huricane katrina

Russian Sub Event

Almost all the content in AS-28 is present in Priz class. The AS-28 article should probably be merged into Priz class to prevent duplication and the articles getting out of sync. There are less than 5 of these small (3-6 man) vessels so even if they all were involved in notable events they could be covered in the Priz class article. Doing the required redirect and merge would result in two links to the same article on the main page.

Makes sense to me. Be sure to drop a note back if you merge so an admin knows to change it. - BanyanTree 19:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I changed it. - BanyanTree 20:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The solution decided on Talk:AS-28 was to remove the duplicate content on the incident from Priz class, and retain both articles.

For the record, there was no such decision. Dan100 (Talk) 10:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Template needs updating now vessel resurfaced and all crew alive. Suggest: A Priz class mini-submarine of the Russian Navy, the AS-28, which had been disabled and sunk in an accident near Kamchatka has resurfaced following assistance from the British Royal Navy, the seven-man crew are all alive.

• I've updated it.--Pharos 04:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a spelling error - should be "international". =Travisyoung= 04:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Israeli terrorist killing 4 Arab-Israeli citizens, including two girls

An Israeli terrorist in Israeli army uniform, wearing the Jewish skull-cap shot 4 Arab-Israeli citizens to death. Of the four victims two were sisters (muslim) and two were Christian Arabs. Thousands of mourners attended the funerals. Can someone please include this in the "In The News" section since it seems only people with special privileges can update that page. Thanks. -- here is one of numerous links in the news.

Needs to have an article associated with it first. --Golbez 05:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

If you just want to write news articles, go to Wikinews. Dan100 (Talk) 10:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Too long?

The ITN section is getting a little long, maybe we could drop Michaëlle Jean? Ddye 23:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Obituaries

... that's quite a few deaths on the front page! Pretty lethal template we have here... - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we go back to the old "No Obituary" rule ? -- PFHLai 13:07, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

I'm afraid I may have helped start the most recent influx by putting John Garang up as it had direct impact upon a major conflict/peace agreement and I felt it was worth bending the rules for. But (however much I may associate 9-11 with Jennings' steadying presence), deaths of people who used to have a lot of influence really shouldn't go on ITN.

I would like to have a rule that only deaths that are of sufficient importance to merit their own article (Reagan and Pope John Paul II) or deaths that cause notable events (Garang) should go on ITN, but the latter criteria looks like it could be confusing - not allowing deaths of notable people while allowing notable deaths of notable people. If people want, we can go back to the stricter "no deaths that don't merit their own article" rule. - BanyanTree 21:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Just wanna say that Garang's death was a good entry on ITN. Chaos ensued in Sudan. If BanyanTree had not posted it, I would have done it myself. However, the death of Cook and then Jennings were probably weak cases. Besides the media attention and a funeral, their death leads to nothing really noteworthy. I'd only post such "obituaries" on ITN on slow news days. -- PFHLai 10:31, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

I see you just removed the mention of David Lange's death. I've got to say that from a Kiwi's point of view it is a pretty noteworthy death. He was undoubtedly our most charismatic and influential leader in living memory, and under his tenure NZ made enormous world-changing reforms. He was suffering from terminal diseases (amyloidosis, diabetes, renal failure) and had suffered heroically for years. If there is a "no notable deaths" rule, that is fine, but in that case let's make the criteria really clear and be consistent about it. (Right now there are no rules concerning obituaries on the Wikipedia ITN guidelines) -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 01:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I understand that the rule for deaths on ITN is that it has to be someone who's currently in a major position of power or notability, not someone who once was such. Thus if Helen Clark dropped dead, that would be appropriate on ITN. Lange's death is on the deaths section of Current events and Current events in Australia and New Zealand, and its on the New Zealand portal page. Someone does need to write something about his life and death for Wikinews-gadfium 02:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we get consensus on this? Otherwise, it's going to be an edit war everytime somebody puts up the death of a figure who was a "former" something. I would like to suggest a seventh line to the guidelines, along the lines of:

A death should only be placed on ITN if it meets one of two criteria: (1) the funeral ceremony merits its own article or (2) the death has a major impact on current events. The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets Criteria 2.

This an attempt to make the general case that if somebody hasn't bothered to write something like Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan or Funeral of Pope John Paul II, or if the best description that can be given is "S/he once did great things", then it shouldn't go on ITN. Without detracting from their achievements, there are any number of people who die every day who have done notable things. The "multiple articles" bit comes from an observation of mine that non-notable deaths of notable people tend to be summed up in a blurb at the bottom of the article, while the notable deaths result in modifications to articles on political processes and structures, other political figures whose relative power has shifted, etc. Thoughts? - BanyanTree 15:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the criterion that "the funeral ceremony merits its own article" is that any such article might not be created until several days after the actual death, whereas ITN reports might go up within minutes of the death. Also, this criterion might actually encourage people to create a separate article where one isn't really warranted. I'm not sure whether these concerns are that important though. In general terms, I support BanyanTree's proposal to make things clearer. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 20:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I had moved the proposal into the criteria and immediately had to refer to it after Mo Mowlam's death was put up on ITN. - BanyanTree 21:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see no harm having a simple short sentence when someone of former importance dies. These criteria sould be though of as suggestive rather than as rules, wikipedia has far too many at all. If you disagree with something, do what we've always done remove it and/or discuss it here, case by case. When Baroness Thatcher dies, I for one will be adding it to Itn. Dmn € Դմն 22:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Taken broadly, every person who has a bio page here is of some importance, and it would be obviously impractical to list all their deaths. Taken more narrowly, simply listing the deaths of former heads of states and ministers worldwide would result in an ITN that is mostly obituaries. Some might argue that only those from major industrialized countries should be included, to which I would reply that those users are guilty of the worst sort of cultural and nationalistic myopia.

