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

To prevent vandalism on the Main Page, Template:In the news is protected. If you are not an Administrator and have a submission to make to that template, then please list it below.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page will not be put into the live template.

Yahya Sinwar Yahya Sinwar (pictured), the leader of Hamas, is killed in a firefight with Israeli forces in Gaza. The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson for their comparative studies of prosperity between nations. The Europa Clipper spacecraft is launched to investigate Europa, an icy moon of Jupiter. Kenyan Ruth Chepng'etich breaks the women's marathon world record at the Chicago Marathon. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to the Japanese atomic bomb survivors group Nihon Hidankyo. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war Israel–Hezbollah conflict Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Ginés González García Garbis Aprikian Sukh Dev Robert Fulford Barbara Owen George Negus Nominate an article view - page history - related changes - Edit (admins only)

Archives: February-March 2005 • April 2005 • May 2005 • June 2005 • July 2005 • August 2005 • September 2005 • October 2005 • November 2005 • December 2005 • January 2006 • February 2006 • March 2006 • April 2006 • May 2006 • June 2006 • July 2006 • August 2006 • September 2006 • October 2006 • November 2006 • December 2006 • January 2007 • February 2007 • March 2007 • April 2007 • May 2007 • June 2007 • July 2007 • August 2007 • September 2007 • October 2007 • November 2007• December 2007• January 2008 • February 2008

• Check the criteria at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page before making your suggestion.
• Place new suggestions at the top under the appropriate date heading (create a new date header if necessary).
• Remember Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There must be an existing encyclopedic article on Wikipedia regarding the subject.
• Do not link to external news sites here. If the article has been appropriately updated it should speak for itself (Instead, consider adding those to the subject's article as references to improve the article).

• Please use the following format for the candidate item:

Start the entry with a dot point/bullet (type an asterisk)

• The candidate item written in simple present tense summary format, short and to the point, with the main article in bold and minimal pertinent links.

Add any additional comments you may have below --and sign & date your entry 12:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The next editor has something to say about the suggestion. --They've also signed their comment 12:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Another person has continued the discussion --User's Name 12:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And so on. When continuing the discussion please refrain from using dot points/bullets to allow the candidates to stand out from the discussion. Indent your comments for clarity.

For standard entry styles, please see WP:In the news section on the Main Page/Style.

• Jimmy Wales Controversy is a crucial international event, as it may spell out a major shift in the way that Wikipedia evolves and grows, which affects the international community. I 'know' that I'm going to get some arguments about this, so please, keep it civil. It is listed at Portal:Current Events, when I checked, it was at the top. The only problem I see is that the link is to Wikinews, there is not actually an article here on it. Perhaps that could be transfered over? It is notable, and I believe needs to be included, as it is not yet listed on the Jimmy Wales page(!). Please direct all comments to my talk page, though I am busy, I will attempt to check. If this is deleted without consensus, please know that I will pursue that vandalism, as I believe that the important topic is not being covered well currently. Thank you!! - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 03:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the story you're proposing? Please post suggestions in proper form, and don't make idle threats about vandalism. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a article for it, or is it covered in Wales' page? --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Zimbabwean dollar reaches a record low of $25 million for $1 US.

source[1]--Tornlabel777 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Interesting but not really news. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Warren Buffett, chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway, is named the richest person in the world.

Corrections are welcome. Bill Gates held this record for thirteen years so maybe others will find today's news notable. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not even a psychological news item - at least, not the way it's worded.--WaltCip (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a psychological news item? -Susanlesch (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support it. If it isn't huge news, it is still rather important in a encyclopedic context. Plus, it sure is interesting. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite as follows: Warren Buffett replaces Bill Gates as the world's wealthiest person in Forbes magazine's annual list of the world's richest people. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, just to shorten that how about this. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Warren Buffett replaces Bill Gates in the Forbes list as the world's wealthiest person.

