Misplaced Pages

I agree with the spirit of your argument - indeed, I think we could do well to increase the churn on the template by knocking some items (sports, awards, deaths) off altogether after a day rather than merely bumping them down 5-6 times. I, for one, will hereafter modify my "vote" to include the 1-day inclusion or standard inclusion. I am, however, worried about the POV warriors who look for previous precedents and the subsequent slippery slope into covering notable, but definitively minor musicians, athletes, academics, etc. Indeed, arguments often devolve into "well it doesn't matter if NYT and WP covered it, BBC and FT didn't!" Many nominations are put forth by drive-by editors who know little about how media saturation does not require ITN coverage. Perhaps the criteria could be made more explicit. While I don't think the book should close altogether on an item once its up there, indeed many of the items do change in their wording along the way, but I would be hesitant about constantly reposting items. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with you more. I think you're on the right track by saying that we shouldn't dispute quite as many of the candidates, but I think this system being proposed increases the turnover much too artificially. We all have to face the fact that sometimes, whether we like it or not, there just isn't any news worth putting up, but putting up multiple entries on the same stories will not help that problem. This is an overcorrection. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to say that I strongly oppose any "mandatory time limit" on anything on ITN. Let the process proceed as normal, just a little faster by being more open to inclusion of items on ITN. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a mandatory time limit for all stories is too much. I'm scratching that out of my initial post. However, I do think that most ITN news items should only be up for a day or two. I really like Madcoverboy of adding a one- or two-day inclusion clause on our ITN/C votes. Lovelac7 06:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the key things that seperates ITN from conventional news media is that we talk about things after they happen rather than trying to predict them.Geni 12:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note that this (relaxation of ITN criteria) had been discussed before but either everyone got too lazy or too busy to continue discussing. There's one problem with the mandatory time limit, though: if there aren't enough ITN suggestions the template would be empty, and IMHO, I'll rather have a stale rather than an empty ITN. --Howard the Duck 12:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lovelac to some extent. I think we can improve the "freshness" of ITN by including a limited amount of stuff that has until now been ruled out as insufficiently international or "not ITN material." There are some U.S. items that may not interest too many people overseas but would nonetheless be an improvement over leaving a stale entry up too long. (After all, they would be no worse than a two-country European event that doesn't interest Americans.) And I don't think we'd be doing any harm by going somewhat middle-brow and including things like Heath Ledger's death -- which, of course, interests a lot of people. The key is that we replace items quickly enough that there isn't more than one U.S.-centric item, entertainment item, soccer item, or whatever at a time.

(That said, this is an encyclopedia, and I wouldn't want to have Britney Spears' latest arrest on ITN. We all have our limits.)

I was thinking about all this, and I don't mean to open up an old can of worms, but I think it was a mistake to rule out U.S. presidential primary news before nominations were clinched. I supported that consensus, but looking at the numbers, we have had too few ITN items and have room for more from the U.S. I think a limit like no more than three mentions of a topic (such as the U.S. election) per year is artificial and unnecessary. I don't see the harm in mentioning other important events on the primary calendar, such as Super Tuesday, provided there's no more than one up on ITN at a time and that it drops off after four or five days. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dedicated ITN admin?

I apologize if this has come up before (beyond my previous comment) and what consensus, if any, was reached - but how feasible or reasonable would it be to appoint one or several dedicated ITN admins to promote and deal with ITN candidates and items? (a la User:Raul654 for WP:FAC) While in many cases there are obvious news items that don't require an explicit consensus to promote on the basis of precedent (e.g., elections, some sports events, etc.) that admins just rightfully unilaterally promote, there have been numerous cases of minor edit warring among admins and drive-by admins putting up news items without regard to ITN/C consensus. Certainly there are a number of active ITN/C contributors who don't possess admin status who are far more "qualified" to edit the template given their experience than many admins (not to impugn the assumed good faith of these admins). Moreover, given the trifurication of debate across ITN/C, ITN:Talk, and WP:ERRORS - to say nothing of the template's visibility - it seems intuitive that some central person/entity should be singularly accountable to the Misplaced Pages community for its content. Certainly, the downside is that the process is already substantially rarefied with only a dozen or so regular participants on ITN/C - it's hard to justify making it more elitist. Admins volunteer their time and electing/choosing/removing responsibility/power might not be pretty either. Perhaps such a power should be invested in a triumvirate of most active admins here (e.g., Thule, Tone, BanyanTree, JForget, Stephen, etc.). Food for thought, maybe this has already been hashed out before and I'm just some upstart, loudmouthed newbie. :) Madcoverboy (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I for one would like to nominate Madcoverboy, Plasma, Nil, and Howard (not to the exclusion of the other fine regular contributors on ITN) for just such a position. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I'm NOT an admin. :D --Howard the Duck 08:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, but you're a consistent contributor to ITN/C and the proposal was to nominate admins or regular editors to help make ITN better. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think my constant bitching will be enough help for now. --Howard the Duck 11:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that there is an issue, albeit not a crippling one, I'm not sure if this is the correct way to address it. The difference between ITN and TFA is that the latter is a set event, whereas the former is constantly changing. Not to downgrade the work Raul puts into TFA, he could in theory log only only once daily to deal with TFA stuff, while ITN requires a bit more attention. Perhaps a group of admins or users could be placed in charge, but not just a single admin, or probably even a group of three. Random89 (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say 3-5 would be appropriate. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by admins