That said, there is obviously leeway inherent in the guidelines. For a while, there was a general understanding among regular ITN contributors that obituaries should be rare and this norm was used in arguments about the value of new obituaries. However, the lack of any written guideline has recently resulted in a steady increase in the number of deaths reported on ITN, normally following the placement of a death such as the recent ones affecting the Sudanese and Sri Lankan conflicts. Those of us who tried using the "no obituaries norm" ended up being shot down by those who stated that they were not aware of any such norm and pointing out the lack of written criteria on the subject. Ergo, this proposal. I agree with you that a friendly understanding is far better than a written guideline, but here we are. - BanyanTree 23:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I find myself basically in agreement with Banyantree here. We should generally not have deaths that do not significantly impact current events. I realize many people want to honor the memories of politicians they respect, but ITN, which generally can only have 4 or 5 items on at a time, is not really the place for that.--Pharos 23:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that Mo Mowlam is probably too parochial - but it was the major news story in the UK. However having every major news story for every country on ITN is clearly not workable. Secretlondon 14:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Abramoff

Jack Abramoff, a key figure in the ethics investigations into...

Is he an investigator or a suspect in the investigations? It isn't clear. --Dtcdthingy 22:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• He's a suspect. "Target" or "subject" would be a better technical term, though. Khanartist 23:00, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

These charges are not directly relalted to DeLay. I really don't think this story has the international significance to be on here. Ddye 03:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

And shouldn't there be mention that all this relates to the States? Whenever an article comes up about any other country, the country is mentioned, but here there is no mention of the United States at all.--Madison Gray 20:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is Abramoff even major news? This reeks of POV. 24.1.97.187 00:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Airline

What's with the Lufthansa plane? --Merovingian (t) (c) 20:00, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we could use the image from the banner in http://www.flyhelios.com/ (although it would be fair use, which some feel isn't appropriate for the main page). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The Lufthansa plane is a 737-300, just like the downed Helios plane, so it's illustrative. I don't think we should be using fair use images on the main page.--Pharos 20:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the image is PD, I edited out the lufthansa writing and symbols. Does anyone thing this image would be better? Dmn € Դմն 20:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know... nice effort, but it might be a little misleading to pretend that it's not a Lufthansa plane, and to give the impression that it might be the Helios plane.--Pharos 20:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Disengagement blurb should be updated

The following section on the disengagement is no longer accurate:

Israel begins its unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip.

Israel began the disengagement on the 15th, this is already the beginning of Day 4 of the disengagement see the headline at [www.haaretz.com]

A better sentence might be "The Israeli military continues forcibly evacuating Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip as part of the disengagement plan.

GabrielF 00:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Gabriel, that would be an appropriate change for you to make. Pedant 02:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Image use on ITN

Just wanna point out that "(right)" next to Sergei K. Krikalev no longer applies, and needs to be removed. And also, the wrong image file was Mprotected. Image:Flag of Western Sahara is on ITN right now, not the protected Image:800px-Flag of Western Sahara. Please fix. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 07:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Great. I would hate to see another dirty picture sneaking in onto the Main Page. Thanks ! -- 199.71.174.100 07:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sergi Krikalev

It might be best to alter this to "broke the record for the most days spent in space", as: a) if this stays up longer, the number will be wrong, since he's broken his previous record by another day; and b) per Jim Oberg here, it seems that technically he doesn't "set" a new record (as opposed to simply beating the old one) until the old one's exceeded by 10% (which seems a bit picky to me, but there you go). Shimgray 18:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong

The Armstrong story doesn't belong here, he has been accused of doping many times before. This story isn't ITN material at all until something more concrete is discovered. Ddye 15:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing you haven't read any of the coverage. This is not an accusation, he's been tested positively. Dan100 (Talk) 16:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have read it. The accuracy of the tests is disputed, and more importantly they're 6 years old, so clearly the race officials who received them didn't consider the results significant. Until something is shown to have changed since then, all this is is L'Equipe digging up some old lab records. Ddye 17:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Error in Lance Armstrong text !

