Revision as of 21:16, 31 October 2006

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

• ]

This is the discussion page for the In the news section of the Main Page, referred to as ITN. If you are new to ITN, please read the criteria and procedures that guide ITN and its updates. The most important is that ITN does not act as a newspaper; it provides links to encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect important current events.

Quick guide

David Lynch in 1990 American filmmaker David Lynch (pictured) dies at the age of 78. South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol is arrested after his declaration of martial law. Joseph Aoun is elected president of Lebanon after a two-year vacancy, and Nawaf Salam is nominated as prime minister. An attack on the presidential palace in N'Djamena, Chad, results in 19 deaths. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Bob Uecker Walter Deutsch Tony Book Hasjim Djalal Claude Jarman Jr. Frank Cicutto Milan Feranec Nominate an article view - page history - related changes - Edit (admins only) - Suggestions

If you have already read the criteria page, here is the quick guide:

• For an item to appear on ITN, a relevant article must be updated and a blurb added to Portal:Current events or one of its subpages.
• The event has to be important enough to merit updating the article and should be of international import, or at least interest.
• If you are not an admin, have updated an article with an item that you feel is of international significance and put a blurb on Current events, suggest the item at the candidates page.
• If you are an admin, familiarize yourself with both the Criteria and Admin guidelines. In particular, please pay close attention to the procedure for images.

Discussion

Archives

UNSC election wording

Voting... "remains a stalemate" > "remains at a stalemate"? Bolivian Unicyclist 15:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Solomon Islands story

I'm not sure the wording makes it clear that Manasseh Sogavare is PM of the Solomon Islands. The mention of Australian peacekeepers really confuses things. Does anyone have any ideas about what we should do with this? --Oldak Quill 15:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Would mentioning that the PM's office is in Honiara help clarify that Manasseh Sogavare is not the Aussie PM ? --64.229.7.224 16:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How about mentioning Australian peacekeepers first: "Australian peacekeepers in the Regional Assistance Mission with police in the Solomon Islands (flag pictured) raid the offices of Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare in connection to an extradition request for Julian Moti."? Does this give too much mention to the Australian police? --Oldak Quill 16:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it appears to put too much emphasis on Australian police. I think the current version is fine as it is. Nishkid64 16:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

redirecting from Misplaced Pages talk:In the news section on the Main Page

I have made Misplaced Pages talk:In the news section on the Main Page a redirect to this page. Conversations there have identical topics to those here, the only difference being that they are less frequent and there is less response. - BanyanTree 16:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Accompanying image

Is it possible to align the image to the story it illustrates? It appears to always sit at top right, and often refers to a story further down. This can be rather confusing, especially if it is an unfamilliar flag, where it could accompany several of the stories. Rcrowdy 15:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Well, that's why we have (pictured) or something of that nature. I don't see how you can get confused if there is only one picture up, and only one mention of (pictured). Nishkid64 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's true that from reading the column it becomes apparent to which story the picture relates; it was more the initial impression given when looking at the main page that I was concerned about. Can you see how not aligning the image to the story could cause inappropriate juxtapositions? It is a minor issue, but it is the kind of thing that you wouldn't see in print media. Not that that is a benchmark or anything. Is there a technical difficulty in aligning the image to its story, or has a stylistic descision been made? Rcrowdy 12:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there was a discussion about this sometime back. People suggested moving down or highlighting the news article with the picture. I guess habit left it the way it is.--Hamedog_Talk| 13:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox

As discussed on the Firefox talk page, Firefox 2 has not yet been released. -- Schapel 17:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On an official Mozilla server marked as a final build - the main page update is just being screwy I think, in either case, will uncomment it out when it's finally released -- Tawker 18:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure that there is a relevant item at Portal:Current events before adding this. I can't find one now. - BanyanTree 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox 2.0

I don't think that the release of Mozilla Firefox 2.0 is important enough to put in the news column. I think it's vandalism.

Uh...it's not vandalism, it's just that a new software release really isn't newsworthy. 1ne 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm a vandal :o -- Tawker 18:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Baseball world series qualifies?

