Wikipedia

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2011

< Wikipedia:In the news | Candidates

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.


April 30

April 30, 2011 (2011-04-30) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts

Arts and culture

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime
  • Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, imprisoned by the United States on charges of disclosing government information to the general public, is found competent to stand trial by a "panel of experts", despite having earlier been thought of as a "suicide risk" and having his clothes removed. (The Hindu)
  • 6 major U.S. tobacco companies, accused of delivering an "unreasonably dangerous" product, defeat a lawsuit taken by 37 hospitals in the U.S. state of Missouri. The hospitals were looking for financial assistance with the treatment of illnesses caused by smoking. (BBC) (Bloomberg / The Irish Times)

Politics and elections
  • Ministers in Uganda disagree over the arrest of opposition leader Kizza Besigye. (Daily Nation)
  • Current U.S. officials and former president Jimmy Carter disagree over allegations that the U.S. is deliberately keeping food aid from North Korea despite severe food shortages among people there. (BBC)

Sport

[Posted] Gaddafi's son dies in airstrike

Article: 2011 Libyan civil war#NATO attacks intensify (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A NATO airstrike during the ongoing battle in Libya kills Gaddafi's youngest son, Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi, along with three of Gaddafi's grandchildren, according to Libyan officials. (Post)

links: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/30/libya.gadhafi.son.killed/, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13251434, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/30/libya-idUSLDE73T0D120110430, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_libya

Wow, let's hold our horses. Do we have independent confirmation of his death? And by "independent confirmation", I mean a source other than Libyan state media. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it is all over WP:RS HJ . that is what counts. All the dictators of the world probably are waiting to read about it on WP. it appears gadhafi was in the same house but was "not hurt" even though the house was flattened.(VoA)--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article is short and was only created recently (since the war started), and even then only ostensibly because he's a son of Gaddafi and apparently got into a fight. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the article would probably fail AFD if it was nominated in circumstances other than the current (because we all know that developing news stories always survive AFD nowadays). I would prefer for the focus of the blurb to be on the Libyan war, and not Gaddafi's son. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've come full circle over this one. This blurb was the first I have heard about it and I thought inclusion was a no-brainer. Then on reading up I see he is one of six sons, and the lowest profile of the lot. At that point I was questioning whether this really is significant enough to merit inclusion by itself. But remembering my initial reaction I now figure that plenty of people will want to read up about him to put the story into context. That is the very point of ITN: to highlight content pertinent to what the mass media are reporting.
    I do understand HJ Mitchell's concerns but do not share them. For many countries the word of the national government would be regarded as authoritative in its own right. Here that may not necessarily be the case but here I feel we can take the facts as established. The Libyan government would look idiotic if someone who is dead reappears alive and well - they simply aren't going to make that kind of error or propaganda stunt. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • "That is the very point of ITN: to highlight content pertinent to what the mass media are reporting." Not quite. I believe we're working on moving away from that and towards highlighting good content pertinent to the news. This article is anything but, at the moment, and does not meet the update requirements yet. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is essentially the self-serving viewpoint. The other would be the user-centric view. Any news story is subject to ongoing developments. The article in question is unusually active but that reflects the level of interst in the story. Bear in mind that "Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi" is not a name that the average western ear can readily commit to memory and actually transcribe a period of time later. How many people are going to come here looking for "Gaddifi's son... can't remember his name"? We have basic biographical details and some additional context of the form not usually carried in news reports - why should we not promote that? Trust the reader to be able to see this is an ongoing story and exercise judgement accordingly. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not stable at the moment, it needs to settle down a little before posting. RxS (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose even assuming he's really dead - and his death was caused as claimed in a state-controlled media - children of world leaders who die are generally not newsy - this guy's barely notable much less of the caliber of noteworthiness to report in the ITN deaths. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A very valid point. Why are we relaxing ITN death standards "just because" the guy's Gaddafi's son? He's not seemingly inherently notable, and definitely far less notable than any of the recently-dead people nominated for ITN below. Double standards, much? Agree fully with Carlos. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The news is not notable because he was notable, but because his death occurred in the context of a major assault in an ongoing conflict. The death in the context of the war is what's notable. If he died during a car accident on a peaceful Sunday, it would not be news. That's not what happened. Ocaasi c 00:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. His notability is not just that he was the son of Libyan head of state. It is that he is the first son of a head of state ever to be assassinated by NATO. most western countries generally frown on targeted killings of dictators/family. this appears to be a targeted attack in a residential district.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest the blurb be refocussed and take HJ's concerns into account: Libyan state media report the death of Muammar Gaddafi's youngest son in a NATO airstrike on Tripoli amid ongoing conflict.
    Updated accordingly. Ocaasi c 00:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This certainly sounds like a targeted killing, in which case it may raise a stink with several countries, especially since the initial UN approval was taken saying that Gadaffi won't be specifically targeted. In addition, this guy led the assault against the rebels at the start of the uprisings IIRC, so he was something like a de facto top level leader in the Gaddafi regime. Chamal T•C 03:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose and pull''' its not confirmed yet [1]Lihaas (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, we give attribution and this story is all over the news. We could perhaps emphasize the 'report' slightly more, but this is newsworthy at the moment, even if it's a tactic (which the article on his death actually discusses). Ocaasi c 17:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ernesto Sabato

- Nomination of a notable writer. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I unfortunately see very little in the writer's article that makes him exceptionally notable, and he did die of natural causes at the age of 99. He may be very notable in Argentina, but I can't speculate on that.--WaltCip (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I don't see the notability either. I would also expect his "notable works" (in the sidebar) to have decent articles, but that isn't the case. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It isn't always the case. BBC - "very influential in the literary world throughout Latin America" and "won some of the most prestigious prizes in Hispanic literature". Canadian Press - He "led the government's probe of crimes committed by Argentina's dictatorship" and "received the French Legion of Honor, the Medici Prize of Italy and Spain's Cervantes Prize, the most respected award in Spanish letters". World reaction to his death, including "he had surpassed the world of literature to gain a more iconic status". Reuters - "His first novel, "The Tunnel," was hailed after its release in 1948 as an existentialist classic and won him fans including Thomas Mann and Albert Camus" (Nobel laureates 1929 and 1957 respectively, if anyone didn't know who they were). --candle•wicke 19:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it is? --candle•wicke 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent in which you detailed, not really. I saw various mentions of awards and fellow writers, but not really any establishment of their notability until you brought it up here.--WaltCip (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of the above is not in the article? --candle•wicke 01:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This death, at the age of 99, is not significant. It is material suitable for "recent deaths" -- linked to from ITN -- but not ITN itself. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Dead from old age => send to recent deaths. Thue | talk 11:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think he's significant enough as a death to be posted here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. His list of awards seems pretty significant. He got front page treatment on El Pais and there's been plenty of coverage.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Ando wins Gold medal

Article: Miki Ando (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Miki Ando beats Yuna Kim of South Korea with less than half a point for the gold medal at the 2011 World Figure Skating Championships. (Post)
Article needs updating
Source for this news.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support it is or should be on ITNR as the world cup of its sportiLihaas (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: At the moment, we have a story that highlights the record score. Otherwise, there are four events here - men, women, pairs and dance, so posting just men and women would do the other two injustice. Postion all four winners would make the blurb too long. So I'd stay with the present blurb. --Tone 17:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Strange Passerby's proposal. I understand Tone's concern but while I'm no expert when it comes to figure skating, it seems the men's and women's titles are the ones with greatest prestige. An unusually close result does not amount to a record IMHO. Mention of the hastily re-arranged hosting following the Japan earthquake would be welcome as well, but again I recognise the same space constraints make that difficult. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support update to current blurb, oppose adding it as a stand alone blurb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RxS (talk • contribs)
The singles' events are by far the more prestigious of the championships. Similar to how we post the singles' winners at a tennis major, but not any of the three doubles titles. Courcelles 00:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I woudn't agree with that analogy to tennis, but the singles titles are the main ones.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update? I don't see an update, so I removed [Ready]. -- tariqabjotu 05:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we post this item and don't post the Apple vs. Microsoft story below we look to be in a position where we are going to posting more figure skating stories than we've posted business stories since January. That's absurd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 05:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand then we have a situation where we published the mens gold medalist news for figure skating but not the womens winner. We cant discriminate against females. right?--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one is just waiting for an article update and has no opposes, that's different from Apple vs Microsoft which has seem several opposes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be fair I think it's an issue of sport vs business, not figure skating. And also I think the consensus is here that teh blurb will be updated, not added. Which I support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly I was just a little annoyed this morning. I don't think too much needs reading into my point here :). There is more productive discussion on WT:ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My concern surrounds the obvious excitement (and hence bias) here over this sport. I am not stupid. I know the winner is Japanese, but the above posters aren't. Did they support the cricket nomination? Somehow we really do have to address the massive bias here towards things that Americans know and like. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - after the massive opposition here to posting Cricket World Cup success, this is a ridiculous proposition. US-centrism again, because Americans skate but don't play cricket. Pathetic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