• Perhaps best would be: Warren Buffett replaces Bill Gates at No. 1 in Forbes magazine's list of the world's wealthiest people. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windy to my eye for the small space we have. I liked your addition of Forbes and Gates, and prefer the short version. -Susanlesch (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NFL quarterback Brett Favre, career leader in passing yards and touchdown passes, retires from football.

Oppose as nominator. Its a pretty big story in North America, but I don't think its international enough. Random89 (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While he is one of the most known players in the NFL, I doubt any retirement in any sport would be notable enough. ---CWY2190^TC 20:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. He is no Gretzky or Jordan. This doesn't effect anyone but football fans. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Senator John McCain of Arizona clinches the number of delegates needed for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

Since it is probable that he will get to 1191 delegates tonight, I posted this so we could discuss wording. ---CWY2190^TC 23:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was decided earlier that it would go up when the tally was crossed so I'll give the wording a try:

• Senator John McCain of Arizona clinches the Republican Party nomination for the 2008 American Presidential Elections by having won over 1191 delegates.

Anyone else want to take a stab at this? Random89 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo pretty much dictates that the only thing notable in presidential politics is the results of a general election, not the results of a psychologically key primary such as Super Tuesday.--WaltCip (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all do respect, the American presidential election is not apart of the status quo. ---CWY2190^TC 02:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, American exceptionalism is outdated. ~ UBeR (talk)

With all due respect, recognizing the objective fact that the US Presidential elections are longer, more expensive, and more important than literally every other election on the planet is not exceptionalism, it's rational. Grant.Alpaugh 04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: If this gets posted, this will be the first U.S. political item on ITN. And that's saying that in the last 3 months, news agencies the world over are devoting much of their airtime to the U.S. primary elections. Heck even Singapore's Channel NewsAsia had a day long coverage of last month's Super Tuesday. --Howard the Duck 05:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While i do support this going up, we do have to make a choice. Either this goes up now, when the nomination is clinched, or when the Rebublican convention happens and he is 'officially' nominated; I really can't support this going up in both instances. That said the wording is fine, and in theory support it unless it is determined that it would be better to have come convention time. I prefer to have it now, as when the convention rolls around it will be pretty much old news, considering that it was a done deal. Thethinredline (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who knows anything about modern American Presidential politics knows that the conventions are usually nothing but a formality. This years' Democratic convention appears that it might be different, but not the Republican one. John McCain is the Republican nominee, and the Convention is irrellevant. We will know at some point that this is going to be a brokered convention for the Democrats, which I think is worth posting. First time in at least 25 years and probably more like 40 (depending on your definition) since this has happened. That is newsworthy and we'll know about it several months before the convention. If this happens then I think we should still post when the nominee is chosen at the convention. So long story short we should only post the conventions if they are brokered, and we should post both that there are going to be brokered conventions and what they decide, as these two events will be months apart. Grant.Alpaugh 04:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion said that the U.S. nomination goes up when a person wins the nomination - that is when he surpassed the number of delegates needed. The U.S. is no ordinary country where other non-U.S. news agencies cover the primary elections. --Howard the Duck 02:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of delegates does not matter. We don't need to make it longer then it actually is. "Senator John McCain of Arizona clinches the Republican Party nomination for the 2008 American Presidential Elections." will be just fine. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems fine with me. It's official McCain passes 1191 and Huckabee has bowed out. Put it up. Random89 (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this two weeks ago and this was the language we agreed upon:

• Senator John McCain of Arizona (pictured) secures the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States. Grant.Alpaugh 04:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support ---CWY2190^TC 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support wording I definitely prefer the use of "secures" rather than "clinches" PageantUpdater talk • contribs 05:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's a forgone conclusion. Lovelac7 05:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wording This was a what was discussed before. Random89 (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support There was wide consensus on this page and on talk about promoting this as soon as a candidate secured the nomination. All this gnashing of teeth about American exceptionalism has already been hashed out and the pertinent issues addressed - by every NPOV metric, the campaign for the American presidency is the longest, most complicated, the most internationally covered, and most expensive of any leadership post in the world and a major milestone such as this definitely warrants coverage. Please take your anti-American POV elsewhere. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of commenting in the wrong place again, now that this tagline is up can I also suggest changing the picture to one of McCain? The item on Medvedev is now several items down, and there are a number of free pictures of McCain (e.g. his profile photo) that are readily available.