ITN has an obvious American bias... you're trying to tell me that the Baseball World Series qualifies? Despite the misnomer "world" in the title this is of little if any international significance. You chuck the Miss Universe winner off ITN for not being notable enough? You get rid of Peter Brock's death because it has little international impact? Any then you reckon including an American baseball tournament is okay? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 07:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a whole list of stuff like that PageantUpdater. Recently I think of the NRL Grand Final and the AFL Grand Final not being included and the 2006 Currie Cup was only on for about a day. I don't think anybody outside of Nth. America or Japan really cares about this. In saying that, it probably is notable.--Hamedog_Talk| 10:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Bah. This discussion is silly parochialism. The NRL and AFL grand finals are each of great relevance to about half the states of Australia, and are not televised or, indeed, of much interest to anyone outside those states. The World Series may feature American teams, but it is televised to a sizable global audience, including, I might note, Australia. I'm a fan of none of the sports, but it's pretty clear to me that they're hardly comparable. Rebecca 10:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The AFL Grand Final has the largest attendance for any finals game this year. I don't care about AFL or NRL, I am just making a point. I think the Currie Cup being taken down is ridiculous American bias.--Hamedog_Talk| 10:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been agreed upon that the highest championship in any major professional sport is important enough to be mentioned in ITN. The World Series championship arguably is the top championship in professional baseball. (The World Baseball Classic is another candidate, but it lacks the history and popularity.)

The Currie Cup is not the highest rugby union championship, nor is the NRL Grand Final the highest rugby league championship. This doesn't automatically preclude their presence in ITN, but they do fail to qualify under that particular standard.

If I'm not mistaken, the AFL Grand Final is the highest championship in Australian rules football (given the fact that Australia doesn't compete in the Australian Football International Cup). Did anyone perform the necessary article authorship/update and submit a blurb for inclusion in ITN? —David Levy 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with this line of reasoning, if I understand you correctly. As a generalisation, it is obviously skewed towards parochial sports without international competitions. The World Series of baseball is (essentially) a domestic competition, and the appropriate basis for comparison therefore is to other domestic competitions. The fact that (arguably, I know very little about the subject) the highest global championship is also (in essence, I know the Canadians have a few teams as well) the US domestic championship is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that the global strength of baseball is not yet sufficient to have a meaningful international tournament. With respect, this inclusion criteria (if it is meant to be exclusive) is going to lead to an overpopulation of, for example, North American items and a relative underpopulation of more globally popular sports. Having said that, I think that sports items on ITN have been handled reasonably well of late in general. Badgerpatrol 04:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To qualify for ITN inclusion, a sport must be of international interest. Professional baseball is, and people in numerous countries view its World Series. (Of course, even popularity among Americans and Canadians would satisfy the "international" criterion.)

It's important to note that the phrase "international interest" implies an inherent level of notability (hence my reference to "major professional sport"). If a sport isn't notable, its highest competition isn't notable (regardless of how many countries compete or view). In other words, you needn't worry about seeing obscure sporting events featured.

As noted above, this standard calls for the potential inclusion of the AFL Grand Final (the highest championship in Australian rules football). Like baseball, this is a sport played in many countries other than the one in which it originated, but not at the same level.

Lastly, as also noted above, a sporting event can qualify for inclusion even if it isn't the highest championship of its sport. Some sports (such as association football) have several internationally notable championships. —David Levy 05:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite right, I should have read your comment more carefully. So long as the criterion is applied non-exclusively, there shouldn't be any problems. (I'm not sure if Aussie rules is a great comparison- I'm not sure, but I think that Australia is the only country with a fully professional league. This is not the case with, for example, baseball). As an aside, the whole "international interest" criterion is a fudge and needs to be reworded or removed- it's virtually meaningless as it is. Badgerpatrol 05:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Both the NRL and AFL grand finals are televised in New Zealand which is not a state of Australia. The AFL isn't of much interest and the NRL is of some interest (much more when the Warriors are in) but not that much however you're quite wrong to say they're not televised... To be hoenst I think these are base examples though. I would suggest that there is greater interest in the FA Cup or the Premier League throughout the world then in the World Series yet the results of neither of these are ever mentioned. Nil Einne 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

While neither is the highest championship in association football, it's reasonable to assert that they're notable enough for ITN inclusion. Did anyone author/update an appropriate article and submit it for inclusion? If so, what was the outcome of that discussion? —David Levy 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I should add I believe the NRL grand final is televised in the UK as well... Nil Einne 17:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Latin America. Many Latin Americans follow baseball. --64.229.229.185 14:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hamedog, Currie Cup was up for a few days before someone removed it. I had contested its presence in ITN because I didn't believe it was that noteworthy, but I was proven otherwise.