April 29, 2011 (2011-04-29) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • Air India pilots continue a strike for a third successive day with 120 flights cancelled. (Hindustan Times)
  • Unemployment figures in Spain increase to a 14-year high; nearly 5,000,000 people are unemployed. (BBC)
  • Demand for Samsung Electronics products plummets again, with the company only managing net profits of $2.6 billion for the first three months of 2011. (BBC)

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Science

Sport
  • The French Football Federation (FFF) announces an internal inquiry over allegations of a secret racial quota targeting blacks and Arabs and supported by its own officials. (BBC News)
Television

Death of Erhard Loretan

An unexpected death and one that occurred while he was doing what made him famous. It was also his birthday. I think it passes 2. The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such. BBC - "One of the few people to have reached the summits of all 14 mountain peaks above 8,000m (26,247ft)". The Guardian - "Loretan's 1986 ascent of Mount Everest, without bottled oxygen and in a night-time push that took just 40 hours, stunned the climbing world". --candle•wicke 01:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle. Oppose on article length and quality. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, he's the third person to climb all the eight thousanders. The article does need significant work. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment of Merceditas Gutierrez

It seems she has resigned now. When they voted to impeach her it was posted. --candle•wicke 01:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this particular case posting the vote was enough. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was a feeling she'd resign anyway, although the timing was bad; people were pissed she did it on the day of the royal wedding lol. The decision to post the impeachment, and not the senate vote, turned out to be right. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Syria update or sticky?

≥62 people have died across the country in fresh protests. Seems ripe for an update, if not a sticky. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support sticky Look at this for the response at international level to what has been going in Bahrain, Yemen's capital has been flooded with 100,000 protesters and Libya has been quietly invading Tunisia. --candle•wicke 00:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support sticky lots happening in Syria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support sticky per Eraserhead1 and Candlewicke -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the others? --candle•wicke 20:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the rate of events occurring elsewhere in the ME don't quite warrant sticky yet and should be nominated individually. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why this is now a sticky, rather than rolling updates on ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Article updated] Apple Inc makes more profit than Microsoft

Article: History of Apple Inc.#Resurgence_compared_to_Microsoft (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ For the first time in two decades Apple Inc makes more quarterly profit than Microsoft (Post)
Article updated

After overtaking in market capitalisation last year, Apple has finally made more profit than Microsoft in a single quarter. Arstechnica. For Apple to have turned themselves from the tiny company that they were in 1997 into the worlds biggest tech company, and now one that's more profitable than Microsoft is a really interesting tech story that's been building for a few years now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Limited interest business story.--WaltCip (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously? Apple and Microsoft have been rivals for a very long time and both companies have been extremely innovative in the tech spec and have a huge prescence. And we haven't posted the rise of Apple before. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the Guardian: "The overshadowing of Microsoft's financial might by Apple will be seen by some as marking a key moment in the industry" [2]. It then goes on to talk about the meteoric rise of the iPad and iPhone. And of course, almost all of us on PCs are using MS Windows. As the nom notes, Apple was already bigger by value and market capitalization [3]. We did not post the last turning point, with one person saying (word search Apple) that revenues were the real metric, which is what we have now. Others opposed because the two might trade spots. I'd say with the iPad doing so well, Apple should be on top for some time. Support posting.--Chaser (away) - talk 13:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support: So Apple's ridiculous overpricing has finally paid off... ;) One of the industry giants overtaking the one that has been in the lead so far is a big event and the media is making a big deal out of it, but Apple has earned most of that through products like the iphone and ipad, an area where microsoft is lagging behind. Microsoft gets the majority of their earnings from their software, mainly windows, where it beats Apple easily. Because of this difference, I'm not sure if this is as big as they make it out to be. But then I suppose it's the end result that counts, and this is what the experts say. Chamal T•C 14:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article, Microsoft's downfall is largely due to their losses in the Online Services Division. Apparently, otherwise it could have been a different story. Chamal T•C 00:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This isnt that big bit of news in the scheme of things. This was an eventuality which was expected some time soon. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • When are we ever going to post a tech/business story? Or are silly issues going to be found every single time? Microsoft vs. Apple is a classic business rivalry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to disagree: this event marks a shift in the long-time rivalry between Apple and Microsoft, which reflects and builds on the market mood, consumer preferences, technology development directions, etc. If this shift needs to be noted ever, this is a good occasion, although it might be only a symbolic milestone. Crnorizec (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this really capstones the transition of an entire of the entire computing/tech/mobile industry. Not every event has a 'bam' quality to it. Some creep up over years and years and then are just pointed out as markers of the change. Ocaasi c 18:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: significant shift in the technology market. Crnorizec (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Apple was all but dead some years back. This is a remarkable story of major notability. Worldwide interest as well. Jusdafax 01:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marking [Ready], only one non WP:IDONTLIKEIT oppose and lots of support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You shouldn't be the one making that decision. There's a reason why admins who participate in AFDs aren't the ones who close them.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • When I did it the consensus was very clear. Theres no point in bureaucracy for bureaucracies sake. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with WaltCip there - this was not a routine addition. You'd already added it once, it was removed, and you then added it again, despite as you acknowledge being an involved editor. You were also very dismissive of contributor's positions: you could argue that they WaltCip's position was poorly developed but it is a valid evaluation of the blurb. Adding a ready tag also has the effect of closing off debate at a point in time favourable to you. In any case, the administrator's guidance for this page is clear - it is their responsibility to decide if and when a valid consensus has been reached. In that respect any Ready tag is completely pointless. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
            • At the point of it being added yesterday morning there were five well argued supports including the nomination (support !votes don't need a bold support to count) and a weak support (though one that was well argued). On the other side there was one WP:IDONTLIKEIT oppose and one well argued oppose. At best for the opposes it was 5 supports (including the nomination) vs 2 opposes. And that misses the fact that the substantial oppose !vote had two (at worst) counterarguments made against it. No uninvolved person could realistically have judged consensus at that point any other way that I did given the facts so being involved shouldn't have been an issue.
            • First I had added a [Ready?] which just means that I think the article was updated as the consensus at that point was less clear - Next time I'll use [Article updated] initially. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 04:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Single quarter reports cover a too short interval. A temporary increase in profits can come from the release of a single product (e.g. Ipad2) without being an indication of the overall situation. Don't post until/if Apple has a yearly profit greater than their current main rival, if you absolutely must post at all./Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You realise that Apple are in the lead over Microsoft by 700 million dollars? And that the media won't cover it again. Additionally the iPad 2 only came out at the end of the quarter, so its unlikely to have made a particularly big impact to Apple's profits. Additionally their iPad business over the whole quarter only made $2.8 billion in revenue. So what you've got to argue is that the iPad made an additional profit of 25% of that value which they wouldn't have ordinarily made, which is rather far fetched. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, not the Ipad2 then. As usual I made the mistake of using an example to argue a general point. The general point: A quarter is a too short interval of time to be an indicator of a general situation. If the media covers quarterly reports instead of yearly ones, then they are unfortunately looking for easy news instead of doing things properly and analysing actual long-term trends. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • even generally - when MS isn't about to release a new version of Windows or Office the chance of them making up 700 million is implausibly low. Especially when they beat their estimate too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
apple didnt make the highest profits. they just made more profit than microsoft in 3 months. they are not really competing exactly in same areas and the time frame is quite small. singling out a company beating another will seem awfully biased of ITN. hence oppose -- Ashish-g55 18:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And MS is their key rival. There will be no media coverage of the annual profit, and as pointed out above they are leading by 700 million dollars - which is a hell of a margin and as pointed out to Coffeeshivers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is a popular mass media comparison but how relevant is it really? Apple and Microsoft are in essentially different sub-sectors - one is primarily a hardware and consumer electronics company, the other primarily in software. That makes direct comparisons hazardous especially on quarterly earnings since the natural cycle of companies in different sectors is different. For example, IBM's earnings were broadly comparable for the previous quarter, but are much lower this time around. What does that tell us about the companies? Nothing, except they receive income at different times of year. Wait for the annualised figures that may show something of interest, and that might then be something worth posting. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • Apple is a CE company, so their highest profits usually come in Q4. Additionally they are leading by 700 million dollars, as pointed out to Coffeeshivers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It the are "leading" that implies they haven't "won" yet. We don't post results half way through a race. Wait till year end results are out if at all. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noone will care at the end of the year (and anyway, which year, Microsoft's financial year - ends in June, Apple's financial year - ends in September, or the calendar year - ends in December). Leading is only used because Microsoft and Apple don't pack up and go home now, they keep competing. Obviously in the future Microsoft may re-take the lead, but they are extremely unlikely to do so next quarter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In the public's eye these 2 companies have been rivals for decades. This will interest our readers (and serve an interest that's already there). Not sure if the article is there yet but this is a natural. We're not here to be business analysts but to pick out articles that will draw readers in. RxS (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still divided on this one. I think that it's important, and I'm personally not opposed to tech items at all. This story though, it seems so... small, for some reason. It's two specific companies. Would we theoretically post a story about Ford vs. GM, or something like that? I don't think that we would... This is just too... "operational".
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STS-134

