Talk:Main Page

THIS PAGE IS ONLY FOR DISCUSSING THE MAIN PAGE. If your query is not directly related to the Main Page, consider the following locations: To discuss issues regarding the Wikinews community, visit the Water cooler. For writing or proposing articles or connecting with the Wikinews community, visit the Newsroom, the hub of Wikinews operations. If you're looking for help, start at the Introduction. If you need administrative attention, see WN:ALERT.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 , 26, 27, 28

Please re-add leads 4 and 5. There are recent articles in both.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Also, I boldly decided to add the Winehouse story to lead one. It seems to be the biggest story today and received over 3,000 hits in the last hour.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Without wanting to spark even more drama, when the death of one person by way of their own lifestyle choice is considered a bigger story than the brutal murder of nearly 100 people, you know there's something wrong somewhere. DENDODGE George Watson 10:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I propose to remove those pictures of the norwegian terrorist which were chosen by this terrorist from the main page, best all pages here. --Ergom (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why? We have a valid fair use claim, one of the pictures was released for use for any purpose by the copyright holder, and the person is integral to the story. Wikinews is not censored. There are absolutely no grounds in policy whatsoever for the removal of the images from the Main Page, nor any other page on which they are currently used. DENDODGE George Watson 14:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because you give the terrorist the media platform with the pics he chose for this exact purpose - the pics are by no means neutral. Use some other pics, so does the german wikinews site. --Ergom (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The pictures are not neutral? How so? A non-neutral picture would show him with a halo, or strangling a puppy. It's a portrait. It's neutral. He has no control over our content, but these are high-quality pictures that adequately illustrate the story. We don't take down pictures just because they offend your sensibilities. Is Obama's official portrait not neutral by your criteria because it was made specifically to illustrate him in the media? No. Get over it. DENDODGE George Watson 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is not just any portrait. It is the portrait the killer himself wanted to be in mass media. It does not offend my sensibilities, in fact. I argue that these are not high-quality pictures just because of the way the show the person itself. Compare with http://www.welt.de/politik/article13506380/Breivik-auf-der-Fahrt-zum-Gericht.html?pg=2 No picture on the main page is better than the actual pictures. I would prefer less pictures altogether, high quality pictures that actually tell something clear, true and important about the world are quite rare to any given topic. --Ergom (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

And we can't use that pic as it's not freely licensed. There are now pictures on Commons that are of the aftermath and memorial of the shooting and bombing, but they weren't available at the time of publication. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know that the linked pic is not freely licensed. I did not suggest to use it. I wanted you to compare.

B. used the killing as a marketing strategy as he himself puts it. The pictures of himself used in his "manifest" are a part of this marketing strategy presenting him in a hero-look-a-like way. He also mentions (to the readers of his manifest) the use Wikipedia and the internet in general as a part of the strategy of spreading his thoughts. So, he, B. is fooling you, wikinews by giving you his pictures presenting him in the light he wants to be presented it. It is quite strange by any standards that there are two articles on the main page that each shows a picture of this guy - his pictures for just mass media use. (And as for the comparison with Obama: B., unlike Obama, attained attention by mass-murdering and nothing else.)

In a nutshell: Just don't use the pictures to help him to reach his goals. --Ergom (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Note that, as I understand our conventions, the images displayed on the main page leads don't have to be the same ones used by the articles referred to. --Pi zero (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

┌───────────────────┘
Wikinews is not censored. The comments you're raising about this Ergom are spurious. If you want a photo of the new story subject with horns sprouting out his head, please find a freely licensed one online and stop wasting the community's time. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your comment is totally unfair and incorrect. It is an open question whether to use any picture of the guy in order to report the incident is adaequate or not. I think, not. If you use a picture, it is an open question whether these particular pictures are adaequate to report the incident or not. Since it is not necessary to use these pictures these arguments should lead to the conclusion rather to not use them. Understand the argument, comment on that or otherwise please just keep your unhelpful comments which are totally beside the point ("horns sprouting") to the question at hand. Thanks. --07:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
The photo was all that was available at the time. It was the one used when published. This is Wikinews, we don't continually revise content like Wikipedia. Besides, we keep using any politician's PR headshot even when they decide to do positively evil things. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

All that was available at the time. There is no need to use any picture (high quality newspapers use less pictures). By using these pictures he chose for the exact purpose (therefore the picture is not neutral whatsoever) you are doing propaganda, even though you are unaware of it. If it is your guideline to do that: fair enough. I think this conflicts with http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Neutral_point_of_view. Think about it. (And, no, Neutral point of View is not only about text.) --Ergom (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