L'Equipe is a 'sports newspaper, not a cycling paper. They cover all sorts of sports, including cycling. Please change this. --Zantastik talk 16:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki links

I've added interwiki links to all 10K Wikipedias with an analogue to ITN. The interwiki is only visible when looking directly at the template, thanks to the new <noinclude> tag (see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Interlanguage links in templates).--Pharos 18:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Pat Robertson

Seems like there's an ITN edit war over "U.S. televangelist Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez." I strongly feel that this doesn't belong on ITN. Pat Robertson is a TV show host. Sure, he's run for president a few times but that doesn't make him a politician. Basically he's a celebrity, and celebs say stupid things all the time. It's not newsworthy, so I removed it again. Know what though? If someone replaces the Pat Robertson thing, I'll leave it there - but I'll wait for the next stupid thing Bill Maher or Al Franken says, and I expect that I'll be allowed to post it on ITN. Rhobite 00:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. If Chavez or the Venezuelan govt does anything interesting in response beyond the bad-mouthing they've been doing for months, or the U.S. government does something silly, then that would be newsworthy. Robertson has a long history of saying ridiculous things that make you slap your forehead in dismay and disbelief and this really isn't exceptional in the universe of Pat. - BanyanTree 01:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? The Pat Robertson call for Chavez's assassination has been the top cable and internet news story for the last two days, it's obviously noteworthy. zen master T 01:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Love the double standards, Zen. If we're in the business of reporting the "top cable news" stories, let's just give Natalee Holloway her main page permalink right now. Deal? Rhobite 01:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The two standards you are comparing are not equal. I am not advocating the censorship of the Natalie Halloway story but you are actively supporting the censorship of the Pat Robertson public call for assassination. zen master T 06:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Censorship? What a childish thing to say. Do you see me removing the incident from Pat Robertson? Rhobite 06:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Reducing the number of people that are exposed to an issue is a form of censorship. Also, the argument that Pat Robertson is a celebrity and celebs say stupid things all the time as an argument against including the Pat Robertson story in ITN does not make sense, it seems like rationalization in support of censorship. Pat Robertson did not say any random crazy thing, he publically called for the assassination of the democratically elected leader of a foreign country. zen master T 06:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah put it back. It was one of the main headlines on the BBC news earlier. Jooler

What's on U.S. cable news is not a good indicator of newsworthiness. They always make a big to-do whenever Robertson makes one of these types of statements. For the BBC, I think this is more a "Isn't that guy wacky?" story than anything else. It's not ITN-worthy.--Pharos 01:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Pat Robertson's statement is the most noteworthy international story of the last 2 days and it is still continuing. Also note this template is protected from editing so only admins can edit it ("protected from editing" should in fact be renamed to "only admins can edit it" to be clear). zen master T 01:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not an international story, it's a "ha ha look at what this jackass said" story. It's also two day old news. Rhobite 01:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It also will have no histroical impact and he has since retracted and apollogized his call for assasination, a fact not explained in the part originally put in ITN. (via edit conflict) This link is Broken 01:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Being the top cable story doesn't matter. Have we had Cindy Sheehan or Natalie Holloway on there? --Golbez 01:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Robertson saying stupid things -- about Al Franken or abortion or homosexuality for example -- ok, that wouldn't be news. The fact that he's picked on Chávez this time round: that does tip the balance somewhat. It's not a Robertson story; it's a Robertson/Chávez story, international news with a diplomatic dimension. It's not pushing any other major story off ITN; slow news day; I'd say leave it. –Hajor 01:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless Chavez has done anything in response, I wouldn't call this an international news yet. -- PFHLai 02:21, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

Chavez did comment. He basically said "who the hell is Pat Robertson? I've never heard of him." - Nunh-huh 02:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Haha ! In Spanish, eh ? :-) -- PFHLai 02:34, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

This isnt just stupid -- this is a major figure in conservative American politics and a "reverend" representative of its claimed "moral tradition" who's publicly called for the murder of a democratically-elected foreign leader. Stupid is just a nice way of putting it. -St|eve 02:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

So you feel that it should be included in ITN because it presents Robertson in a particularly bad light? And this is worth revert warring over, on the main page? Rhobite 04:30, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'd revert now if I didn't try follow 1RR. This link is Broken 02:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's up there already ? Can we not have it by the Peruvian Flag, please ? I don't know what image would be free and appropriate, though.-- PFHLai 02:23, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

Never mind. Katrina is here to the rescue ... -- PFHLai 02:24, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

It was newsworthy, probably more newsworthy than this, when Lech Wałęsa recently publicly supported a color revolution in Belarus, but controversial statements from public figures not in political power aren't newsworthy enough for ITN. The item should be removed.--Pharos 02:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I am amazed that there is even a dispute about this. Someone who sought the presidential nomination in one of the major US political parties and who ran himself for the presidency, who is one of the most prominent televangelists in the US and an international name, calls for the assassination of another country's head of state — how exactly is that not news? It featured in every UK broadsheet paper I looked at today, German newspapers, the two French newspapers I read and in all the Irish newspapers. By any definition it is a major story. Even by the pathetic standards of that asshole, this was an astonishing and disgraceful comment. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 17:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)}

The tropical storm item has been removed, making this story the top one, yet the image is still of Florida, which has AFAIK no relation to Pat Robertson's story. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 21:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Why was Katrina the Storm removed ? Has Hugo done anything to make her disappear ? 23:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Add restore add restore add restore...