Since we're discussing the wedding already, why not talk about the penultimate shuttle launch. Also of note, Gabby Giffords will attend. WhiteKongMan (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With such a little number of shuttle launches left, I don't mind posting them all. The article is in good shape. Maybe we can highlight the equipment it is carrying to space, Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer is a very decent article. --Tone 15:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton

Article: Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton begins in London. (Post)
Article needs updating
Placing this on now for preparations for the subject to be placed on ITN at midnight perhaps, and the "two royal weddings within a year" hook might be good.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone opposes this I'll hit him/her with a baseball bat lol –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you on that. Perhaps the "two royal weddings within a year" hook might be good.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be placed on ITN at midnight? -- tariqabjotu 14:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a Note: Dont need supports for this. It will be posted -- Ashish-g55 14:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
says who? this is not ITNR and its not a given.
that said futile op[pose not int; noteworthy. he is NOT the king of any realm.Lihaas (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of god, everyone should take a refresher on what "international noteworthy" means and how that phrase has been abused to death in this page. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And just who says he has to be king for this to be posted, Lihaas? Your oppose is clearly POINTy. StrPby (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no reason arguing with oppose points unless they become more numerous. -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support story on Royal wedding in the UNITED KINGDOM (not England! Old Liz is the queen of the United Kingdom and it's dependencies). As long as it's changed to the U.K., or not mention the country at all I'll be happy to support. However, I oppose including the fact it's the second Royal Wedding in a year - the two weddings were in entirely different countries and are completely unrelated. --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liz is monarch of 16 independent nations, including Canada and Australia. Those are hardly dependencies. HiLo48 (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is when and what blurb to post. What we had back in June was The wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling takes place in Stockholm. If we go for this wording, we can post it when they ... hm, enter the Westminster Abbey? If we decide to post something in style Prince William marries Kate Middleton, then we should post it only when we hear the words "Now I pronounce you..". In any case, posting this on midnight does not seem a good idea to me. Also, the article will need to be updated in the process. --Tone 15:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that posting it perhaps an hour before the event start would be for the best. Its not like Kate will be a runaway bride.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't ordinarily post an item before the event begins (and only occasionally post an item before the event ends). Why does this event warrant an exception? —David Levy 16:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no logic in mentioning the earlier wedding or posting the item at midnight. (What is the latter's significance? The item pertains to the event, not the day on which it will occur.)
    I agree with Tone's suggested timing, and I support using the same style of wording used last time (enabling the item's inclusion as soon as the wedding begins and the article has been appropriately updated, which is desirable given the enormous level of interest). —David Levy 16:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The risk of Kate or William changing their minds on the wedding is non-existing. To suggest that we should wait until they say "I do" seems a bit unnecessary. I say post it at around 9 on the morning of 29 april. That will give sufficient time for people unaware of this event to read trough the article and get to know the subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But the wedding doesn't start til 11 (that's UTC+1, btw), so why should we post it at 9 or at any other arbitrary time? I concur with David. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with David and Mitchell, too. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it's highly unlikely that the wedding will not occur. The same is true of the other scheduled events that receive ITN blurbs, including the handful for which we don't wait until they've concluded (e.g. the Olympics and similar).
    We can make a present-tense statement as soon as the ceremony begins and the article is appropriately updated. An advance blurb is unwarranted and would be misleading.
    Of the events receiving ITN blurbs, I doubt that there are many with greater public awareness, so the argument that it's incumbent upon us to spread the word (which isn't our responsibility under any circumstance) is far from compelling. —David Levy 17:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support posting when the admin posting posts it. Jusdafax 17:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest we wait until around noon GMT+1 as Kate may change her mind (being the bride's prerogative, of course) until then. I'm holding onto the hope she'll give me a last-minute call... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post it when it starts. Kate changing her mind would be a another ITN altogether lol. -- Ashish-g55 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think I'll be around to post it around 11 GMT then. The blurb in the same manner as for Princess Victoria. If there are any other ideas, let me know. --Tone 18:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the big fuss over when this gets posted. It's not like people don't know this is happening. When it gets posted is when it gets posted. So long as the blurb doesn't reference something that hasn't happened yet, it shouldn't matter. So midnight or 9am, London time, are both out. Sometime during the wedding is fine. However, if the blurb says they're married and they haven't said "I do" yet, it's wrong. Yes, it's highly improbable one of them bows out, but we do not predict the future. -- tariqabjotu 18:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post either at the beginning of the event, or at the moment they are officially married (it will be carried live). Abductive (reasoning) 20:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This kind of depends on what we consider the more major news item in this; the actual marriage between the two or the gigantic ceremonies (no doubt this will challenge for the record of largest worldwide tv audience). For my vote, I say we wait to post this until they are actually married. Posting this befre they get married could make us all look foolish if someone takes up the "speak now or forever hold your peace" chance. :P --PlasmaTwa2 22:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thats the part i wanna see. 2 billion people watching... pretty good incentive. someone has to be brave enough -- Ashish-g55 00:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support posting when marriage occurs. Also, please include mention that they've become Duke/Duchess of Cambridge through the marriage. --Dorsal Axe 07:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment an IP editor has commented that it should be posted before the wedding itself on Talk:Main Page - I kinda think they have a point, it could be posted now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point being that this is a major event being widely covered around the world? Oh, what a novel idea. Thank goodness that IP was there to tell us this! Seriously, s/he has provided no new position. It was known well in advance by surely all those who commented here that this would be widely watched and covered. With the wedding not even under way yet, we have nothing to post. It's starts... what? ... an hour from now. Can we bear some sort of patience? At least until then, even if not until the conclusion of the wedding? -- tariqabjotu 08:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here they are. Posting. --Tone 10:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

April 28, 2011 (2011-04-28) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Constellation Energy Group in a stock swap valued at $7.9 billion. (Reuters)

Disasters

International relations

Science

Sport

2011 Marrakech bombing

At least 16 deaths, 20 injured in a bomb attack in Morocco. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle. Oppose otherwise - article is no more than a stub and is largely unsourced and of quality otherwise unfit for the Main Page. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First verdicts: Protesters sentenced to death by military court

Lots going on Bahrain which has been ignored for a while. Most widely covered seems to be the first verdicts - death sentences and life imprisonment for protesters. Live rounds fired at protesters in Sitra. King of Saudi Arabia suddenly cancels trip to Bahrain. Bahrain's "torture service" official attending the royal wedding in London. Pilots suspended and ordered to return home from the UK after attending protests there. And some sport. --candle•wicke 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support when updated. Btw, the UK is giving out very different treatments to Syria. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling this section has more references than the appropriate section in the target article, if it exists. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell whether these death sentences are ITN-worthy or not. There are reports the prosecutors used a videotape of a car running over police officers in the trial. Either that tape is fabricated, which no one seems to claim, or it actually shows something far less sinister (for example, shots were fired, the protesters in the car got spooked, and they accidentally drove over the cops as they were trying to escape). Amnesty is condemning the trial as unfair, which it clearly was in numerous ways. But I don't think an unfair trial is significant enough if the charges weren't invented out of whole cloth--I can't tell whether that happened here. Their lawyers are denying the charges, which is standard.--Chaser (away) - talk 13:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter for ITN purposes if the trial was fair or unfair? These are the facts. They are the first verdicts. It is "only the third time in over 30 years that a death sentence had been given to a Bahraini citizen". People have marched in Bahrain and as far away as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan against the death sentences. Symbolic coffins have been carried in Lahore. Germany's foreign ministry has spoken against what it regards as a "draconian punishment". It has been in the news around the world (see sources above). There has clearly been some impact beyond what happens following most court verdicts. --candle•wicke 00:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose death sentences by dictatorships in kangaroo courts for political crimes are not uncommon, why single this instance out? Or do we get to post Iran and Pakistan and Afghanistan virtually daily to keep balance? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti election

thie was previosuly noomnated as ITNYR and the page ready to go as marked with unanimous support and was still not posted...Lihaas (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It's undergone only trivial changes since another admin declined it further down this page. The general criteria for updates still apply to recurring items like elections.--Chaser (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's still no prose update. Very little is said about the victory, and the lead doesn't even make it sound like Michel Martelly was elected president. -- tariqabjotu 02:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly old news, aswell... Nightw 04:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
botht he election and the lead section and updated with quite a few paras. weve posted court psotgns with less of an update.Lihaas (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

April 27, 2011 (2011-04-27) (Wednesday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