Nonetheless, you may think that adding the 2006 World Series to ITN appears to display American-oriented bias, but you are completely wrong. Baseball is an international game, of international importance, more so than NRL or AFL. Just take a look at the nationalities of players playing in the World Series or in MLB! If you want to add results of the FA cup or the Premier League championships, be my guest. Also, stop saying ITN is too American-centric. Take a look at the current ITN. China? Hong Kong? Nicaragua? Panama? Argentina? Afghanistan? Nishkid64 18:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not what's on the ITN page. It's what is suggested for the ITN page. Many suggestions which are centred on American news are rejected or ignored. For example: George Bush signs the US-Mexico border bill, US declares space intrest, Military Commissions act of 2006, and especially the US population reaches 300 million. --TheTallOne 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But those suggestions are not really notable at all. Military Commissions Act of 2006? That's more domestic, than international in my opinion. Do we have ITN suggestions for other country's military plans (besides North Korea)? I do believe that the US-Mexico border bill is of significance, but the fact that there is no article that provides an in depth look at the issue prevents it from being added to ITN at the moment. Nishkid64 23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the baseball world championship the highest ranked baseball event?--Hamedog_Talk| 06:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The World Baseball Classic compares to the World Series in much the same way that the Australian Football International Cup would compare to the AFL Grand Final if Australia were to begin competing in the former. —David Levy 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A list of qualifying sports events

• I dont think we should just say that anything that is the pinnacle of a sport should automatically be on the list, as I cant say that the NRL really deserves a place on the ITN.-Narrasawa 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How about we create and stick to a list?

Basketball

• NBA
• World Championship

Baseball

• World Series
• World Baseball Classic

Cricket

• ICC World Cup
• The Ashes
• ICC Champions Trophy

American Football

• The Superbowl

Football (Soccer)

• FIFA World Cup
• EUFA Champions League
• Various European Leagues (England, Spain, Germany and Italy)

Golf

• US Masters
• US Open
• PGA Tour Winner

Netball

• World Cup

Rugby League

• World Cup
• Tri-Nations

Rugby Union

• World Cup
• 6 Nations
• Tri Nations (Bledisloe Cup)
• Heineken Cup

Rugby Sevens

• World Cup
• World Circut

Ice Hockey

• Stanley Cup

Other

• Olympics
• Commonwealth Games

Any other suggestions for this list?--Hamedog_Talk| 07:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the list narrowed to sporting events which involve a large proportion of the nations of the world (so that for example Baseball, American Football, and Aussie Rules would not qualify), and that have significant popular appeal around the world (so the World Tiddlywinks Championship doesn't qualify, even if every nation in the world sends a team to it). The Summer and Winter Olympics qualify, the Football (soccer) World Cup, maybe the Commonwealth Games. Not a lot else.- gadfium 07:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how about we limit it to international competitions. Then we would get:

• Olympics
• Commonwealth Games

Comments?--Hamedog_Talk| 08:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound like a troll, but would that mean that the 2006 Micronesian Games woauld have qualified to be in ITN?- gadfium 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't make policy, so I have no idea.--Hamedog_Talk| 08:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but how can you possibly put the Rugby League World Cup in there? The last tournament actually incurred a massive finacial loss, so how can such a competition be notable enough to be in here?? and it is a silly concept to limit it to just international tournaments, what about Premier League, Super Bowl etc??(Mackai m 12:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

Then replace it with Tri-Nations. See the first list for Super bowl and FA(I am assuming this one) Premier League. This is by no means policy at all, just thoughts.--Hamedog_Talk| 13:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The World Series and NBA Finals are international competitions. Of course, many sporting events involving teams from a specific nation carry the interest of fans in other nations, so I disagree with this proposed criterion. —David Levy 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignore the bottom list then - I have striked it out. The top list maybe receive more support.--Hamedog_Talk| 13:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How can the Stanley Cup be on the list and not the World Series. Both series may or may not contain a Canadian team. And how can you exlude the Super Bowl, the biggest sporting event in North America -- Coasttocoast 05:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Overall guidelines to what qualifies for the list

In general, the ITN needs more strict guidlines for sporting events. Some of suggestions are way off from being 'of international importance' and are a general waste of time spent arguing over. This arguement over what sports are internationally important will arise again unless a specific list is made, like the one above.--TheTallOne 14:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the World Chess Championship qualifies as an event for ITN.

Having a list of events which qualify to be on ITN is a good idea, but we need an underlying principle to decide which events qualify.

In general, I think events have to be international, and preferably intercontinental. This is a slight weakening of my earlier position. Any sporting event which

1. either involves many sports, such as the Commonwealth Games, or is the pinnacle tournament for its sport
2. and involves nations from at least three continents, with the location of matches or tournaments rotating around different countries
3. and garners significant world-wide interest

is eligible to be covered (once, for the final result), on ITN.

Events which are invariably playoffs between two US cities don't qualify, such as the Super Bowl or the World Series. The Stanley Cup is a regional event, and would not qualify, nor would the All-Africa Games. I would argue that the Rugby Union Tri Nations would not qualify as only involving two continents, and being less prestigious than the Rugby World Cup, but I could be persuaded on this. The Rugby League World Cup would be included, as whether it makes a profit or not is not part of my suggested criteria. The Cricket World Cup qualifies. Golf looks like a tricky one, as the major golfing events look to always be held in the US and Britain. Is there an international golfing championship which isn't just a national championship putting on airs?