Could we please stop acting like children? If someone has added an item, respect his/her judgment and wait until it falls off the bottom of the page rather than removing it. (FWIW I think both the Chavez and Tibet stories are reasonable additions, but it's not worth edit-warring about). Mark¹ 03:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

Katrina now has its own article Hurricane Katrina (2005). If it really threatens to be something much worse, it may get the main article. CrazyC83 16:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Which it has. It is now Hurricane Katrina. The (2005) addition is a redirect now. CrazyC83 18:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Please update the ITN blurb for Katrina to reflect the new casualty count. --Titoxd 05:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Brogden

I don't think the resignation of John Brogden as New South Wales Opposition Leader is note-worthy enough for the Main Page. Bob Carr resigned last month and wasn't mentioned here, and he was Premier! Sure, it's a controversy, but one that is confined to New South Wales, or at best, Australia. It's not of international significance.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

And by raising my concerns, I meant for the story to be removed... It shouldn't be there.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What crap. This is a media story that has been reported all over the world, and it is a national news story that is still ongoing. Yet I see a Pat Robertson story still on the main page. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

And nobody is discussing this before reverting. Wonderful. So much for talk pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

What about Atiku Abubakar? At least he's a Vice President (of a very large country).--Pharos 03:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no issues with having him on the main page. I do have an issue of an event of equal significance (globally and politically) from another part of the world other than the U.S. being removed - without any discussion might I point out. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree the Pat Robertson story should stay, it definitely passes the muster. Let's avoid terms like crap though shall we?

And yes, the Atiku Abubakar thing should be listed here too, though I'd be more comfortable with it if the article were cleaned up a little first. --fvw* 03:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point. The Brogden article was removed without any discussion. When I did discuss the change, it got reverted anyway. And I might point out that Brogden resigning was a huge issue. I used the word crap - OK, not the best way of approaching things, but I get annoyed sometimes. Especially when I see that I've followed the guidelines on what is notable for adding to the article and get reverted. Hardly a pleasant experience. Reverting basically says that the news story wasn't notable, something that is demonstrably NOT the case. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Noone thinks Brogden should be on the main page, Ta bu shi da yu is using this template to violate WP:POINT.--nixie 03:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah? And you:

1. aren't bothering to follow Wikipedia:Assume good faith
2. are accusing me of breaking WP:POINT - how? How am I being disruptive to prove a point?! I've already explained why I'm adding the material.
3. those who copyedited the entry (see the history) disagree with you.

How lovely of you to make a personal attack. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Just so that people know what I'm having to put up with here, please review this edit:

"The only reason you have given for the worthinness of that piece of news if that -Pat Robertson- was on ITN (which many Wikipedians also agreed with). The top international new items today seem to be the hurricane, the Iraqi constitution, the Japanese election and the threat of resumption of conflict in the Congo. Some minor Australia politican being a racist is not suitable for the main page and your actions did seem to violate WP:POINT"

So that we are clear: John Brogden was not a minor Australian politician (rather the NSW state opposition leader) and his actions are extremely notable. For the record, I have told nixie to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith - I most certainly did not add this entry to cause disruption or prove a point. I added it on its merits alone, and don't appreciate being told otherwise when it is clearly not the case. Haven't people learned yet? Every single damn edit I make on this site has a purpose and I try very bloody hard not to violate policies. To be blunt: being accused of these things seriously gives me the shits. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever... please keep details in the article. Only headlines on ITN, please. Please see the Candidates page for a suggested shortened version. -- 199.71.174.100 04:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You know what annoys me? People getting agitated over relatively minor incidents. Ta bu shi da yu, it was discussed prior - I raised it here, and Violetriga concurred in his edit summary and so later did nixie. (And please, try and be more polite - keep the wikilove). As to the notability of the story, I dispute it. Yes, it was carried by all major news organisations, as one expect it to be. But no organisation (at least, none of those I checked) outside Australia featured it prominently. Rather, it was relegated to "World", and sometimes even a sub-division thereof. The Pat Robertson story, by contrast, was internationally significant - a prominent person (a religious one no less, with "followers" world-wide) advocating the assassination of a world leader. How is that not notable? However, I concede there does tend to be US-centrism in the stories selected, and far many more internationally significant events have occurred since the Robertson saga. It's just, Brogden wasn't one. I still think it should be replaced.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we keep the stuff about the reasons for his attempted suicide? I don't mind if we keep the story, but it seems that speculation why he tried to kill himself might fall under WP:NOT a crystal ball. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 01:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read in the media here (I'm in Aus), all that's been said is that he was found in a drunken stupor, the media seems to have inferred the suicide part.--nixie 02:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

From what I've heard (I caught it last night on late night TV, but Internet was down - damn storms!), he was intoxicated, unconscious and slightly (non-significantly) injured, with a knife (of some sort) nearby. Apparently his secretary discovered him slumped over in a backroom of his electorate office and called the police (and other services). I'm still not confident it should be displayed here (and nobody has tried to convince me otherwise).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I tried to check on the BBC site, but they don't mention the story at all [1]. Which may be relevant in itself. Mark¹ 04:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Just think about it logically and rationally. Brogden's comments and suicide attempt are nothing compared with the other events of global magnitude. I'd say get rid of it from ITN... Enochlau 14:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