Technology

[Posted] New world records made by Canadian figure skater Patrick Chan

Article: Patrick Chan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Canadian figure skater Patrick Chan has set three world records, in his first ever win in a world championships, in the 2011 World Figure Skating Men's event in Moscow, in the short-, long- and overall-program. (Post)
Credits:

Important sport news in my opinion. Already in the German ITN.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is actually a perfect score. He competed only in the Men's single competition and obtained the first place in all Men's single events. And for all events he set new world records (in his first ever title in a world championship).--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a series of world records broken indeed and albeit some may claim it as subjective, it's a performance that has never been reached. I also rely my support on the fact that the sport is underrepresented in the ITN, although it's one of the most watched winter sports. Another important fact that probably makes the World Championship more significant is that it was scheduled to be held in Tokyo at the end of March, but was cancelled due to the devastating earthquake and rescheduled a month later to Moscow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ready to post. However, no results in the ITN blurb, just mentioning the record. --Tone 19:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support records iff the ISU officially recognises them and actually keeps a tally of them like the IAAF do. If they're arbitrary records not officially recognised and ratified, then support only posting the men's and ladies' singles titles winner as per ITN protocol for other sports. StrPby (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is officially added in the PSB scores [4]; however, the news on the official website of the ISU were not updated (only the short program, two days ago.) --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC) and here [5]. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Records like this should be posted. The personal opinions about the importance of certain records are irrelevant here.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. Nothing "should" be posted. ITNR with regards to records only extends to records that are "in an event such as aquatics or athletics" and are "broken either: by an unusually large margin, after a very long time period, or in a highly publicized event". Anything else, like this one, must be judged on its own merits. StrPby (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oooook. Well, I didn't intend my statement to have that meaning, but since you brought it up... this is an athletic event, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any margin higher then breaking a world record. Frankly, your statement above makes me... question your judgement.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly you don't understand what a margin is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Figure skating is not an athletic event. This does not appear to fall under ITN/R, as StrPby said. That doesn't mean, of course, that it can't be posted on its own merits. -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I doubt that this will be an easy score to beat in the coming years. I would have normally said no to this story, however, because these records are beat on a fairly regular basis -- Plushenko set the Short Program record last year (91.30), while Takahashi set the Free Program and Overall records in 2008 (175.84 and 264.41) [6]. But, to smash them all in one competition by a fairly wide margin? That's worthy of a post. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if the update is expanded a bit. Figure skating is a major sport and should be represented at ITNR IMO. This seems to be a major event in that sport.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article has had page views with no less than 200 until maybe prior to the competition, but after the record-breaking performance, the article page views soared to ~6,000. Now I dunno if that;s good enough but that still a pretty high spike considering the previous views. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen: At least 12 killed, more than 100 wounded

Article: 2011 Yemeni protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Plainclothes gunmen in Yemen kill at least twelve people in Sanaa and elsewhere as protests against the Ali Abdullah Saleh regime continue. (Post)
Credits:

By security forces in Yemen. Apparently plainclothes gunmen opened fire if that makes it any more significant. --candle•wicke 21:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it clear whether these plainclothes men were government police or military?--Chaser (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources say that several policemen and soldiers have been killed during the protests, so I don't think the claim that "12 killed by security forces" is entirely accurate. The protesters haven't been exactly peaceful. Also, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the plainclothes gunmen (although undoubtedly supporters of the president) are military. Let's be careful about the facts if we're going to put up a sensitive issue like this on the main page. Chamal T•C 03:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see the link in the heading to the related article, just saw the external links. I support it as the protests are very important because people are dying every day and countries all over the world are advising against their citizens travelling to Yemen. --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 23:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - First its show that the protests didnt end just because Ali Abdullah Saleh said he was going to leave in a month. It also shows that the protesters have rejected the GCC agreement. They also said that the might march onto the presidential palace the Friday. Overall, its worthy of being ITN. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clearly worthy of posting. A really big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We've already featured the Yemeni Protests four times on ITN since February, including most recently only four days ago. The murder of 12 more people, while tragic, is only a small addition to the violence that has already been occurring. I don't think this is enough of an event to justify bringing the topic back onto ITN so soon after it's last appearance. Dragons flight (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dragonsflight. Regardless of who killed these people, the number of deaths is small compared to how things have been going there. I expect either a resignation or a significant escalation in violence. Either would be ITN-worthy.--Chaser (away) - talk 17:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shouldn't be posted. There'll be something significant to post about Yemen soon enough, I'm sure.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Tornado outbreak in Southern United States

Article will be at Late-April_2011_tornado_outbreak_sequence but a separate one will probably be needed. Obviously its nowhere near ready to go on ITN, but I'm adding it because a historic tornadout outbreak is underway. It very well maybe the biggest single day outbreak since the 1974 Super Outbreak - CWY2190(talk • contributions) 21:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Number of fatalities will almost certainly exceed the last one we posted. Suggest individual article for the Tuscaloosa, Alabama tornado (possible EF5). ~AH1 (discuss!) 02:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 39 dead today so far according to the LA Times [7] and the warnings are still up. Jusdafax 02:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Catastrophic damage in multiple towns and cities. With so much going on reports are all over the place but it looks like 50 tornadic fatalities today alone and is expected to rise. Looking to be the deadliest outbreak since 1985 when 88 people were killed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra strong support Massive death toll, major outbreak also involving tornadoes striking large cities. Thousands affected, and some states are activating the national guard and bringing in mass casualty trucks per Weather Channel coverage. --Ks1stm (talk) [alternative account of Ks0stm] 03:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, we just had a tornado outbreak in the same area last week on ITN. I'm not sure how much people want to read about tornadoes. Certainly big news but...I'd oppose this. RxS (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry I have to be blunt here, but I've been keeping tallies of fatalities and this is now the deadliest tornado outbreak since 1974, with at least 96 people losing their lives. States of Emergency have been declared in Alabama, Georgia and numerous counties in Mississippi. There are also multiple unconfirmed fatalities that will likely later be confirmed (referring to the request for a "mass casualty trailer" in Catoosa County, Georgia). A meteorological event resulting in this many fatalities in the US is highly unusual. Also, as a ranting side note, the protests in the Middle East and Africa have been up for over two months now and you're complaining over two tornado outbreaks in week? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that 2 postings on tornado outbreaks in the Southern US in 2 weeks is a little much. People will be able to read about this story without ITN's help (not a news service and all that...). The article's been showcased and it's fine. No one said it wasn't a big story. The point is whether ITN should post it again. The Middle East unrest will have a much greater ongoing impact and the highlighted articles change from week to week. boy I'm not making any friends here this week am I RxS (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As with anything, sometimes there are exceptions. Had this been similar to the previous outbreak but slightly less deadly, I wouldn't be pushing to have it on ITN. However, this one is far more deadly and is having a major effect across multiple states. It's still going on now with warnings stretching from Georgia to the Virginias. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Post it again"? It's a separate event. —David Levy 04:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, RxS. You just duplicated a form of opposition that I presented as an intentional absurdity the other day. Unbelievable. —David Levy 04:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is one of the deadliest tornado outbreaks in decades. That it happened to occur shortly after another tornado outbreak is one of the worst exclusion rationales I've ever seen posted here. —David Levy 04:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to be reminded what ITN is here for (hint: not a new service) RxS (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that I need to be reminded of that, you obviously haven't paid attention to my countless comments on the matter over the years.
I'm baffled as to how including an item similar to another recent item amounts to treating the section as a news ticker. Variety is desirable, but not at the expense of omitting items meeting our normal criteria. I said it about football matches, and I'm damn sure going to say it about tornado outbreaks. —David Levy 04:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm saying we're not robots needing to follow criteria down to the letter. A tornado outbreak is only so interesting to many of our readers so whats the point of having 2 of them exactly? We can disagree on this...I don't want to go on about it. But I will say that I'd trade slavishly following criteria for variety most times. RxS (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that I support "slavishly following criteria," you obviously haven't read my countless comments regarding WP:IAR over the years.
I'm not arguing that we should follow rules for the sake of following rules. I'm saying that it's undesirable to exclude items meeting our normal inclusion criteria — especially ones pertaining to exceptionally noteworthy events — for the sake of variety.
Life is unpredictable, and so is our encyclopedia's growth. The section sometimes has lots of variety, and it sometimes doesn't. Artificially suppressing items won't fix anything, and I'm stunned by the assertion that readers aren't interested in reading about one of the deadliest tornado outbreaks in decades because it happened to occur a short time after another tornado outbreak. —David Levy 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Easy support We can't help that Mother Nature appears to be pissed right now. If this were an event well separated from any other outbreak, we wouldn't even be thinking about this, so why - exactly - are we having a debate now? StrikerforceTalk Review me! 04:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update? By the way, is this a completely separate outbreak from the one previously posted, or just a continuation? Just out of curiosity. -- tariqabjotu 04:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Separate, the area is prone to tornadoes in the spring. Abductive (reasoning) 04:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two different articles April 14–16, 2011 tornado outbreak and Late-April 2011 tornado outbreak sequence. Some shared content but not tons. They are in good shape mostly...and updated. RxS (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ratchet. If people promise not to nominate any other tornado outbreak with fewer fatalities ever again, I'll support this one. Otherwise I oppose on the grounds that it is a weather event, there are always more weather events, and Wikipedia is Not News. Abductive (reasoning) 04:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps for every tornado posted, there should be a football match posted the same week. Would that be acceptable? Nutmegger (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tornado season and the windup of the football season do occur at the same time so... LOL –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. There will always be more national elections, violent attacks and sociopolitical turmoil too. How does a natural disaster (weather-related or otherwise) materially differ? —David Levy 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS is a rather strange rationale considering that this section of Wikipedia is called "in the news". Personally, I feel we ought to be more inclusive about what ends up on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At its heart, WP:NOTNEWS is based on the idea that Wikipedia articles require secondary sources, and news reports are primary. Abductive (reasoning) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
News reports are not primary sources. They're fact checked, edits, and written by someone completely uninvolved in the story (99% of the time, at least). Hell, neutrality is almost as large of a "pillar" to journalists as it is to us (to the good journalists, at least). I'd recommend reviewing primary source.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as one of the biggest tornado outbreaks for decades. That another tornado outbreak was posted recently is a ridiculous reason to oppose frankly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deadliest tornado outbreak since 1974. Possibly most tornadoes in history. Massive destruction in major cities. No-brainer for Main Page. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 10:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most recent outbreak (the deadly one) has been split to its own article: April 25–27, 2011 tornado outbreak. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 11:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Why isn't this posted yet? It should cover the entire recent series of tornado outbreaks. The death toll is up to 173. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 11:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Article is thin, but I'd consider posting a high-quality article of that length. My issue is that it's largely a running log of events, and two thirds of the article is tables, while huge chunks of the text are completely uncited. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, clearly a very notable outbreak having killed almost 200 people, but the article as it stands shouldn't be posted to the Main Page. And I agree with comments above by David Levy and Eraserhead among others about the absurdity of opposing such a major outbreak simply because there was another tornadic event recently on ITN. StrPby (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enormous tornado outbreak and sadly, a high death count; 183 last check.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revised Support Regardless of my earlier objections, overnight this has grown into something in a class by itself. Still occurring. HJ is right though, most of the table information is uncited which is a problem. RxS (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally EF5 tornadoes are notable enough to be mentioned in the blurb. Its also likely there will be at least one more rated EF5 which would make it only the third day with multiple (E)F5 tornadoes. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 14:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Hamas and Fatah reach deal for unity government