Sorry if this is the wrong place to suggest this; I was directed here after I asked on Template talk:In the news. --jonny-mt 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're posting in exactly the right place :) support picture change Grant.Alpaugh 17:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Time to change pictures? --Camptown (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still like the picture of Medvedev, myself. --207.47.145.86 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC) (Plasma Twa 2)[reply]

support picture change to McCain. --Grant.Alpaugh 18:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture changed. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good. Can you say "clinches the number of delegates" rather than the nomination, which he will receive surely, but not until the convention? -Susanlesch (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• He has not yet clinched the nomination. I do not see why people are jumping the gun here, it reminds me of when Montenegro held a referendum on whether to secede from Serbia. Some wanted to say that after the referendum Montenegro was automatically a country, but it wasn't until they declared independence that that actually was the case. Likewise, McCain is not yet the nominee as the actual nomination has yet to occur. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting we wait until September then? ---CWY2190^TC 22:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am suggesting we wait until he has secured the nomination before we say he has secured the nomination. He is the "presumptive nominee" according to the press - he has yet to secure the nomination according to any reputable source... and thats because a reputable source would know that he will not have secured it until the convention. Perhaps using the language "presumptive" would be suitable for us as well? ~Rangeley (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 points: 1) One of the criteria we had chosen for putting this up was that when all other serious candidates drop out, we post this. With Mike Huckabee dropping out yesterday the only candidate with an active campaign in the Republican Party is Ron Paul, who had no chance of winning enouch delegates to contest the nomination in St. Paul. 2) Another one we had chosen was that if a candidate broke the delegate barrier via endorsement (ie other candidates give their delegates to another after they drop out). Depending on the source you use McCain might have crossed this a week ago. I know because I considered posting after the updated McCain and Romney totals crossed 1191. McCain has crossed that barrier himself by everyone's count, but if you add in Romney's (and potentially Huckabee's after he made a call for "party unity" as he dropped out, indicating he would support McCain's nomination) numbers he is several hundred delegates over the threshold by everyone's count. Thus, an extremely unlikely or unfortunate (but definitely newsworthy) series of events would have to occur in order for McCain not to be the nominee. He would basically have to die or have a scandal break that was so serious it would end his career/public life. Since neither of those is very likely, we'll just go ahead and post this now. Basically it's like saying that it is only presumed that the sun will come up tomorrow, or it is presumed that the tides will rise and then fall, or maybe it is presumed that any time a US item gets proposed it is accused of bias. --Grant.Alpaugh 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support changing the wording to Susan's proposal. Fact of the matter is he is not officially the nominee. It would have to be an act of Chuck Norris porportions for him not to be the nominee, but in the end he still isn't. It should stay up, since it is the first truely international news of this whole race. But, as I've said before, we don't post the results of a championship before it is over, no matter what the score. It's the same for this. People can complain all they want, but the bottom line is he is not yet the nominee. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^TC 03:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• The energy crisis in Tajikistan continues to worsen, with the UN warning that 2 million people risk starvation. Otebig (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - A no-story.--WaltCip (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can 2 million people risking starvation in a former Soviet republic be a no-story? --Camptown (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the article says the threat of starvation is caused by energy shortage as Otebig's hook suggests, but rather both are caused by cold weather. (support for the first half of the hook) Narayanese (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st half of hook. 76.227.132.220 (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be rewritten, but I support the inclusion of some story about the energy crisis, as it is a well-written articles. Random89 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about: An ongoing energy crisis in Central Asia hits the mountainous nation of Tajikistan in the middle of its coldest winter for five decades. --Camptown (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.Narayanese (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added. --Tone 17:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the word "coldest" should link to Cold wave? Spencer^T♦C 21:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The remains of one of the Catholic Church's most popular saints, Padre Pio (pictured), are exhumed at the sanctuary at San Giovanni Rotondo, to be prepared for public veneration.--Camptown (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone. I'd say let's consider this one when he is publicly displayed. Right now, there isn't much coverage, but even then the display may not be notable worldwide. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say oppose. If there is a huge swell of notable press a bit later, then maybe we can reconsider. Random89 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announces a temporary break in Israel's military campaign in the Gaza Strip. At least 115 people have been killed in the operation so far.

This might need some rewording but I haven't much time right now. Anyway, it's all over the news right now and the operation has it's own article. Feer 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support on basis of brevity - I suggest rewording or simply omitting the second sentence; it's misleading, but it also doesn't bear any direct relevance to the event in general.--WaltCip (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Colombian armed forces execute a attack in Teteye, Putumayo, during which one Raul Reyes, the second in command in the terrorist organization FARC is killed.
  

My first attemp to suggest something for In The News, is a very very VERY important news and damn if it deserves to be put in the main page.--ometzit<col> (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an ITN event, a certain article needs to be bolded, one that covers the conflict. Is there such an article? Spencer^T♦C 16:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is unlikely using a phrase like 'terrorist organisation' in the narative voice for an ITN headline is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Support here is the article: 2008 diplomatic crisis between Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela

• The Colombian armed forces execute an attack in Teteye, Putumayo, killing FARC commander Raul Reyes and triggering a diplomatic crisis.

This reworded version seems a bit less POV and links the appropriate article. Random89 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding. --Tone 16:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current wording avoids the whole grounds for the diplomatic crisis. Putumayo is in Colombia, and would not be grounds for a diplomatic incident. The trigger for the crisis is that Reyes, was in Ecuadorian territory when he was killed. Suggest Colombian armed forces execute an attack on a FARC training base in Ecuador, killing commander Raul Reyes and 16 others, and triggering a diplomatic crisis

Remember to have the accent on the u in Raúl...I forget if the mainpage ITN has it or not. Spencer^T♦C 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The USS New York, made from the metal of the World Trade Center, is christened by the United States Navy.

Support as nominator This plays a significant role in the September 11 attacks aftermath.--Effer^AKS 01:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't notable enough. Mearly a story of interest and no real importance. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not sufficient international interest, limited notability within the US beyond the novelty of recycling WTC steel. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As Madcoverboy said, a novelty. Of little interest, even within the United States.--WaltCip (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Russian voters elect president to replace Vladimir Putin. Dmitry Medvedev is heavily favored to win.
  • Dmitry Medvedev of the United Russia party is elected President of Russia, succeeding Vladimir Putin.

Replace the Cypriot presidential election note with this on 21:00 GMT (0:00 Moscow Time). --Bender235 (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A result hasn't been announced (because the election hasn't happened yet); this should wait until after the election has occurred and a result roughly determined. - Mark 11:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes events are posted ahead of time to work out the wording, but new leaders follow a fairly consistent template. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, use of the word 'election' is highly controversial. Most monitoring organisations and western Governments would never call the Russian process an 'election'. Also, although the election has not happened yet, the poll is fixed for Medvedev to win, and for turnout to be very high, as always. I wouldn't put this poll on ITN, but equally I couldn't put the fixing on there either. 86.166.227.112 (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will go on once Medvedev wins the election. ---CWY2190^TC 18:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree - it's not as though Raul Castro's election was an exemplary of a democratic process. It's a change of head of states involving a major nation and it will go up when the "results" (however contestable) are announced. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. They're deciding the next president of one of the most important countries in the world. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dmitry Medvedev (pictured) wins the Russian presidential election with an estimated 69% of the vote.