That would seem the general consensus. But things are rather slow 'bout these parts...--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitely slow. It's still there. Enochlau 03:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd probably prefer it stayed, but with the other more serious events of the last couple of days, I wouldn't be surprised if it went, either. Ambi 19:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• I am surprised the Brogden story is still featuring. While it is a discussion topic in the Saturday newspapers here in Australia, I am very surprised there is not something else that might have happened more newsworthy somewhere in the world to take his place (for example, 45 die in a typhoon in China or the Taliban claim killing of a kidnapped election candidate?). I don't disagree it that it should have been included , but it should be moved on now.--AYArktos 10:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it should be retired and replaced. The story fell as quickly as it rose. Although I became less concerned after the suicide attempt (or "episode of self-harm"), I still don't think it should have ever found its way on to ITN. As far as I can tell, only two people have been in favour of it being here, and all others (here, and at AWNB and Talk:Main Page) have voiced concern. Anyways, I think the point to be made is that, yes, there needs to be a greater international focus (instead of what would seem to be a tendency towards US news), and also a higher turnover.

My suggested replacements include: the anniversary of the Besland tragedy [2]; Category 5 Typhoon Nabi approaching Okinawa [3]; the Nepalese Maoists declaring a ceasefire (however temporary) [4]; Zimbabwe's bid/bribe to remain in the IMF (and in so doing, further destroying a formerly great country) [5]; and the completion of an IAEA investigation into Iran [6].--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Map of the bridge

The current map is pretty useless as it is. Nobody can make out any detail. It just looks like some mixture of blue, orange, and black lines. Can we get the picture enlarged, replaced with another one, or done away with entirely.--Will2k 19:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• As the person who uploaded that image, I agree. BTW, you can read it easily at full scale in the article.--Pharos 19:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Baghdad bridge stampede

The correct wiki link is: Baghdad bridge stampede. --ThomasK 07:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

More newsworthy??

1,000 people die in a bridge collapse yesterday, and all the news talks about is this damn hurricane, as if it was unexpected. Who knew there'd be hurricanes in hurricane season??? Why is this more newsworthy than the 1000 dead (and countless injured) in the bridge collapse? Are you telling me "efforts" are not still underway to help the the injured in Baghdad? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-1 21:19

• Several thousands have died in the hurricane. You must not have been following events there very closely.--Pharos 21:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It'll be weeks before we have a rough estimate. Do you have a special insider who's gone around counting the confirmed deaths, or are you just listening to the Fox News hype? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-2 17:32
    • Please don't tell me my news source is Fox News, because it isn't. The estimate of "thousands" is from the Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco.--Pharos 21:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm utterly speechless, Brian. --Golbez 21:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not talking about the victims, but about those who cover the news. They are acting as if this is sudden and unexpected, when it has happened around 6 times a year every year for the last ~100 million years. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-2 17:32
    • Six times a year a major American city has been wiped out, a million people displaced inside a first world country, and the world economy affected? Christ, I must have been sleeping the past couple of decades, I didn't notice it. You're not helping your case any here. Do we stop covering plane crashes because we know that aircraft occasionally have mechanical failures? Shimgray 22:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• The entire city is wrecked and won't be open for buisness for months. Thousands may be dead from this disaster. That is more relevant than a stampede. Death counts don't decide importance. You ought to read up on the news before you comment on it or you will sound very ignorant. This link is Broken 22:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Thousands probably are dead; death tolls are pretty much up in the air just now. 15% of the US import/export capacity is stalled; in terms of economic damage and human effects, this is probably more costly than September 11. A thousand dead is a major tragedy; at least a thousand dead plus the world's fifth largest port, a major city, and 5% of the world's oil production being flattened is hardly somehow less newsworthy just because we knew hurricanes come along sometimes. Shimgray 23:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I'm just getting sick of this 24/7 dramatized news coverage, as if the news channels give a damn about the victims; they're just means to an end. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-2 02:44
    • And what does this have to do with WP:ITN, Brian? --Golbez 04:13, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, the hurricane has been at the top of ITN for quite some time now, then this bridge event came along, but was quickly dropped down a notch because we've chosen to focus on the continuing efforts to aid the hurricane's victims. The entire thing sounds regionally biased to me. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-2 05:19
        • I agree, the bridge should have been on top for a while. But it's counterproductive to both put it up there now, and to whine about it, with italics and three question marks and everything. Also, we don't have an article on the efforts in Baghdad, but we do on Katrina, and this is not a news page, it's ITN, which is supposed to focus on encyclopaedic stuffs, like new notable articles on efforts and disasters and stuff like that. --Golbez 05:45, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
          • This is exactly the bias I'm talking about. We are choosing to focus more on Katrina rather than the events in Baghdad because the hurricane is more immediate to Americans, and using the subsequent lack of coverage of the latter as justification for Katrina being more appropriate for ITN. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-2 17:28
            • (sarcasm) well, I suppose the two events could be merged into a single item, since the money for improving the dams all went into messing with Iraq. dab (ᛏ) 18:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact golbs, there is an article on the bridge collapse. I was under the impression, however, that the "biggest" event went first, and while 1,000 dead is certainly tragic, there could easily be that many dead in New Orleans plus all the bad stuff mentioned above.

• I didn't say there wasn't an article on the collapse; I said there wasn't an in-depth article on the effects, like we have with Katrina. And actually, it's usually chronological, not in terms of bigness. --Golbez 00:07, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

And don't think of this as something that was "expected". Sure we get hurricanes every year, but this event has most likely dwarfed every major natural disaster in the history of the United States. Don't treat it lightly. --tomf688^<TALK> 21:28, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 killed around 8,000 people and completely destroyed one of the U.S.'s major port cities. Katrina may give it a run for its money, but it certainly doesn't "dwarf" it. --Delirium 03:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

All lies! The world began in the 1980s. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-4 23:41

So far, all we have to go on is some claims that there may be thousands dead. So far the confirmed death toll (possibly in just New Orleans?) is at 59. Anyone can claim any number they want, and the larger the number, the more it will be repeated on the news networks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-4 23:38

As expected, the number of dead was inflated by a few orders of magnitude in order to bring in the $$$ and ratings. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-15 22:19

Are you kidding? There were nearly 1,000 deaths (and it might reach that soon enough). Most local/state/fed officials were the ones estimating hundreds or perhaps thousands of deaths from the beginning (quote in the Katrina article by Ray Nagin), NOT the media.

You seem to remain ignorant to the magnitude of this event, as above. --tomf688^<TALK> 00:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Rehnquist death

It doesn't matter now, since the death of Rehnquist has trumped both stories. Or does this just add to the American bias? Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know; his death is probably (at least by my standard) around the limit of notability for an obituary. He did, though, probably hold the most powerful judicial position in the world.--Pharos 04:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering his position as head of the Judicial branch of the government (like Bush is the head of the Executive branch), I'd say his death is at least ITN-worthy for a day or so. --tomf688^<TALK> 04:21, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

It's currently a scrolling breaking-news alert at the top of news.bbc.co.uk, with a promise of "More soon". So at least in the UK it's made the top of the news. --Delirium 05:12, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

As an avid supporter of internationalisation (or non-US bias) of Wikipedia, I think his death is ITN-worthy as well. -- Chuq 05:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

As do I. He held not not necessarily the most powerful judicial position in the world, but certainly the most significant in terms of spin-off effects. (As an aside, the US should give its judges the boot when they hit 70, like we do here in Australia ;-). Then we wouldn't have to sit around and wait for the inevitable.)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with you there, Cyber. Damn Constitution. ;) --tomf688^<TALK> 15:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Order of precedence

I think the Mandala airlines flight disaster in Indonesia should be displayed above the Rehnquist replacement. It is an ongoing event with over 150 dead, and seems of higher notability than Roberts' nomination. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

ITN items go in chronological order, not order of significance. — Dan | Talk 03:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

They happened on the same day.--nixie 03:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If that were so, then why was Huricane Katrina listed above the bridge stampede (not that I don't think it shouldn't have been)?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I initially put the bridge stampede below Katrina because the hurricane was just about to make landfall and had not hit yet. I support putting the Mandala crash above Roberts, and will do so now if there is no objection.--Pharos 04:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Done.--Pharos 04:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Katrina's front-page listing

Hurricane Katrina is now the bottom-listed article on ITN (of, unusually, a six-item listing) and thus on the brink of removal. But I wonder whether anyone is going to be brave enough to follow SOP and bump it off when the time comes and, in any case, whether that would be the right move. Perhaps we should (exceptionally, and at the risk of setting a precedent) bump off the second-lowest story -- currently, Typhoon Talim? –Hajor 17:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it still in the news? Yes. Therefore it should be on "In the news". Remove a story that's no longer in the news. [[smoddy]] 17:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yulia Tymoshenko

Yulia Tymoshenko is a woman, so it was her cabinet, not his! – Kpalion (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that too. Can we please have this corrected. 194.66.226.95 10:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

No, see Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The Cabinet is responsible to the President, and the Prime Minister is considered a member of the Cabinet.--Pharos 12:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps change it to "Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko dismisses most of his cabinet, including Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, amid accusations of corruption."? That way it's clear the "his cabinet" refers to him - as it is, it does look like it could be her cabinet and we messed up the pronouns, if your're not previously aware of the structure. Shimgray 13:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea; I've changed it to your wording.--Pharos 13:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Mismanagement

The link in to "mismanagement" (in Hurricane Katrina) leads to "Bush administration". Is this entirely NPOV? Thincat 10:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• There certainly are accusations of mismanagement by the Bush administration, but directly linking "mismanagement" to "Bush administration" is really overdoing it.--Pharos 12:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it's blatently POV and embarrassing. "government mismanagement" with "government" linking to Bush administration might be acceptable. I certainly think that this is not.--Sully 12:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Japan election

Can we change "Japan general election: Junichiro Koizumi's Liberal Democratic Party wins 296 of 480 seats in the House of Representatives." to "Japan general election: Junichiro Koizumi's ruling bloc wins a landslide victory in the lower house of the Diet of Japan"? A word landslide is, I think, gives a more accurate clear picture. -- Taku 00:23, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think so. Saying "296 of 480 seats" is much more precise and informative than the rather vague "landslide".--Pharos 00:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Numbers make little sense without context. What is significant is the LDP made a huge gain and saying it won 296 of 480 seats doesn't make this point. -- Taku 09:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. How about: "Japan general election: Junichiro Koizumi's Liberal Democratic Party wins a landslide 68 percent (296 of 480) victory in the lower house of the Diet of Japan". ? Pedant 02:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Election in Norway

It's only 87 seats, not 88. http://odin.dep.no/krd/html/valgresultat2005/frameset.html AP:61 + SV:15 + SP:11 = 87 demo 07:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Style of entries

I wonder if we might want to encourage a style where the primary, bolded article is generally placed at the start of an entry. I think this approach might make ITN a bit easier to scan at a glance. Here's a comparison of the different approaches:

• In Norway, the Red-Green Coalition wins the 2005 parliamentary election, taking 87 of 169 seats in the Storting.
• Around 3000 petrol stations in the UK run dry after panic-buying caused by fuel protests.
• Israel completes its disengagement from the Gaza Strip.
• FEMA director Michael D. Brown resigns amid criticism of his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in the United States. He is replaced by R. David Paulison.

• Norgwegian parliamentary election: the Red-Green Coalition wins, taking 87 of 169 seats in the Storting.
• UK fuel protests fuel panic-buying, causing 3000 petrol stations to run dry.
• Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip is complete.
• Michael D. Brown, director of FEMA, resigns amid criticism of his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in the United States. He is replaced by R. David Paulison.

Of course, this shouldn't be a foolish rule when it could create an awkward wording, but simply a style guidline. What's the general thought on this?--Pharos 23:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty ugly. Its only 4 lines of text - and the most relevant link is bolded, its not hard to miss.--nixie 23:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It would look quite different displayed on the Main Page, as there will almost always be at least one line of text vertically separating the starts of entries, even on large monitors. Cut-and-paste and preview on the Main Page to see what I mean; do you still see the same aesthetic problem? I think it looks more organized without appearing blocklike as it does displayed above. Of course, it is not rare to have double the number of entries up as we have currently.--Pharos 23:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I know what it looks like from messing around with DYK, and I do prefer them to be distributed through the text. Also what would happen in the case of two bolded terms like the current Katrina item?--nixie 23:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it makes sense for DYK to have a more conversational style (I mean it is, "Did you know..."), but with ITN I think it might make sense for a little more regularity. What we have here I think is an extreme iceberg situation. Wikipedia is a 100 story skyscaper full of people, and there's just a handful on the roof running the elevators. Considering the page view statistics, we're surpassing almost every news website, but it's clear only a tiny percentage of readers ever edit at all or understand anything about Wikipedia. When so very many people are coming here to read "headlines", I think ITN should just be as clear and simple at a glance as possible. As for the situation of two bolded items, I would just recommend putting the more important first.--Pharos 00:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm dubious -- wary of the encroaching Powerpontification of written discourse as a general rule, and I'd be particularly ill disposed towards using fragments instead of full grammatical sentences (see Israel, above), but what the heck. Why don't we go live with it for 24 hours, see if our readers respond massively either in favour or against, revert to the old format tomorrow at this time and meet back here for further discussion? –Hajor 00:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Petrol blockades

Can I suggest that we remove the UK petrol panic item, since filling stations are back to normal and the rolling roadblocks are not even a major story in the UK any more, let alone internationally? If no one objects, I'll remove it myself. --Heron 18:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I took it out, to balance the MainPage, as the right side appeared longer than the left. -- PFHLai 22:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

german elections

why are the german liberals (more votes than the greens or the left party) not mentioned? NOTE german liberal = NOT american liberal. Aleichem 23:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

If anything this item needs to be shortened, it is far too long and unbalancing the main page.--nixie 00:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

this is a better solution, but CDU gets 3 seats more than SPD. Aleichem 07:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The item should be updated. Preliminary official results are a lot more than "early ballot counts". In fact, this result is as final as it will get for the next two weeks. --Qualle (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've updated it on the ambiguous current situation.--Pharos 17:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Simon Wiesenthal

I don't know if I'll revert this just yet, but the death of Simon Wiesenthal does not meet our obituary criteria. Certainly his life's mission was very notable, but his death in itself is not a major event.--Pharos 17:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Deaths have been featured on "in the news" before and I think this one is major enough. I've restored it but left Rita as the main news item. Gamaliel 18:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see above Template talk:In the news#Obituaries section. -- PFHLai 16:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

how do I remove the Iraq War link?

How do I remove the Iraq War link on the front page? The story about the two british soldiers has been removed from that article. It doesn't fit there, since it is far too soon to assume it is an important encyclopedic event in the war. Is there some current events page that should be linked to instead?--Silverback 10:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It's removed. -- PFHLai 17:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Tom Delay should be Tom DeLay

DeLay's name is incorrectly capitalized at the present moment. NatusRoma 18:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. --fvw* 18:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

New Zealand General Election

"New Zealand general election: Helen Clark of the Labour Party returns for a third term as Prime Minister."

The new Government still hasn't been formed, so she hasn't officially returned for a third term as Prime Minister yet. The statement above is for news that has is probable, if not certain, but which has not yet occured.