Article: Palestinian National Authority (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Palestinian rival factions Hamas and Fatah announce a deal to form a unity government ahead of elections. (Post)
Credits:

This is pretty much a no-brainer, but which article are we going to update? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the section hash-linked in the blurb, plus a smaller update to the history section. Nightw 23:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ditto, whats the use of these silly nominations without an article? were not going to post a story on itself, thats what te media is for.Lihaas (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petraeus to head CIA; Panetta to become Secretary of Defense

Article: David Petraeus (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ U.S. President Barak Obama will name Gen. David Petraeus to the post of CIA Director, and will name current Director Leon Panetta to become Secretary of Defense. (Post)
 
 

These are big changes in the U.S. military and intelligence commands, and widely reported in the worldwide media. Not positive what the best article to point to is though I lean strongly towards David Petraeus, which has yet to be updated. Jusdafax 21:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support important news, who the head of the world's richest defence department is is a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support these positions are important and have significant influence, even internationally, and this is going to be widely reported. Hut 8.5 21:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the heads of government agencies change all the time. If the head of the MoD, the defence department for the United Kingdom (which controls the world's largest navy) were to change, would that be featured on the home page? I highly doubt it. This is just another America-centred story with little importance to the majority of Wikipedia's audience. --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 23:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The U.S. Navy is bigger than the Royal Navy. The former article indicates it is bigger by tonnage than the next 13 largest navies combined.--Chaser (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The UK hasn't had the world's largest navy since before WW2... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • But how is that significant? I simply don't understand this "It's the biggest/best/most expensive" argument that gets wheeled out whenever something of fundamentally local interest to the US comes up. On that basis anything that is unique or unparalleled in any regard whatsoever in automatically notable - many such things would not legitimately warrant an article of their own, yet alone front page status. While something like an army or navy is always notable in its own right notability is not inherited by anything casually related to those topics. Finally, as already noted belwo, these appointments are still subject to confirmation. Obama has announced these names are to be put forward: the blurb as drafted has soemthign of WP:CRYSTAL about it.
          I think I've made my postion clear but to be explicit this is another oppose. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not just that it's biggest, but that it is the most significant. The U.S. military, partly as a function of its size, but also as a function of the U.S.'s unique position as the sole current superpower, has a huge effect on world affairs. It is party to both of the two major wars in the Middle East in the last decade. The individuals involved sometimes matter. Obama ordered the invasion of Libya over Gates' reservations. But "When [Gates] quietly backed the surge in Afghanistan that the military was calling for, Mr Obama had little choice other than to go along with it." The Economist. Who heads the U.S. Defense Department matters more than who is the President of Fiji, maybe not to Fijians, but certainly to anyone living in the Middle East. I support posting Panetta. Although Petraeus is a golden boy, I have not seen similar things about the significance of the CIA director. Given the N.Y. Times piece, I think it's possible that Petraeus's use of CIA drones will rise to a similar level, but this has yet to be seen. So oppose posting Petraeus.--Chaser (away) - talk 17:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure an update to Patraeus' article alone would suffice. I suppose we could bold both biographies if both were updated with their subjects' latest career moves unless anyone has a better idea? Also, has Pataeus' successor as COMISAF been announced yet? That's probably worth adding on or posting as its own blurb if an when. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose they are not heads of state and this is not significant. we dont go around posting heads of agencies every so often anywhere int he world. and the uk and others in nato are also important t o any global terror mongering so nothign to highlight the us is significat.
Furthermore the appointment is in a couple of month,s this is an annoncements. had to be approved...what if one were nto to pass? or be rejected ? or dead? we dont post elections theyre CONFIRMATION, no needto post this yet.Lihaas (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Apart from what to me is again blatant US_centrism (do Americans ever eally think before posting this insular rubbish?), can these two appointees really do anything the politicians don't want done? Surely they are just implementers of policy set by someone else. Not internationally notable at all, and surely not even really notable inside the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, unless you can actually discuss the points I make, and answer the questions I ask, rather than complain about me, I'll still feel I have a very strong point. BTW - I don't assume ill-thought on the part of the nominators, just non-thought. HiLo48 (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knew who Rumsfeld was [9]. Robert McNamara, architect of the Vietnam War, is still a household name for the 1960s generation. Gates has maintained a somewhat lower profile of cool competence, but even he's gotten huge mainstream press [10], including a lot when Obama asked him to stay on. I can't speak for outside the U.S., but they are widely known inside the country (which is a point you raised). And they do have a role in shaping a President's options. See the Economist story I linked above.--Chaser (away) - talk 17:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot imagine someone from another country suggesting similar appointments elsewhere for ITN. Now, I've repeatedly heard the two reasons why American things should be posted when similar stuff elsewhere isn't - America is the most powerful nation (obviously true), and (allegedly) half the Wikipedia readership is American (I still try to regard Wikipedia as global). Such reasons can justify some American stuff, but cannot justify the inclusion of just anything that's American, when we wouldn't do it for a similar event elsewhere. Each case needs to be considered on its merits. So what irks me is when an American event is proposed, with absolutely no explanation of why being American makes it important. Such a proposal always LOOKS US-centric, even if it isn't. So yes, include some American stuff that wouldn't work for another country, but do try to justify it please. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per NortyNort. We don't post changes in every Cabinet in the world, and it's not a HoG or HoS change. StrPby (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Gas Pipeline explosion

Article: Arab Gas Pipeline (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Natural gas supplies to Jordan and Israel are hit by an explosion in the Arab Gas Pipeline near Al-Sabil village in the Arish region in North Sinai near Egypt's border with Israel. (Post)

Major pipeline supplying Israel and Jordan with natural gas. Covered by all mainstream media. Beagel (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose why is it significant? 2 attacks in 2 months? were gonna post every attack shoult it happen every 2 months? it was restored in the last few weeks and will not doubt be resotred in about 2-3 weeks. Lihaas (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know. I agree that this is a major event, but... there's just something about this that makes me feel that it's not that major, if you know what I mean. It seems too... local, I guess.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama releases birth certificate

Article: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Barack Obama releases his longform birth certificate in an attempt to quell conspiracy theories about his birth. (Post)
 

This is headline news across the world and is unprecedented that a major leader has to justify his nationality in this manner. yorkshiresky (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - definitly worthy of ITN. Main news all over the world.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's cute that anyone thinks this will quell the conspiracy theorists. I see no reason to fuel them by giving any credence to them, and thus oppose. He didn't have to justify it, and I'm a little disappointed he did. --Golbez (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb needs to be changed to reflect that this is what Obama claims is his longform birth certificate. Certainly no reason to buy into that without independent verification. Danthemankhan 15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE i really hope that we dont post conspiracy theories/attempts to quell them on ITN... whats the news here? Confirmation of Obama being american after serving almost 4 years as president? -- Ashish-g55 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, to quote The Guardian, the nutters are "already busy moving the goalposts" and reinventing this ludicrous conspiracy. Besides, who gives two hoots? The Republicans? Well, they would—it's the opposition's job to try to discredit the incumbent, especially when there's an election on the horizon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This isn't news, because, you know, there was never any doubt that Obama was born in the U.S. -- except among people who wouldn't believe he was even if there was video of him being born. -- tariqabjotu 15:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This issue has been a persistent one, whether one thinks the allegations have merit or not. All international media reports on it. We have an extensive article discussing it, and one of the aims of ITN is to showcase our articles. But the primary marker should be its overall significance. I think it qualifies. __meco (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Per Wikipedia:Fringe. Reporting of this the story would imply this is more significant than it is. This was released years ago for at the beginning of the campaign during the election when he filed the paper work. Multiple WP:RS have certified it as non-issue years ago. Really? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sigh. This is a stupid story. However, it is a story that is in the global news, and perhaps more importantly, it is also a story where we have a pretty decent article that can be informative. If the purpose of ITN is to highlight news-related Wikipedia articles, then this is a good case where we can do that. Personally, I'd rather live in a world where this wasn't news, but I don't think that is realistic. Dragons flight (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As irritating as this movement was to many people, it was a legitimate movement nonetheless that picked up a lot of steam in recent years. Although, much like those who believed our landing on the Moon was a hoax, the far right (notice that I said the FAR RIGHT - there are some sane conservatives out there, as disbelieving as it may seem to this userbase) will find a way to claim the evidence is falsified or fabricated.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but rewrite. "After years of speculation from conspiracy theorists, Barack Obama releases his longform birth certificate in an attempt to finally settle questions about his citizenship and eligibility to be President of the USA." To avoid the Fringe issues, it should acknowledge it's on the Fringe and that this would, for most people, be more than enough evidence. Ocaasi c 16:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And? Unless something actually happens from this that has an impact on, oh I don't know...anything, then it's not really a notable event. We're not here to cater to speculation and conspiracy theorists with too much time on their hands. Nightw 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you prefer for wikipedia to deny existence of things that exist?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. This was never an issue. It's a conspiracy theory. This was not part of some court case or hearing which threatened the president's place in office whatsoever. To place this on ITN would be a horrible move, because this is of much lesser importance than was Charlie Sheen's dismissal. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be a confusion here between whether the conspiracy theory has any legitimacy and whether or not it is newsworthy. I think that's a category error, and one has little to do with the other. If half of the U.S. electorate is perplexed by the citizenship status of the world's superpower President, so much so that the President goes out of his way to release an old, crusty document to prove it, and the entire country reports on it, and it can influence the actual dynamics in the republican primary process--even though it's all a huge clusterf**k waste of time--it's still newsworthy. We have to weigh popularity as well as impact as well as inherent importance. Though this is super low on the latter, it has a surprising amount of influence with the first two. It's fair to want ITN to take the high road, but certain slimy, low-road issues somehow manage to catch the upper deck, and this is one of them. Ocaasi c 18:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it's popular news item, so we're supposed to post this every time there's a development on it? This week the guy publicises his birth certificate, next week some guy with nothing better to do provides some good evidence to say it's been falsified, then a week later the government provides some better evidence to the contrary... Unless there's some noticable impact, I'd rather not see ITN become a update ticker on the latest maybe-hoax. Nightw 19:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He released his short-form certificate before the election. This is the long-form certificate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The short-form had his birth place as well. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the size of the certificate make a difference? Both are valid United States birth records and would be available on the birth register (or what every the Americans have). --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The short-form certificate is not a legal document in several states, and is not as definitive as the long-form certificate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. President Barack Obama releases original birth certificate--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while it is clearly bonkers to believe these conspiracy theories, and I highly doubt I would be anywhere close to WP:CIVIL if I was to describe my full and frank view of people who do believe this kind of stuff. However, and its a big however, a substantial proportion of the US population (25%) believes this kind of stuff - including one of the leading Republican candidates for the 2012 US presidential election. This story has made the front pages around the world. It was on the front page of the BBC News site earlier, and its one of the top stories on the Economist right now.
And then you have a story a few sections down like the Singapore Kunming Railway, which hasn't seen a single oppose - and that hasn't received any English language coverage at all outside of the Chinese state media. Now clearly I do want to post that story as I single handedly turned it from nothing into a 500 word article in a single evening. But we have to be realistic, for better or for worse this is a massive story that's much bigger than the Singapore Kunming railway and there's an article on it that meets the usual standard so we need to post it - otherwise we're just being ridiculous. If people were to oppose consistently as they do on stories like this we wouldn't have an ITN section at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you're seeing here is a general attempt to be "intelligent" with regard to "sensational" news. All media outlets will jump on a bandwagon such as this. Most press don't care about things that happen outside their sphere of influence. This isn't news at all, it's just a confirmation of something true. If it said he was born in Uzbekistan, yep, that would get my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then, for better or for worse, we have to jump on the bandwagon too. The readership cares about stories like this. I bet this article will have significantly more hits today than every other bold link on ITN - probably every other bold link twice over, if not more. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thats one of the differences in a news service and ITN. we dont need to jump any bandwagon -- Ashish-g55 19:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an encyclopedia should be obliged to jump on any bandwagon. We should make intelligent decisions to determine what is tabloid and what is actual news. This is clearly bunk. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The confirmation is the news. Putting it on ITN does not legitimize the conspiracy theory, it only reflects that it has already received attention, by the President. The release of the long-form certifiicate is one of very few 'milestones' in this saga that would be worth reporting, and hopefully it is the last. Ocaasi c 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Except we do, otherwise we aren't servicing what our readership whats. Giving a link to the biggest stories, like this one, allows our readership to see what Wikipedia has to offer on the world's biggest stories - none of the other front page sections can do that - and that was why ITN was setup in the first place - to do just that after 9/11.
I dislike the birthers just as much as you guys do, but this is a big story. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No deal. Confirming something that the US establishment would have researched before making him President is not news. Making the whole story up would be. Him being a foreign national would be. Right now, no news. Just something we all knew would be "confirmed" at some point. Move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a major story being covered internationally. It's really not for us to second guess why that is or impose our own views on whether the media is giving this too much oxygen. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's getting "covered" but not significantly. In the UK, there seems to be more interest in the UK economy, the forthcoming Royal Wedding, Palestinians getting it together, sales of Olympic tickets, then a bit of paper saying what we all thought. At least that's the case according to the BBC homepage right now. Where else is it headlining outside USA? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
everyone has a birth certificate... obama showed it to people. well good for him. i still dont understand where is the news. is it that its long form certificate instead of short form which was already known? its all gossip material... nothing has changed. If we post this then we should also post Lindsay lohan going to jail again. It also got a lot of media attention -- Ashish-g55 20:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have feelings both ways. I agree with comments above by Dragon's Flight, Meco, and Eraserhead1 in support of posting. I think it is particularly telling that this is the lead story on The Telegraph and the BBC. On the other hand, this is essentially a campaign story. Our usual practice is not to post those. A comparable example is the Jeremiah Wright controversy and Obama's speech about it, which would have been the logical time to post on that. We didn't, despite, I am sure, significant news coverage. I tend to think we shouldn't post this either.--Chaser (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose emphatically I agree with Obama - "We do not have time for this kind of silliness." The whole story from start to finish makes Americans look like fools in the eyes of the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic since Obama did spend time on it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely he was speaking euphemistically, making the point that he had been forced by silly people to do this, and having to spend time on something so silly was taking time away from his efforts on more important things for the country and the world. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • zOMG, enough of this idiocy! Post this already and let's be done with this stupid birther crap.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • GOD NO I see lovely US bias all over here! Disregarding that, I find this absolutely weird. Even if I were an US-ian I wouldn't care about this. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Many major news stories affect primarily one country, though it's been reported as a headline in the UK and Australia. It's in the news, and Wikipedia has a great article and update on the topic, being a major though fringe political battleground. It probably (hopefully) will not get this level of coverage again, so why not highlight this well-written, neutral encyclopedia aricle? MeekSaffron (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Chaser, which is, in my book, the only valid oppose rationale here. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Certainly newsworthy as an event (i.e., "Hey, this happened, after a bunch of people raised a big stink about it!"), but should have been a non-event. I'm no Obama fan in the least bit, but I strongly disagree with and am disappointed in the birther movement. To have this in ITN would be justification that their cause was legitimate to begin with, in my opinion. In the interests of seeing Wikipedia remain neutral, I oppose adding this to ITN. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 05:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose The legal document that verily attests to the president's U.S. birth to an American mother was released years ago, and the new document is not "the real document" or "more legal" than the prior one, it's simply a different presentation. This is not new proof, and it isn't as though it took this long for the legal document to be released. This is not news. Nothing new here except the laughable responses of the would-be opposition candidates (Donald Trump is proud of himself, also not new) and the pivot of the birthers to now demand his college transcripts. Anyone who could still cling to this strategy is the vilest of filth that can still walk around free with papers of their own in this country, and the fact that the president requested Hawaii release this document to him to satisfy the irresponsible media so they will stop acting like this is a story worthy of daily coverage despite what is arguably the most complex and fastest-moving time ever in history and get back to their service to the public interest is not worth anything but a collective jeer in their direction (by which I include those in the media and politics that continued to waste breath and space and precious time on this) and moving on with real news, as in something new we didn't already know but should. Abrazame (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Hacker Raids Sony Videogame Network

Article: 2011 PlayStation Network outages (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ More than 60 Million users of the PlayStation Network have been affected by a service outage and personal and credit card information theft (Post)

This develops into one of the biggest data breaches in history. The Playstation network is down for days, and theft of personal information and credit card data is confirmed. 77 million people are affected[12][13] Crnorizec (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the update, this is a good topic. In the news and the extent of the data breach goes beyond some of the recent hacks. RxS (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good. Baseball Watcher 01:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Data Breaches occur, I am not seeing any sourcing to indicate the largest ever. Really this doesnt affect alot of people in the scheme of things either. Also I have yet to see any source claim that 77 million have been affacted. This 77 million could have been affected. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the 77 million number is the number of accounts from which information was taken. If and how they were affected is a little hard to know but what put it over the edge for me was that credit card info was included (or at least " we cannot rule out the possibility"). Plus the fact that the service is completely down, which is also unusual. RxS (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see this posted, once we get an update or new article for it. Data breaches certainly do occur with somewhat frightening regularity, but that combined with the outage is pretty huge. The console market is a multi-billion dollar industry, and when one of the main players is taken down like this that's big news. ...I'm trying to think of a good parallel to something else. The best thing to come to mind would be an event such as the Dow Chemical leak that occured in India, back in the late 80's (late 80's, right?).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is by far the largest data breach in video game history and I believe that we don't post enough video game items anyway. This has the potential to completely change the way services like PSN and Xbox Live operate, plus... Come on, 77 million users were affected. --PlasmaTwa2 07:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this sounds like a seriously big deal, and one that's well worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: According to playstation uk, just about everything its users had on the PSN could have been obtained, including names, locations and credit card details. Affected userbase? 77 million. Big deal? I should think so. Chamal T•C 08:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when article is created/updated - personally I don't think it's worth its own article, just a bit in PlayStation Network or something.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  08:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now we have 2011 PlayStation Network outages, but too short yet. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and updated the blub (not really sure what the "rules" are on that, but I figured I'd give it a shot and see what happened). The article is certainly short, but it's succinct. It's actually a fairly good article, I think, given it's size.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 11:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, quite a major news, but it would be better to wait a day or two to get more information on what was stolen and also to have a proper article going. -- Ashish-g55 15:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks like a very important report that calls on a high level of awareness. Also I think we don't post enough stories of such specific areas.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Chamal_N. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the biggest attack on a gaming network in the history of online gaming. Multiple sources confirm this --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Once again hyperbole is getting in the way of accuracy. According to the blurb 60 million people have had their credit card details compromised. Where is the source for that? I'll give you a clue - there isn't one. All that has been mentioned in reliable press is the possibility that they may have been taken. Whether they have, and if so how many, is unknown, to the public at least. This is not the place for paranoid speculation. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then be bold and update the article - that's actually much more useful than complaining here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would effectively reboot the entire discussion. The discussion up to this point has been premised on the fact that financial details have been compromised. I have pointed out that is mere speculation, which has the effect of making the item less notable. How well grounded that speculation is has not been made public - we don't know to what extent Sony ring-fence financial data. Reading through the comments above it is apparent that the credit card angle has weighed heavily on some contributors in reaching their decisions. As a result expressions of support based on that false premise can't legitimately be considered to stand (without confirmation from the contributors) if that element is removed. This isn't a minor redraft of the blurb or fiddling at the margins - it is an issue that affects the significance of the events at a fundamental level. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sony Corp. has advised all customers to be vigilant about their credit card statements. Furthermore, they have publicly announced that there has been a theft of credit card information, and that 77Million have been affected. Now, there's the first reported CC fraud [14]. Do you expect that the hacker will issue a receipt for 77M stolen credit card details to clear your doubts? Crnorizec (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where is your source for the ssertion that Sony has announced the theft? The article that you link to doesn't say that, indeed it states clearly:
Sony has no firm evidence that credit card details were stolen...
...and that was last updated two hours and five minutes before I write this. What has happened in the last two hours?
The article itself is not particularly substantial when you strip everything away. A Playstation Network user has noticed fraudulent acitivity on their card in the last few days. For all the sensationalism no link is made between the fraud and the Sony breach, as if CC fraud was a complete impossibility before this data was stolen.
In the meantime saying this is ready to be posted when it is factually incorrect is laughable. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: it is loooking more and more likely that CC details were not leaked after all. I just rang my bank about something else (the Co-operative here in the UK) and there's a standard recorded message about this at the start of each call. Basically, it says you don't need to worry and we see no reason to replace your cards. They are literally putting their money where their mouth is. There is also this article on El Reg: [15] which seems to confirm things have been blown out of all proportion. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It seems that your bank should be more careful after all... [16] Crnorizec (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

April 26, 2011 (2011-04-26) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

Technology

More women than men have college degrees in the US

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​ For the first time more women than men have university degrees in the United States (Post)

United State's Census figures shows the number Women with College Degrees has surpassed that of men. BI Slate Rather Significant mile stone in my book The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for goodness sake. Please give up on using this (doubtful anyway) claim that the US makes up nearly half the English readership as a justification for massive US-centrism, and an excuse for too many Americans to continue to ignore the rest of the world. How relevant is the language of readers to women's rights? Do Americans not even care what happens in Quebec? Surely it's a global issue to be covered in a global encyclopaedia. It's nice that America is progressing, but 5% of the world's population is not all that much. How are things in India and China? HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well its only 45%... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not doubtful and I said nearly half. Nothing wrong with acknowledging the fact that a significant number of readers come from the US and once in a while catering to them. RxS (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the announcement this way... "In a country with 5% of the worlds population, more women now have college degrees than men." The language the readers speak has nothing to do with the (in)significance of this item. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The population of the United Kingdom is approximately one tenth of the United States of America. If you ensure one in every ten articles is exclusively about the United Kingdom and does not relate to any other country in any way, I'll be glad to support this idiotic excuse for news but until then, if only proper news stories from my country can be featured, I don't see why the same rule shouldn't apply to yours. --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 19:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kiril Simeonovski. This is one stat from one country. One group has overtaken another... so what? It is simply crossing a threshold: moving from 49.9% to 50.1% of graduates only matters if some artificial significance is attached to the 50% figure. Why does that really matter in absolute terms?
In any case, where is the significant new content here? Where could it go where more than a single line would not be undue prominence? The remit of ITN is to highlight fresh content, and artificially stuffing random content into articles doesn't count - remember main page entries are supposed to represent the best of Wikipedia, not be simply box-ticking exercises that allow anything through provided the requisite hoops are jumped through. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specific count argument makes some sense when talking about something like gold, but when its 50% it means going from a minority to a majority, which is a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I have to agree with the Meh comment - but the protests of USCentrism (who invented the internet, and Wikipedia, BTW?) would carry more weight if they were also raised when articles are critical of the US. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • here is an interesting/disturbing fact thats been in news quite a bit lately... that in india there are way more girls being aborted. in terms of important statistics i would rather put that on ITN than college degrees in US. so just as general curiosity would anyone support that news, cause if you dont then this one should not stand a chance. -- Ashish-g55 00:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, victory for feminists, massive "so?" for the rest of society, I feel.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  01:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak to moderate support. It seems rather noteworthy, interesting, and more importantly is the only time that the number of US women with college degrees will outnumber US men with college degrees for the first time in history (cue double takes at my intentional stating of the obvious). Still, I can see how it is kinda a "meh" issue as well, which makes me hesitate on fully supporting. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 01:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose So what? And also because I am a guy. Baseball Watcher 01:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is our POV that this is important, or noteworthy, or even desirable. Women getting more degrees has nothing to do with their collective liberties being increased, but with millions of individual women that just happens to add up to be more than the millions of individual men getting degrees. Danthemankhan 02:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No article suitable for the blurb (History of education in the United States is too much of a stretch, IMO), and also since this is not news. College enrollment figures show that women have been enrolled in greater numbers than men for at least the last 10 years. Thus, this event is not surprising or unexpected in the least, and it is barely newsworthy. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not newsworthy. At some points in history, more men will have college degress and at others more women will. The fact that one gender has more degrees than the other doesn't mean anything. Also relevant to only America. I'd be somewhat more supportive if the news regarded the entire world but it doesn't. --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 18:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a realization not an occurrence. Not news. Similar to the "more Latinos in major US cities than African Americans" a while ago. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