You still haven't given us any valid reason based on our current policy. If you don't like the pictures, don't look at them - that would mean either not visiting Wikinews or installing a browser extension that lets you block specific images. Don't try and get us to remove the images based on a personal objection grounded in a misunderstanding of policy. Using a portrait that portrays a person - however despicable they may be - in a neutral light, no matter who took the picture, is not propaganda. So stop scaremongering. It is clear that you don't have anything resembling consensus for this, and I sincerely doubt you ever will, so I suggest you drop it before someone gets annoyed. DENDODGE George Watson 17:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dendodge, your whole post would have been much stronger if you'd left off the last phrase, "so I suggest you drop it before someone gets annoyed" (maybe the whole last sentence, but definitely that phrase). Evidently someone already is annoyed :-). Seriously, your points about policy and such are valid, but that last bit sounded a tad threatening, which serves no useful purpose. --Pi zero (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I was thinking of other people, but, yeah, it came across the wrong way. I didn't want to sound threatening. Struck. DENDODGE George Watson 17:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

You still haven't given us any valid reason based on our current policy. You can argue that the picture is neutral and if it is it is valid to use it. However, I did argue that the picture is not neutral.

Don't try and get us to remove the images based on a personal objection grounded in a misunderstanding of policy. Is it a misunderstanding that there are non-neutral pictures? Neutrality means that both sides can accept the the representation of facts. Whatever both sides are in this case: One can rationally doubt whether both sides can accept this representation.

There is no need for pictures. Information, news is not about pictures. High quality is not only about lightning and resolution. Even if you have grown up this way, many pictures often distort and distract the information they should rather illustrate and clarify. To pick a really good picture is a really difficult job. In featured articles you don't just pick any picture to illustrate, you take the best. Wikinews Main Page is, or at least should be, like a featured article. You take only the best pictures. There is reason to doubt that these pictures belong to the category of best pictures - since they don't illustrate the given fact and they are extremely biased since the party that is charged by mass-murder glorifies himself on these pictures which were made, at least chosen for the particular purpose. So, no illustrating of the relevant information and biased, therefore non-neutral. That are the facts, and if you don't view them as facts one can at least very rationally argue this way. And if one can at least the Main Page should not show these particular pictures.

Your argument seems to be: We have this story. We need a picture. The best (that is: highest resolution best lighting) pictures are the given ones. We always take any given picture and don't apply NPOV for that, not even in difficult cases and not even for the high-traffic-Main Page (If you always drive too fast, by doing that, you don't suddenly start to follow some given rule that driving too fast is allowed.) Therefore we take those. I can follow this chain of thought. But I doubt that this is a high standard editorial work. --Ergom (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Other than the name of the photographer, what is not neutral about the picture? It's a photograph of a person's face. Nothing else. Look at any other news website - they all have pictures. Pictures attract people's attention, and the Main Page would be very plain and boring without them. We have pictures. If you don't like it, try this. DENDODGE George Watson 11:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your response is not really helpful and beside the point. I said what is non-neutral about the picture and that it is not just a(ny) photograph of a person's face. Wikinews is Wikinews, not just any news website. Your recommendation is also beside the point since it is not about me not liking pictures but about this picture and the general fact that quality and neutrality in pictures is really a (wiki(news)) problem. Just accept the fact or argument and deal with it rather than give dubios advice about browser choice. --Ergom (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm a physicist. I don't accept things as fact until I can be convinced by evidence. All we have so far is you saying it's non-neutral because of who took it, without further explanation. If Newton had said "Apples fall because of gravity" and left it at that, his ideas would not have been accepted. We're going to need more, I'm afraid. I still see no convincing argument. DENDODGE George Watson 13:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

As I wrote above: Then applies, this picture is disputed (you can read the comments in the german wikipedia for this dispute and take the fact that the german wikipedia does not show pictures of B. as evidence for non-neutrality http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschl%C3%A4ge_in_Norwegen_2011). there is no need to use this particular picture. It is better to use no picture than a disputed picture in order to follow NPOV. To the physicist: What type of evidence would be acceptable for non-neutrality?And: Is a picture neutral just because you say so? --Ergom (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I want a reasoned argument. We do not accept "I say so", nor "Other projects do it". A picture is considered neutral if community consensus says so, and so far you are the only voice to the contrary. Either gather consensus, or give up on your crusade. The water cooler is a better place for consensus-gathering. DENDODGE George Watson 14:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Don't say this is not a reasoned argument just because you don't like some premise or the conclusion.