According to Current events "she is set to form a third-term government after the National's lose a seat" and according to Current events in Australia and New Zealand she "must now confirm minor party support to form the new government". i c u r i t e 01:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

2005 Bali bombings

Could the image of the gorilla (as fascinating as it is) be replaced by either Image:2005 Bali bombings SCTV screenshot or Image:Bali blast 2005, or even Image:Indonesia flag large? There's a pretty decent article on the incident going now, and it should feature as our leading event, picture and all.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobel Prizes 2005

Can we get some info up now? — Sverdrup 18:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Mohamed ElBaradei are awarded the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize. —Cantus…☎ 09:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

2005 Kashmir earthquake

2005 South Asia earthquake was moved to 2005 Kashmir earthquake, so please change the template to reflect the move and remove the redirect. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope I haven't exceeded my authority in changing the News template, but it looks bad to have the headline disagreeing with the full article. Also, for the sake of our own credibility, I think we should stick to the confirmed death toll and not display the most pessimistic estimate available. --Heron 11:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The current casualty count listed in the article's "Confirmed Casualties" section is: "At least 40,000 people had been killed and 42,397 people had been hurt", Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao said. Since this is only in Pakistan, You all may want to raise the headline to 40,000. Ahseaton 05:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Pakistani officials have sharply raised their estimate of the death toll to more than 54,000. [7] - Ahseaton 07:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

German coalition

Angela Merkel will not lead a "jamaika coalition" (part of that coalition are the "black" party CDU, the green party and the liberal "yellow" party FDP; the article is in the point of the coalitions parts correct). The coalition of CDU and SPD called "great coalition", because CDU/CSU and SPD are the traditionel strongest parties in Germany.

In English, a CDU/SPD coalition as in the 1960s is usually described as a "Grand Coalition". -- Arwel 16:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Shenzhou 6

The statement is unclear in that it seems to indicate that four days have already passed, when it is possible that they will not be in orbit for four days.

Shenzhou 6 has landed and the astronauts are reported in good health. - Ahseaton 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Content Backwards

Is it just me, or is the news content backwards, with the most recent on the bottom? I need a sysop to please fix this, or tell me this is a false alarm (I'm pretty darn sure it's not though). We should also discuss how to prevent this from happening again. HereToHelp 22:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

References?

I'm sure this has been dealt with, but I was wondering if someone could explain why there are no references to news sources (e.g. BBC, CNN, whatever) in the ITN section. One has to go to the "More current events..." section for these details. Is it not appropriate to reference them in the ITN template also, or at least indicate that further information (not just "More") can be found on the "More current events..." page? Cheers, Ben Cairns 12:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC).

Because we'd rather advertise our own articles than those on other sites. The ones on current events are there both for further reading and as a reference. violet/riga (t) 19:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Understandable, but aren't articles about current events typically based on other news reports? Anyway, it occurs to me that these are just headlines and there's no need for attribution on headlines. Thanks for the response! Ben Cairns 09:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

ITN

Hey guys, can we find some other way to describe this page than ITN? ITN here may mean In The News but elsewhere, particularly in the media, it is the name of an internationally known broadcasting organisation Independent Television News that broadcasts ITV News and Channel 4 News in the UK (Five, I think also) and is used all around the world. I know some people in the broadcasting world are slightly miffed (understatement) that we are using a registered broadcaster's acronym.

Some people here thought that when they see ITN here it means that we are using their wire service. Others in the real ITN have had people blame them for errors we've had (or not so much errors as badly worded information). Right now it is just a few people I've come across who are miffed, but if we get something seriously wrong and it shows up in google searches with the acronym ITN it could be made an issue of. When a page has CNN, BBC, ABC, RTÉ etc on it, it is rather inadvisable to use ITN on the same page. In that context who can blame people for thinking it is Independent Television News and not merely our own inhouse acronym for our own page. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 00:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)}

How about we use Template:News instead? It doesn't seem useful in its current form. (btw Five News is now produced by BSkyB. Not that you can tell any difference in quality). Dmn € Դմն 14:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Another option might be News this Week. But ITN is probably something that should be avoided. Obviously though I am lucky in Ireland to miss the "delights" of Five and its news bulletins! I heard that they are pretty bad alright! They make the Sun seem like the Guardian in comparison. Apparently ITN may lose the Channel 4 News franchise too! Man, how far ITN has dropped since it started dumbing down when ITV bought into it in the 1990s. I blame Thatcher and her stupid vindictive liberalisation of broadcasting. Now it is money and tabloid standard, not quality and broadsheet, that matters. (That's my hobbyhorse for the day done!) FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 15:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)}

needs to be updated

The template needs to be updated. the top story right now is Wilma's effect on Mexico and the impending impact on Florida. Another thing that needs to be included is UN report on Syria and US's opinion on it. Even the Saddam trial item needs to be updated to mention the security aspects, the abduction and killing of Saddam's lawyer. Another story that could be mentioned is the burning of bodies of Taliban fighters by US troops and its impact. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 10:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Are stories only allowed if they're about people dying? Is that why we can't mention the record-breaking hurricane season? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-24 04:18

• We have no obituaries up; I think we've gotten to the point where these are quite generally reverted. I just thought the addition of Tropical Storm Alpha is a little too close to trivia, as it's not a significant storm in itself. We probably have enough hurricane news with Wilma.--Pharos 04:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wilma needs update

The blurb about Hurricane Wilma needs to be changed from "approach" to "made landfall"--GraemeMcRae^talk 15:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)