I'm going to start keeping a list of drive-by admins who don't respect WP:ITN/C consensus and put up or take down whatever they feel like. Already have one today: Madcoverboy (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• User:Gamaliel
• User:RockMFR
• User:DragonflySixtyseven —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madcoverboy (talk • contribs) 14:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be renamed admins who removed something I wanted. Seriously, there was consensus to add because few people care about ITNC unless they add something they want on the main page, so they can tell their friends "Hey man, go to Misplaced Pages. Ya see that story on Paris Hilton's tits, totally my idea. I'm the fucking man"

If something awful gets posted, like say an injunction against a website most people who 'read (yea, Misplaced Pages is for our readers, not ourselves-Non nobis solum) this site don't care about, people will complain. And they'll do so in logical places like Talk:Main_Page#Wikileaks. Charles Stewart (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Note: I only added RockMFR to illustrate how dumb this section is. Charles Stewart (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Subheadings

Would it be appropriate if we asked that when a new suggestion to WP:ITN/C is made, its given a subheading. Look at Feb 18's suggestions for why this really helps. Charles Stewart (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure

lol Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Castro

Re-add the damn thing. Not including it is policy wankery at its best. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, you appear to have misunderstood the purpose of ITN which is not about the 'news' but about highlighting significantly updated articles about recent events of international interest. Until and unless this happens for the Castro article, then we are doing our reader a great disservice by ignoring the well established criteria based on someone's perception of the importance of the story Nil Einne (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. The Castro article has almost nothing about his resignation, and as such is not yet viable for ITN. This is not "policy wankery", this is the very basis of this template. We are not a news ticker service, we highlight articles that are significantly updated due to current events. JACOPLANE • 2008-02-19 09:21

The thing is that a) the inclusion criteria for ITN are counterintuitive and b) Misplaced Pages pages are edited by whoever happens to be interested at a given time. That's a problematic mixture. Haukur (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for ITN is not counterintuative when you get over the problematic name and consider the purpose of ITN. We can't help what our editors are interested in, what we can do is not direct our readers to articles our editors are not interested and therefore are unsuitable for readers. In any case, in this specific case the article reached a reasonable level within hours and it is unlikely to be removed now despite the unfortunate wheel war earlier. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"The criteria for ITN is not counterintuitive when you get over the problematic name" And apart from the assassination I thought the play was pretty good :) Haukur (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is though that ITN is working okay as is and makes perfect sense. Although we get the occasinal complaint, most people are able to understand ITN. The name needs to be changed, which many people acknowledge but so far no one has bothered to do. Having said that, I'm not convince changing the name will actual help as much as people think. The problem is, a lot of people simply don't understand that[REDACTED] is an encylopaedia, not a news paper, and if they want up to the date minute news they should check out a news paper like wikinews or the millions of others newspapers out there, not an encylopaedia. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

eclipse

a lunar eclipse is significant worldwide news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.32.91 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

yes.

News? Probably not. Interest? Yes. ---CWY2190 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wish it had been newsed that it was GOING to happen :) I missed it! IceDragon64 (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it was. Read your local newspaper more often or get a better local news paper (I usually see these things in the local papers I've viewed throughout my life). I presume you are reading some at least some news paper or news site and not relying on an encylopaedia for your news :-P Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Venezuelan airplane crash

Could someone add this: 2008 Santa Barbara Airlines airplane crash? – Zntrip 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ITN/C Charles Stewart (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Right now that article is too underdeveloped. I'm pretty sure the airplane crash (If and when it is reported) is itn worthy, right now it isn't. Update the article some more and then nominate it at WP:ITN/C --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

German tax probe

How about adding the 2008 German tax affair? Latest report: Financial Times: Swiss bank dragged into German tax probe --Bender235 (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

CNN now has the story on the frontpage: German tax probe nets $41M, 163 people --Bender235 (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please nominate items on WP:ITN/C. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested change to criteria

As has been discussed, the criterion that an ITN item be of "international" interest may lead to a bias in favor of European items and against items from large countries like the U.S., China, India and Australia, simply because those countries aren't divided into lots of little countries like Europe is. Truth be told, we've had plenty of items that aren't really international but are really important to a certain country, such as election results in Barbados.

So I recommend we replace this:

It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest.

With this:

It should be either: (a) A story of intercontinental interest; (b) A story of great interest to many people on a single continent, subcontinent or large country; or (c) A story of extraordinary importance to many people in a single country, such as the result of a national election.

Mwalcoff (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a great idea. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I support the proposed change. ---CWY2190 04:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll support. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. Lovelac7 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not disagreeing with the change, Australia may be geographically a large country, but they are relatively small population wise so I'm not sure if they should really be compared to the other 3. Also, the biggest problems with Indian and Chinese items is probably not that stories involving them aren't generally taken to be international interest, but that we rarely get articles of the quality necessary for ITN. Finally elections results I would argue are of international interest. No country nowadays operates in complete isolation. Who forms the next government is therefore of international interest even if it may not get great news coverage. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about this... I'd imagine American sports are sorta followed elsewhere but most of the political news isn't really that important to other nations. For example, on August 2006, someone suggested that the Democratic Party primary, Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006 should be added at ITN since it is "international." I'd also imagine several U.S. political scandals aren't that widely followed elsewhere since other nations are too embroiled in their own scandals.

As for national elections/referenda, they'd always be added, no matter how small they are.

And what is the definition of "a large country"? Population? Area? --Howard the Duck 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the intercontinental part, but anything else will not work. Example? There are roughly 300 million people in America, 100 in Mexico, and 30 in Canada. Population wise that will never work due to the large amount of people in North America being located in the US. The primaries matter in the U.S., so they would all go up, irregardless to the lack of true international importance. Something of similar importance that happens in Mexico or Canada would not go up, because the overwhelming majortiy of people in North America would not care. Attributing large country to size would mean Russia, Canada, China, the U.S., Brazil and Australia would get the itn to themselves. Also, what counts as extraordinary importance varies between countries. I like the idea of changing the criteria (We really should make a page similar to Misplaced Pages: Sports on ITN to get a complete discusion on the matter instead of these small, random talks about changing it), but I don't see how this would work. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As has been discussed on this page, we need to be less conservative about what goes up on ITN in order to keep it fresher. The only way to do so is to allow some items that, while important to many people, are not of "international" interest. My suggestion is meant to be a starting point for discussion and can probably be better worded. The point I'm trying to make is that not all single-nation events are equal. An event of significant interest to a billion Chinese or 300 million Americans outweighs an event of significance to 2 million Slovenians. But an event of extraordinary interest to 2 million Slovenians may be of equal weight to a merely "significant" event of interest to Americans or Chinese people. Basically, when considering the worthiness of an ITN item for inclusion, editors should consider: A) The number of people interested in an event; B) the degree of their interest; and C) how geographically widespread the interest is. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but that means a significant event that affects 10 million Australians will be ignored in favor of, say, some Terry Schaivo thing in America since that gets covered on CNN every night. Also, wouldn't this mean that near everything that effects the Chinese and Indians will go up? It's not often something news-worthy from over there affects only a handful of people. To do this, I think we would need to set some kind of benchmark for what defines a single-country itn worthy event, whether it be by population, area, or in case of disasters, cost of damage. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the word "international" is enough already. As long as 2 nations have shown great interest, it is "international." --Howard the Duck 02:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, Howard, but nations that have huge populations like the US, China, India, and a few others get the short end of the stick because of the fact that they are not broken up into more than 50 countries like Europe is. I think the point that is being made is valid. If there was a drought or massive flooding in the Balkans and several nations were affected then that would qualify for ITN, but if something similar happened in New England or the Southeastern US, the inclusion of a similar item would be questioned. Even the coverage of elections is biased toward small nations. The state of California has one of the largest economies of any nation in the world, but the gubenatorial races there would never be on ITN, even though the elections in Moldova would be. Again, something that is deeply important in the United States China, etc. should be given a little more weight than something that has marginal importance to two smaller countries. Something being "international" just because 2 or more countries are involved or interested simply doesn't cut it anymore. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As I can see, we do include natural disasters from the U.S. (the most recent was the Super Tuesday twisters), but rarely for political news. I'd say that is right unless of course the news affects other countries. To make it fair, other nations' political scandals aren't reported either,; the only political news that are reported are regime changes, elections and coups.