A reasoned argument: If p then q. p. Therefore: q. p must obiously be in this case empirical data, i.e. opinion. Valid opinion would be by people who deal with NPOV. The two german wikipedia articles lacking these pictures shows you this opinion very well exists (you can read the discussion too.) That is: If there is a representative group people/opinion who views this picture as gloryfing B. then it is not neutral. There is this representative group of people/opinion. Therefore this picture is not neutral. This you can call: "reasonable doubt". And if reasonable doubt applies you go for the option of least harm. This actually is an expression of NPOV. Besides: NPOV is one of fundamental rules here. Reasonable doubt about NPOV issues certainly overrules any editorial issues like we have no other (high resolution) picture.

Think about this case (for now and the future) rather than just discrediting my position by just repeating no argument naming my rationally elaborated position a crusade or just telling me to discuss it somewhere else. --Ergom (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• The picture of the gunman was a studio portrait commissioned by the gunman in preparation for the publicity generated by this event. Therefore, it purposely shows him in a good light, as that was his intent. Mattisse (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Should wikinews be featuring an article with an incorrect headline, with figures that the police have retracted? Mattisse (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes; when there's an accurate replacement. Any more advice on how to suck eggs? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Do you consider that a constructive reply? Mattisse (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• No, it's sarcasm. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

[1] Sarcasm - "harsh or bitter derision or irony." also "a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms." Mattisse (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

? --Ergom (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

? Agree. Ask a question here and you get sarcasm. Mattisse (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ergom — the above exchange may be puzzling, taken out of context. Brian McNeil recently warned Mattisse against poison-pen denigration of Wikinews and its contributors. It may also be helpful to note that on Brian's first, serious reply, his appended question is a sarcastic allusion to a traditional saying. His second reply, I would characterize as irony. --Pi zero (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The fact that Brian McNeill's comments need to be explained indicates that perhaps he should work on his communications skills. Not every one on this site is from the UK or even have English as their first language.

All I asked is that should the main story, on the main page be an inaccurate one. I think that is a reasonable questions. "Brian McNeil recently warned Mattisse against poison-pen denigration of Wikinews and its contributors." I think the constant repetition of this by you and others is also poison-pen denigration of Mattisse, Pi zero. I am so sorry you contribute to the "pile on" that makes it so difficult to participate on this site. I at least apologized to Dendodge. Brian McNeil has never apologized to everyone. His "sarcasm" is lost on the global editors of this site. And he might be interested to know that sarcasm is a form of attack and is hostile in intent. Are you saying that his "sarcastic" reply "Any more advice on how to suck eggs?" was not hostile? Mattisse (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

┌───────────────────┘
I feel a "Does humour belong in journalism?" essay may be in order. Sadly, you'd find far, far too many points in that which would cause offence. Drop this, drop your other campaigns against now-rectified issues, and stop creating a hostile atmosphere by demanding special consideration because you've spewed a firehose of synthesis output.

You're being disruptive. Again. You're demanding special treatment. Again. You're responding with a ten-to-one ratio to every response that you're not prepared to accept, or seemingly feel fails to give you due deference. The latter ain't going to happen, so get over yourself. You're getting close to causing Saint Pi of Zero to crack and bluntly read you your list of character defects as-demonstrated on-wiki.

Either move on, or follow through on your "I ain't going to contribute anymore" threat (for what? the fourth, fifth, or sixth time?) And, if you are going to cease contributing then include sniping at people on talk pages too.

This is Wikinews; contributors have neither the time, nor inclination, to engage in count-the-angels-on-a-pinhead debate. If that's what you want, then go beg access to Wikipedia again, which you state you were going to get.

We have our fallings-out, then we pick ourselves up and work on, trying not to hold grudges. If you can't work in a community like that, then don't disrupt it. I'm still a 'crat because I'll call people like you on your bullshit. The long-term community isn't scared of me, as some on Wikipedia mis-characterise the situation here; I suspect many welcome me acting as a lighting rod and telling individuals like yourself when you've worn out the welcome mat. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 02:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think a great deal of the "poison pen" stuff would be reduced if not eliminated if sarcasm were not used. See sarcasm

• 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
• 2.a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
• Origin: 1570–80; < Late Latin sarcasmus < Greek sarkasmós, derivative of sarkázein to rend (flesh), sneer; see sarco-

• English Dictionary -
• 1. mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult
• 2. the use or tone of such language

Please stop the sarcasm here and in other areas referring to me. It causes a poisoned atmosphere. Mattisse (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree. --Ergom (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply