party in the US. Also, I'm far from convinced his victory was really that big a story for the reasons you mention. The primary itself was a relatively big story and his and Edward's victory over Hillary was but in all the coverage I saw none really made that big a fuss about his race. I don't think Iowa is a racially minded as you seem to think. Nil Einne (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the biggest motorsports events in the world, together with e.g. the 24 hours of Le Mans and the Indy 500. This features some of the biggest names in off-road car, motor and truck racing. If such an event is cancelled due to terrorism concerns (the murders that prompted the cancellation were ascribed to Al Qaeda), I think it's very noteworthy and definitely ITN-worthy. AecisBrievenbus19:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has appeared prominently in the news in the Netherlands, too. I presume it's been featured in other countries as well. —msikma (user, talk)21:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well whether deaths are consistent or not, the death of 4 tourists clear wasn't considered consistent or they wouldn't have cancelled the race, unless they consistently cancel the race which they don't seem to. N.B. It appears from the article that the death of participants and uninvolved passerbys primarily in Africa isn't uncommon but the murder of tourists (I'm not sure if they were actually planning to watch the race) in one of the countries were it will be run combined with the threats from Al Qaeda linked organisations and the French governments request we sufficient to convince the organisers to cancel which hasn't happened in a long time. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prize of an oil barrel reaches 100 USD. I got this one from lemonde.fr as latest news, I wonder if it is interesting or imporatnt enough for ITN. --Tone17:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Marsden has two sites, and only the roof and top floor of one site were damaged, affecting cancer operations. No international impact. --Stephen21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it kinda does, it is an internationally renowned cancer research development center so any stalling in operations affect international developments in cancer research --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't seem to mention the fire is likely to have a significant effect on their research developments let alone international developments in cancer research Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might be more supportive if an historic listed building had caught fire (but this is not the same hospital from 1851), or there were a high death toll or deaths involving Nobel-level scientists with a wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's underway right now. It seems like it meets the criteria; the game is the first outdoor NHL game in the US and is to set an attendance record at around 74,000.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 18:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this one. As a Minnesotan, I am a huge hockey fan. But does this really have an international importance? Plus, having two American sports blurbs might cause some lively debate to say the least. So, I'm not for it. I'm not against it. ---CWY2190TC20:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is one match in a league season that lasts several months. That is not noteworthy. That it had a gimmick in being played in a different arena, and that it has a particularly high attendance is worth noting in the relevant articles, but it is not relevant as world-wide news. That it has been given a pretentious title (a classic???) by a sponsor is not something we need to report, and even if the "news" item is posted, phrasing it by this title is meaningless to most of the world (it doesn't even make clear what sport is under discussion) and therefore inappropriate. Kevin McE (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with most of the people above. Is it a notable game? Certainly. But an ITN-worthy one? Aboslutely not. It was one regular season game, with all of the same significance as every other regular season game (live and TV audiences notwithstanding). Hell, it wasn't even the first NHL regular season game to be held outdoors. It was a fun game, but it was a gimmick, and not an important one, for a not-particularly-popular league. I can't imagine anything in the NHL besides the awarding of the Stanley Cup being sufficiently notable for ITN, and I can't imagine any single regular season game (the Pats story is about an historic season, not just one game) in any sport being sufficiently notable. -- Mike(Kicking222)21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