Any definitive list which is agreed on will need a mechanism for change as new sporting events arise.- gadfium 18:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You would have us exclude many of the most popular athletic competitions in the world (including the top championships of several sports) simply because they lack representation from three or more continents.

ITN contains reports that are of interest to residents of more than one nation. They needn't directly pertain to events that individually occur in multiple regions of the world. (If they did, none of the current entries would qualify.)

Also, the false claim that the World Series strictly features American teams has grown rather tiresome. A Canadian team won the World Series in 1992 and 1993. —David Levy 19:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm suggesting that regional sporting events don't qualify. You can argue that the World Series is not just the US, but you can't argue that it's truly an international event.- gadfium 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm suggesting that regional sporting events don't qualify.

And I'm disagreeing with this suggestion.

You can argue that the World Series is not just the US, but you can't argue that it's truly an international event.

Firstly, I respectfully request that you consult a dictionary.

Secondly, I was merely correcting your false statement that the World Series is among the "events which are invariably playoffs between two US cities," a point rendered largely moot by your proposed omission of regional competitions. You addressed my closing aside and ignored the main portion of my reply. —David Levy 19:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My reply to your substantive point was that yes, that was exactly what I was suggesting. There used to be a policy, as I recall, that sporting events didn't qualify for ITN at all. An exception was made for the 2004 Olympic Games, and then another for the 2006 Commonwealth games, and it seems to have gone downhill from there. Even when the policy was mostly in force, the big US events seemed to get added. I'm suggesting we look at putting a policy in place with some rationale behind it. You seem to be saying: "But that doesn't allow the big US events".

I don't regard a US event as being international just because there was once or twice a Canadian team. There's an old saying about the exception that proves the rule. Even if Canadian teams regularly participate at the highest levels, and the final game is occasionally played in Canada as well as the US, that still makes such an event of only regional (sub-continental) importance. If it was an international event, wouldn't the US team be playing the Canadian team?

If we can't agree on a policy for which sports events are allowed on ITN, I suggest we revert to the old policy of having none here.- gadfium 21:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My reply to your substantive point was that yes, that was exactly what I was suggesting.

...which in no way addressed my point that your proposal arbitrarily contradicts the relevant ITN criterion, thereby excluding sporting events of tremendous international interest.

There used to be a policy, as I recall, that sporting events didn't qualify for ITN at all. An exception was made for the 2004 Olympic Games, and then another for the 2006 Commonwealth games, and it seems to have gone downhill from there.

That's your opinion. I disagree.

Even when the policy was mostly in force, the big US events seemed to get added.

Curse those arrogant Americans for contributing articles and listing them for inclusion!

Could you please cite a record of this policy? I've only been a Wikipedian since February of last year.

I'm suggesting we look at putting a policy in place with some rationale behind it.

We have a rationale. We're including blurbs regarding sports championships of significant international interest for which new articles have been written or existing articles substantially updated.

You seem to be saying: "But that doesn't allow the big US events".

I've been waiting for you to allege nationalistic bias on my part. Someone always does. After all, I am an American, so I couldn't possibly be motivated by anything other than egocentrism, right?

Your proposal would exclude popular events from numerous countries. At no point did I state that those of the United States were of greater importance than the others.

FYI, I'm not even a sports fan. I've never seen a complete baseball game in my life. I record the Super Bowl, fast-forward through the game and watch the advertisements.

I don't regard a US event as being international just because there was once or twice a Canadian team.

1. The Toronto Blue Jays compete for the right to appear in the World Series every year (as do all of the teams in Major League Baseball).

2. The fact that the event usually occurs in the United States doesn't mean that it's of interest strictly to people in the United States. Major League Baseball includes players from many different nations, and its audience resides in more nations still (with games televised in approximately 75 countries). The Japanese Misplaced Pages reported the World Series' outcome on its main page.

This, of course, is merely an example; the same is true of other "regional" athletic competitions from around the world.

Even if Canadian teams regularly participate at the highest levels, and the final game is occasionally played in Canada as well as the US, that still makes such an event of only regional (sub-continental) importance.

...except for the fact that its popularity extends to several other continents (not that this has any bearing on its compliance with the "international" criterion).

If it was an international event, wouldn't the US team be playing the Canadian team?

No, not necessarily.

If we can't agree on a policy for which sports events are allowed on ITN, I suggest we revert to the old policy of having none here.

There has been general agreement (though inexperienced users often complain when they see a sports entry—especially one pertaining to a U.S. event—and don't understand how ITN works and/or what standards are being followed). —David Levy 23:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)