And as a follower of U.S. news, the California gubernatorial election isn't even reported widely, unless of course the recall election some years ago. Elections are balanced for the U.S. since the end result of the primary elections will be added.

Summing up, those who cry "U.S. CENTRISMZ" are just trolls, no matter how much you explain, the won't be swayed. So why bother? --Howard the Duck 12:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, and my point is exactly that the Moldovan election results aren't widely reported either, but because elections are sacred and Moldova is a small, but independent, country their results go up. The simple fact is the US gets the short end of the stick because many of its states would be more significant than many European, African or Southeast Asian countries, but because they are part of the US they don't have the same status. My point is that if I suggested treating the EU as one big block I'd be laughed off the proverbial stage. To include the Moldovan elections as a no-brainer, but not include the Super Tuesday results despite considerable support is simply a foolish overemphasis on a faulty criteria. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I have a pseudo-rule I use myself: if it is not the end-result, don't include it. The Super Tuesday is only a step on the road. We'd report only if the GOP or the Dems already have a clearcut candidate. The fact that we'll be reporting on the results of the U.S. primary elections (we don't do that anywhere else) is enough balance from reporting elections from third world countries. --Howard the Duck 04:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Euro

Can we get rid of this? How is attaining a special number notable? Do we have an ITN event every time a currency reaches a record high? Or is this really about the US dollar? Do we have an ITN event every time a currency reaches a record low? Big round numbers do not have special notability. - Chardish (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Euro is at near all-time highs against currencies other than the dollar, including the pound sterling. The rearranged sentence giving the dollar precedence doesn't take account of the fact that the psychological value of €1 > $1.50 has been reached. I have changed it back for now.

As regards the story itself being on ITN, ITN is just about articles on Misplaced Pages that have been updated reflecting current events. It is not a judgement on what news stories are the most important. zoney ♣ talk 11:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ITN/C, please, for more discussion on this matter. There is very clearly no consensus for this to be here. - Chardish (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Death criteria

What's the status of the proposed revision of the death criteria? Has any consensus been reached?

I ask because since it's been an otherwise slow past couple of news days, it might be worthy to add the death of William F. Buckley, one of the most important and influential thinkers of the postwar era, at least in the U.S. But he certainly wouldn't fit under the old criteria. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, we never got around to actually changing it, which seems to happen every time we suggest a revision (Outside of Wiki: Sports on ITN). Like I said above, we need a place where we can list every proposed revision and talk about it. And, until we do, I think it would be best to not add any deaths on the itn, save for assassinations or really important deaths (Like the Pope or the Queen dying). Buckley would be too controversial - he would probably be Bobby all over again. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bill Buckley is one of the most important men of the last half century, and he should be included in the news portion. This is as important as the death of President Reagan in terms of historical impact. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt he is important as the most loved president of all time. If you want to see him up, nominate him. As it is, there is little on the article about his death. I see about two lines, and no admin is going to dare put him up due to the "He had diabetes it wasn't unexpected" arguement. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The most loved president of all time? I'm sure if ITN was around in 1865, we'd include Lincoln's assassination. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That comes from The Greatst American. And of course we would put the assassination of a president on itn. But, as it turns out, Buckley wasn't a president, nor was he assassinated. Why bring that up? --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Euro -- newsworthy?

I'm not sure the Euro beating the dollar is really newsworthy. Recently, it's hit record highs a lot -- if my graphs are correct, 29 times in the last six months:

• September 12 -- 1.3898
• September 18 -- 1.3962
• September 20 -- 1.4066
• September 21 -- 1.4072
• September 22 -- 1.4077
• September 25 -- 1.4134
• September 27 -- 1.4150
• September 28 -- 1.4181
• October 1 -- 1.4227
• October 18 -- 1.4284
• October 19 -- 1.4287
• October 25 -- 1.4310
• October 26 -- 1.4375
• October 29 -- 1.4411
• October 30 -- 1.4431
• October 31 -- 1.4466
• November 2 -- 1.4487
• November 6 -- 1.4553
• November 7 -- 1.4609
• November 8 -- 1.4666
• November 10 -- 1.4698
• November 20 -- 1.4826
• November 21 -- 1.4838
• November 22 -- 1.4845
• November 23 -- 1.4859
• February 1 -- 1.4862
• February 26 -- 1.4865
• February 27 -- 1.5051
• February 28 -- 1.5203

While it's been down below its highs for a few months, its highs over the last few days aren't a new thing, even though it is at a record high. Is the currency issue worth mentioning in ITN? Ral315 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the item is that $1.5 was consider a psychological barrier of sorts, similar to the way $100 a barrel for oil was consider a psychological barrier. Whether this is true or not, I don't know, I don't see any mention of this in the aritcle. Also, I believe it was also considered significant because it was seen as a sign of the strengthening of the euro versus the dollar, which is ongoing and has been happening for a fair while but obviously doesn't have any clear set point of significance. The $1.50 in this light was seen as one of the best points to pick to represent the overall story. There were definitely a few news reports that mentioned it cross the $1.5 mark. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Old news items

I see that we have several news items that are getting a little long in the tooth: the Cypriot election was held 11 days ago, Santa Barbara AIrlines Flight 518 was 7 days ago, and USA 193 was 7 days ago as well. We'd still have plenty of items up there (5) if these were removed, and no outward "USA B1aZ" either. Can we make it a point to remove news items after a week? Madcoverboy (talk) 05:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I oppose any time limit on ITN. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a hard and fast date requirement (for major events, longer than 7 days may be appropriate), but those items were clearly pretty old, and two were removed. Ral315 (talk) 10:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The only way to avoid stale items on ITN is to be more liberal about allowing new entries on ITN. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ITN is not a news service, it shouldn't be updated as frequently as news websites. Unless of course the item stayed for a month already. --Howard the Duck 08:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Euro value

Seeing you have the fact that the euro has reached a record, I'm going to mention that the euro last traded at $1.5169 (higher than the main page says) Calvin 1998  _Contribs 04:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

ITN style

I've created a skeleton page at Misplaced Pages:In the news section on the Main Page/Style to discuss and develop standard formats for reporting common ITN items for events such as elections, sports championships, awards, and the like. Please go there and comment or add others examples. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting picture change

Sorry if this is the wrong place to do it, but can I suggest changing the picture on the template to one of John McCain now that his nomination is secured? Medvedev, while still important, is several items down now, and there are a number of free pictures of McCain that are readily available. Image:Raustadt Photo of McCain-1.JPG is the current picture on his profile. --jonny-mt 09:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest at WP:ITN/C. Grant.Alpaugh 10:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Great; thanks! --jonny-mt 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Swayze

I wonder if his impending death (I hope he beats it) is notable enough? --Howard the Duck 03:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

While there seems some debate as to his health he doesn't meet any of the criteria, which, while constantly debated, remain unchanged: (a) the deceased was in a high ranking office of power at the time of death, (b) the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically, (c) the death has a major international impact that affects current events. --Stephen 03:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is, but there is probably no chance that it will make it on the itn. Too many people complaining how others were more important, people questioning his actual importance, yadda yadda yadda. It meets the b criteria, but the others... eh... --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the death in five weeks thing seems to be a rumor. I don't think that has been confirmed. Apparently the treatment is going well. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How certain is presumptive

Copied from flamewar on WP:ITN/C.Madcoverboy (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with having some sort of story up, my only issue is with declaring McCain the nominee before he is the nominee. As Plasma pointed out, even if the results of a championship game are incredibly skewed, we cant declare a team the champion here until it happens - or rather, until a reliable, credible source says it has happened. No reliable, credible sources are saying that McCain has already won the nomination, they are saying he is the presumed nominee, much like you can presume a team that is up by a large margin will probably win - but has not yet. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with whoever it was that said to change it. Many things can happen until the time of the convention. Many states can vote to unbound their "bound" delegates, and still, in some states, even bound delegates can get away with voting for who they really want, though often with some sort of citation for doing so from their state's GOP. And even still, there are very little physical delegates in real life right now... Just some numbers you hear on the news mean nothing until the convention. Because of this, I say remove the news story or at least change the name until the official nomination is made. xihix(talk) 02:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about, Xihix. The delegates have already been elected in most of the Republican primaries. Because the Republicans have winner-take-all contests in the vast majority of their states each campaign simply picks the people they want to be their delegates if they win before the election is held. The people exist and have already been chosen, with the exception of the few Republican caucuses, in which case they get chosen at a later date. Either way, states don't regularly unbind their delegates, nor would they want to. I agree that just because a team is winning a championship game by a large margin we shouldn't put it up, but if the other team concedes the game, then it is over. Ron Paul is hardly a serious candidate, and Mitt Romney (if not all the others) has thrown his support (and his delegates) to John McCain, which gives McCain somewhere in the neighborhood of 1500 delegates, well over the 1191 barrier by anyone's measure. He he already won the nomination, and the only way he won't is if he concedes due to a scandal or dies. It really is a lot more finalized than you are giving credit for. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity, this is exactly like saying we shouldn't post the results on Election Day because it is really the Electoral College who elect the President. Technically in that case all the states could unbind their Electors and the College could elect any natural-born citizen who is over 40 years of age. This is ridiculous. He is the nominee and it is foolish to act as though he's not. Throwing out pointless hypotheticals is stupid and a waste of time. I mean we don't even know for sure that there will be an election in November, there could be a terrorist attack and Bush could suspend the election. Technically we could all die in a gamma ray burst tomorrow. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh, you are being very deceptive here! While the other option remains is that you yourself do not understand anything about how the process works. Please click on this link and educate yourself 2008 Republican National Convention.Read carefully what it says " The attending delegates at the convention will choose and nominate the Republican Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates for the 2008 Presidential election. 1,191 delegates are necessary for a candidate to win the nomination." Stop deception!

He already has the 1,191 delegates needed. He's right, you don't know what your talking about. Irregardless, I still think it should be changed to Susan's idea. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon, did you even bother to read the above post? Also, please sign your posts with four tildes like this ~~~~ -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Plasma Twa 2, prove that you are right and explain to me this statement " The attending delegates at the convention will choose and nominate the Republican Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates for the 2008 Presidential election. 1,191 delegates are necessary for a candidate to win the nomination." 2008 Republican National Convention, if you cannot then simply you are wrong!

Alright. Pay attention, for I shall blow your mind with my amazing skills. 1,191 delegates are necessary for a candidate to win the nomination. He has over 1,191 delegates right now. I'm not even American and I know that. I am a genius, aren't I? --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize Ron Paul was a Wikipedian. Very interesting... Ron, sign your posts. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Move it to the talk page please. ---CWY2190 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Grant, you are no understanding what I am saying. Yes, the delegates have been awarded to the candidate. In numbers, he does have enough to win. But, it's up to the physical delegates at the convention. At the convention, many things can happen. The numbers you hear on the news mean nothing right now, it's the actual people who show up at the convention in six months. I'd explain it better, but I don't feel like getting accusations of being an idiot or something. If you are specific as to what you are objecting in what I'm saying, I'll explain it to you. xihix(talk) 03:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. On the first ballot the pledged delegats must vote for the candidate they're pledged for. McCain will already have enough delegates to win the nomination himself in this way, but even if he didn't Mitt Romney (and probably Mike Huckabee and the others) will give their delegates to McCain, which is totally within their rights to do. This means that the delegates will have to vote for McCain, so unless he doesn't accept the nomination (which we have no indication that he will do) or dies before the convention, he will be the Republican nominee. So, no, it's really not up to them then is it? -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And I believe Grant is trying to say that doing that would be like waiting until the beginning of January when the electoral college vote is counted to put up the 44th President on ITN. ---CWY2190 03:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What I think the problem is is that you're right in saying that there are physical people who do the voting, but you don't seem to realize that those people are bound by party rules to vote a certain way on their first ballot. If they don't they will be thrown out of the convention. If the first ballot is inconclusive, then the delegates are free to vote for whoever they please, and we will have a brokered convention. The reason 1191 and 2025 are such important numbers is that if any candidate gets that number of delegates in the Republican and Democratic conventions, respectively, then the first ballot is nothing more than a formality and according to party rules that candidate must be offered the nomination. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what you say, there are other things that can still happen. State GOP's releasing their bound delegates, for example. You can say it can't happen or won't, but you aren't the one to judge what the delegates choose to do at their state's convention. Also, Huckabee and Romney can't just give their delegates to McCain, it's more complicated than that. There are other reasons why McCain could not get the nomination, but I don't feel that I need to share them. I've already proven why a nomination could not happen for McCain, which is why it should not be on the ITN. edit conflict Well, they are bound to vote a certain way, that is true. But, they can still vote for who they aren't bound to. They will be thrown out of their GOP after the convention, which means that they their vote will count at the national convention. xihix(talk) 04:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line, Xihix, is that the scenarios you are putting forth are exceedingly unlikely and would be unprecidented. There are literally infinite numbers of things that could happen, as I said before you're basing your speculation on the idea that the convention will happen or even that the election will happen, which isn't necessarily a given. Again, please refer to my General Election argument, which you've yet to answer. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you're wrong. The candidates are within their rights to assign their delegates to another candidate. It's known as "releasing delegates," and there was some controversey surrounding Dennis Kucinich's reluctance to release his delegates at the 2004 Democratic Convention. On the first ballot, all delegates are bound by the rules of the party to vote a certain way. Again, please explain how this is different from saying we should wait until after the results of the Electoral College vote in January before announcing the results of the election. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh what are you talking about? Who cares if Ron Paul or W Bush. I am watching the debate and what I have seen is that you are clueless. Should I assume that you are a McCain supporter or working for Sean Hannity? Stop the propaganda!!!