Now a good chunk of the vote is in, I think we can safely say he's won. --Philip Stevens (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a race. When it's officially announced, it goes up. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Vladimir Putin's favorite nominee, Dmitry Medvedev (pictured), succeeds him in the Russian presidential election with an estimated 69% of the vote.

In support of the above, and having read TIME's "man of the year" article on Putin, it seems that it is common belief that Medvedev is Putin's puppet that will make Putin the Prime Minister, so as to overcome the two consecutive terms barrier for presidency (that also applies to Russia). I think we should hint to this major issue of Putin's term being prolonged "from the window". NikoSilver 23:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (btw TIME goes as far as to quote a Russian joke: Putin is in a restaurant with Medvedev and orders for a steak. When asked by the waiter "what about the vegetable", he replies "yes, the vegetable will have a steak too".)[reply]

Time might claim it to be a qu; it might just ote, but is the word "vegetable" used in that sense in Russian. The joke was on UK TV about 20 years ago (on Spitting Image), and proves little.

Time claims that it is a popular joke among Russians. I don't speak Russian, but the word vegetable is used the same way in four languages I happen to speak. Sure it's old; it's the Medvedev part that's new in it. NikoSilver 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably use different wordage than "Putin's favorite nominee" maybe: "Dmitry Medvedev (pictured), heavily endorsed by Vladimir Putin, succeeds him in the Russian presidential election with an estimated 69% of the vote." I'm not sure if this works, but here it goes. Spencer^T♦C 01:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "heavily endorsed" sounds better indeed. NikoSilver 10:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the heavily part is necessary, even if slightly more accurate. Endorsed is sufficient to convey the sentiment that he's Putin's man. Also, most sources I have read/heard haven't gone so far as to suggest Dmitry is Putin's puppet, while acknowledging Dmitry is only there because of Putin they tend to suggest no one knows how Dmitry will fit in and what role Putin is going to really play in Russia after this, which makes more sense to me. If we do want to do this (I don't really care either way), I would suggest:

• Dmitry Medvedev (pictured), endorsed by outgoing President Vladimir Putin, is elected as President of Russia

Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Presidental election sucessor of the most powerful country in the world. Eop4g8 (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Colombian armed forces execute a attack in Teteye, Putumayo, during which one Raul Reyes, the second in command in the terrorist organization FARC is killed.
  

My first attemp to suggest something for In The News, is a very very VERY important news and damn if it deserves to be put in the main page.--ometzit<col> (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an ITN event, a certain article needs to be bolded, one that covers the conflict. Is there such an article? Spencer^T♦C 16:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is unlikely using a phrase like 'terrorist organisation' in the narative voice for an ITN headline is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Support here is the article: 2008 diplomatic crisis between Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela

• Its been the worst fighting since Israel withdrew from the Strip in 20005. At least 52 Palestinians were killed as well as two Israelis soldiers. Hamas also responded by firing 50 rockets at Israel. Of the Palestinian causalities eight were children and 16 were militants. Abbas referred to the attacks as "more than a holocaust" while Ehud Barak said "Hamas and those who fire rockets at Israel are responsible and they will pay the price". Khaled Meshaal (Hamas leader) also referred to the attacks as a holocaust. At least 91 Palestinians and three Israelis have been killed in the past four days. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an ongoing conflict and unless these latest attacks get their own article, or expanded in the 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict, I don't see how it would meet the guidelines. ---CWY2190^TC 23:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions on a title name for a new article, because I'd like to create one? --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if a new article is necessary at this time personally. I suggest you start with expanding the section in the existing article. If/when it gets too large for it's on article, then you are welcome to split as necessary Nil Einne (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a new article on it, 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. Does this qualify it to be included on the main page. Abbas suspended contact with Israel as well. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]