Thank you for confirming my suspicion. And, again, sign your posts, I know you can if you just try. Also, consider creating an account. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And I am Alan Colmes. (keeps quiet :D) --Howard the Duck 04:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL Howard. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if the things I mentioned are unlikely, according to you anyway, they are still things that can happen. Also, about the electoral college and the President, I'm not sure about that. I wasn't here in 2004 to know what happened then, and at the moment, I'm more interested in the GOP nomination than anything, since I've been researching and reading about it for so long. I'll give you an opinion in November. xihix(talk) 05:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They are the same thing, Xihix. The next President will not be elected on "Election Day" in November, at least not technically speaking. The people we all vote for are listed on the ballot as "Electors" who have been chosen by their party to represent each state in the Electoral College, which officially elects the President months after "Election Day." The thing is in most states (I mean like all but Nebraska and Maine if memory serves) the Electors are bound to vote the way the state votes. Since there are 538 Electors, once a candidate gets 270 Electors, they are all but formally Elected President, even though the official Electoral College process wont take place for a few months. This is just like the Republican and Democratic Primaries, because once a candidate gets 1191 or 2025 delegates, they are all but formally the nominee. The only way this doesn't happen is if no candidate gets 270, 1191, or 2025, in which case the House of Representatives, the Republican Convention delegates, or the Democratic Convention delegates would actually have to debate this issue, which hasn't happened in a really long time. So, as you can see, it is really not as up in the air as you seem to think it is. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It may not be very up in the air, but the fact is that the chance is still there. If that is the case with the general election, then ok, I believe the news should only be on ITN the day s/he is sworn in. xihix(talk) 05:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's really what you're advocating then I think you will quickly find you have no support for that idea. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to keep things friendly, OK? If something unexpected happens to keep McCain from actually being nominated — say, he has a stroke and falls into a coma — we'll have another item for ITN. There's no rule that says the American presidential election can only be mentioned three times in a year. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't agree with User:74.179.138.238 here but it is inappropriate to make completely unsupported suggestions like claiming he or she is Ron Paul. Please see WP:NPA. It brings nothing to the discussion Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke I was trying to make about someone who had parachuted into the conversation and was slandering me. They're comments were also inappropriate, the difference is that mine were inappropriate and funny :p but you're point is well taken. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbia PM Stands Down

sounds like big news to me! - ARC Gritt 15:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated it at Misplaced Pages:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates‎. If you think it should be on the template, then please go and support it. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be reminded that we don't report news on ITN. ITN is a place on MainPage to showcase articles well updated with materials related to current events, not a news-ticker. If you want this news on MainPage, please help update the relevant articles in Misplaced Pages. (And also please take care of the {{POV}} problem on Vojislav Koštunica. It's not a good thing to feature problem articles on MainPage. Many thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.248.34 (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spain blurb

The wording of the blurb on the Spanish election doesn't cover the result very well, imo. First of all, Zapatero hasn't been re-elected, since the election was not about the position of the PM. It was a parliamentary election, won by his party. That doesn't mean that Zapatero has been re-elected, it means that the leader of the winning party (i.e. Zapatero) is likely to lead the next government. Likely, because it's not certain that PSOE will form the next government. The PSOE has won a plurality, but not a majority, and the new coalition hasn't been formed yet. Aecis 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please replace

The image currently being used (Image:Rhean rings PIA10246.jpg) should be replaced; I already uploaded full-resolution version at Image:Rhean rings PIA10246 Full res.jpg a couple days ago. --M@rēino 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer

If he resigns, it should go on ITN. He's reasonably world-famous from his sheriff-of-Wall-Street days. His replacement would be the first black governor of New York and the first blind governor in U.S. history. And if the re-election of the head of government of an EU member state with 400,000 people is ITN-notable, than the change in head of government of a U.S. "member state" with 19 million people is ITN-notable as well. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest it on WP:ITN/C. See if there's a consensus. --Stephen 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that if he does resign. No point now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be notable, but I would bet it gets shot down. ---CWY2190 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Being notable isn't enough, apparently (Warren Buffet, Prince Harry...). And don't compare this to an election, Mwalcoff. That is much more important, historically and encyclopedically then this will ever be. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the excitement of an American political news on ITN but this is too local to be included; I'd rather see a scandal involving Bush's cabinet, that's more international. --Howard the Duck 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The hook should link to Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal, since that article exists again. --Rividian (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I'm not actually an admin, but I'm marking this as resolved as its already been done for some time now.--Fyre2387 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Balance (or lack thereof)

I guess we can't help what news is out at the moment and I'm not usually one to complain about things like this, but having half items on ITN related to space and the other half being electoral results seems more than a bit unbalanced! PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Then suggest some more content... --Stephen 11:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the Discussion here, can someone remove the Jules Verne line? Spencer 20:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages boss 'edited for donation'.

Just wondering if this story will be added to the news section?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.156.5 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not important enough. Not even one thousandth of percent close. El_C 14:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Criteria 2 & 4

Can someone explain to me why 2 & 4 are separate criteria?

2. The current event needs to be important enough to warrant updating the corresponding article.

4. The article must be updated to reflect the new information and have a recent date linked (but remember: Misplaced Pages is not a news report so relatively small news items should not be put into articles; thus those type of news items should not be displayed on the Main Page).

Wouldn't it be enough to say: The current even must be notable enough to include in the corresponding article. Keeping in mind that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, the article must also be updated to include the new information.

Questions, thoughts? Madcoverboy (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan riots, not protests

The 10 people were killed in riots, not protests. Protests results in casualties only in extreme cases, such as protestors refusing to eat. The people killed in question are innocent civilians, mostly Chinese, burned to death by violent protestors. This source which is used in the article supports it.Herunar (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

All that the source says about this is: "China's official Xinhua News Agency reported at least 10 were killed Friday when demonstrators rampaged in Lhasa, setting fire to shops and cars. "The victims are all innocent civilians, and they have been burnt to death," Xinhua quoted an official with the regional government as saying." I wouldn't call Xinhua or the government official reliable or unbiased enough to use as direct sources for ITN entries without any corroborating information. At this moment, we have no corroboration. All that we have is Xinhua and the government official. That's nowhere near enough, imo. YMMV though. Aecis 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Do you dispute my claim that these are riots, not protests? Why? Both by definition of riots and because the article called them "riots", not "protests", I believe that's the term we should use on the frontpage. "Protests" don't burn people to death. How hard is that to understand? Herunar (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we don't know if people have burnt to death. All we have for it are uncorroborated statements from the Chinese government. What we do know is that there have been protests, and that people have died. The lowest number of casualties reported is 10, the highest is roughly 100. How many people have died and how they have died is uncertain. The blurb as it stands takes that uncertainty into consideration. You otoh want us to follow unsubstantiated claims. Aecis 17:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But we are certain that they are riots, which is why I brought up this discussion. That's what the AP itself claimed - no quotations. Herunar (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm..I can see your point now. But I'm not comfortable with the current wording, that 10 people are killed in protests - are they protestors, or innocent civilians? Are they killed by police, or by rioters? These are completely different matters. I have a compromise - "Unrest in Tibet leaves at least ten dead." This would include both the police crackdown and riots, corresponds to the[REDACTED] article's title, and IMHO sounds better. Herunar (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Protests results in casualties only in extreme cases, such as protestors refusing to eat." Ever heard of police crackdowns on protests, btw? They can lead to casualties as well. While a lot of what is going on in Tibet is unclear at the moment, it is at the very least not unlikely that this happened. Aecis 17:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's another case. Yes, there may be casualties due to police crackdown. Nothing of this sort has been reported by verifiable sources at all, however. We're talking about the 10 people dead here because of riots, not the people killed in the police crackdown. No, it's not unclear because "riots" is exactly what the AP article is saying and that's the article we're citing to write our news, right? Herunar (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the news is claiming everything, it just depends on which source you're looking for. Australia's ABC calls it "unrest", International Herald Tribune calls it "riots", and CBS calls them "protests". Perhaps unrest could be used? That would cover both protests and riots and seems somewhat nuetral.--Bobblehead 18:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)