April 25, 2011 (2011-04-25) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Technology

Thousands protest against nuclear power

Thousands of people protest against nuclear power in France and Germany (including a "die-in") and there are plans for protests in India. All coinciding with the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster and in the shadow of the ongoing Fukushima I nuclear accidents. --candle•wicke 03:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we have a different standard for protests that occur in countries where civil liberties are curtailed (the MENA protests). I know we've reported on some protests in the free world, like the bigger ones against the Iraq War, but I doubt these protests rise to that level.--Chaser (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But why should there be different standards for different parts of the world? And how are these different standards determined? --candle•wicke 03:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In unfree countries, protestors are risking their lives. Protests in free countries prove nothing. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the differing standards, but the reason for the difference seems fairly obvious, to me. Protesting in jurisdictions where individual civil liberties are (at least partially) guaranteed is hardly extraordinary. Heck, at some periods of time it's been almost expected for people to protest. Within jurisdictions where the police and paramilitary organs regularly brutalize, and even murder, those who speak out against the government, such protesting is extrodinary.
As for how the standards are determined, see: consensus. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is... but I don't know who said it was supposed to be. --candle•wicke 04:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Given the context of the event in coincidence with the Japanese thing, this is the first major manifestation of plummeting public opinion on nuclear energy... Nightw 04:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Major manifestation of plummeting public opinion"? That seems a rather POV statement. Do you have any proof of this? Otherwise, there's no indication that nuclear energy is going away any time soon.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? That public opinion of nuclear energy is turning negative as a result of Fukushima? Um, the article... Did you read it? Plus here, here, here and here. And please don't confuse POV and original research. They're entirely different things. Nightw 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Yunus cleared in court probe

Yunus, who was awarded the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, is cleared of misappropriating Norwegian aid money at the Grameen Bank. A conviction might have been nominated so maybe this is as significant? --candle•wicke 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's nothing here to "report", though. It's a non-event. What would we be highlighting, anyway? His bio article, Muhammad Yunus?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know, the article has a NPOV tag on it. Plus I'm not sure if it'll be interesting enough to readers to draw them into the articles. RxS (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's not a "non-event" since the clearing of charges is an event. I'd support on account of its GA status, but there's also a total of 3 maintenance tags... Nightw 05:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not that big a deal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support Reading the extensive portions of the Yunus bio that discuss various grudges against him, political rivals, films, notable defenders, protesters in his defense, there is nothing about his being cleared there. We need to actually present articles that address what the news has established. But I do agree that as there was an attempt to tarnish the name and reputation of someone who was not long before championed by some of the same people, it would be responsible to shine the ITN spotlight on the fact that this extraordinary allegation was found to have no merit. Abrazame (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand that thinking, but what then immediately springs to my mind is "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", you know? We shouldn't be advocating positions, ourselves. Even for (actually, especially for) things that may be... egregious. There's that whole neutrality thing and all.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:SOAP, charges made and charges dropped are cheap - why I also opposed the Mubarrak (no charges, just detained) "news item". Do we report every notable suspected person's acquittal, much less not even being charged? no. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Tanks advance on Daraa

Article: 2011 Syrian uprising (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ As Protests in Syria continue, tanks are deployed in Daraa. (Post)

Assad is escalating the violence in Syria by deploying tanks in Daraa, a prime site of the protests. It's currently the lead story on nytimes.com, but not getting as much press anywhere else. I think it'd be worth modifying the blurb and moving it up. What do others think? I'll update the article.--Chaser (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Suggest "After dozens of protesters are killed over several days, the Syrian government deploys tanks and soldiers to Daraa." I'm not phrasing the first clause in the active voice because the media is still having a lot of trouble verifying that the regime is responsible for the deaths.--Chaser (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important enough to update or move up, which ever works. RxS (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking ready.--Chaser (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOT ready, we only have 1 support. we dont vote count so candlewicke's doesnt count.Lihaas (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with Chaser, Ohms law and RxS. I just didn't want to repeat the same again. --candle•wicke 22:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see 3 supports (and no opposes). I don't think you have to write support in big bold letters to indicate support. I'd like to see people stop bolding votes and move to more of a discussion. But I'm re-marking this ready. RxS (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on discouraging bolded "votes". I think that's one of the worst things that we collectively allow to continue on. I don't see a problem with people adding "+1" or something similar, since not everyone needs to come up with some eloquent argument in order to add support or opposition, but the bolding really should go.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Support updating the currently posted entry" +1 --bender235 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can suggest a updated blurb, I'll post this. RxS (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added a blurb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu

Article: Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu, considered to be the First Lady of South Vietnam (1955-1963), dies at the age of 87 (Post)
Article needs updating

[19] Not many English-language sources yet, but I think there will be many soon DHN (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English-language sources are trickling in: Guardian NY Times DHN (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. She was obviously influential if the section "Influence on Vietnamese fashion" is accurate and eight years is a long time to be in such a position. ITN has posted something relating to the First Lady of Nigeria so why not South Vietnam? --candle•wicke 02:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She was much more influential than just in fashion. As the most powerful woman under Diem's regime, she was one of the more notorious figures in the history of South Vietnam. DHN (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well that makes her even more significant then? --candle•wicke 05:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I was merely pointing out that if one would list out all the reasons she is notable, her influence in fashion wouldn't be the first thing that comes to mind. DHN (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The more I think about it, this is a perfect example of an ITN posting. Good article, very interesting subject. (Once I clicked on it) I read it almost straight through. RxS (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose send people dying uneventfully of old age to recent deaths, which is already linked from the ITN box. Thue | talk 06:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose exactly per Thue. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kunming to Singapore railway

Article: Kunming-Singapore Railway (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Construction starts on the Kunming-Singapore railway with a section linking Kunming, China and the Lao capital Vientiane (Post)
Credits:

People's Daily, Voice of America. This is significant as it will be Thailand, Malaysia, Laos and Singapore's first high-speed rail lines. That the Chinese and other South East Asian countries are prepared to start building a 3900km high-speed rail line linking their capitals is seriously impressive - especially as currently there are no international high-speed rail lines outside of the EU. I think given that it is worth posting now, rather than waiting until 2020 when the line is due to open. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. Lots of countries involved. --candle•wicke 02:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support. Do we usually post groundbreaking on these? I'm not opposed to doing so even if we haven't before, but I think we should have a full discussion first. Obviously this is an exciting sign of development in these countries.--Chaser (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This construction is only from Kunming to Vientiane Laos capital, which is on the Thai border (I originally misread it), but that is the most difficult bit, I usually wouldn't suggest posting groundbreaking, but this line seems particularly significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. However, it should be noted that if you've been watching this kind of news over the last decade or two, you must have seen railway along this route being "discussed", "proposed", "planned", or even "started" every few years. Lots of papers get signed, studies are conducted, news reports are issued, occasionally a ground-breaking or two happen... and nothing much gets done. To be fair, a railway over a bridge from Thailand to Laos has actually been built - but it turned out that they've built it to the wrong gauge, so that railway won't be extended as planned (but it will be superseded by the new one, currently in the news).
Don't get me wrong - I really hope that now it's finally "the real thing". But before we put this into ITN someone ought to write an article with an overview of the earlier projects and plans. There is some material already e.g. in these articles:
-- Vmenkov (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No article at the moment, so no until then. The project's eventual plan is notable, not only for economics, but also given the massive environmental impacts and forced displacement of thousands of villagers. But construction is only limited to the gap between Kunming and Vientiane (see here), since the rest of the route is in fact already in place (see here), and people have been taking the train from Singapore to Vientiane for years. So at the moment the plan only involves China and Laos. I'd still support posting something about it as long as there is an appropriate article update, including something about the controversies surrounding it. Nightw 04:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current line between Singapore and Vientiane isn't going to enable you to go from Singapore to Kunming in "10 hours" as People's Daily have said or even, say, 50 hours - as it currently takes 48 hours to get from Singapore to Bangkok EDIT: although it does seem this first line is only from Kunming to the Vientiane - I didn't read it properly before :o. I will attempt to write an article on this this evening. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit more support would be nice. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay files leak

Article: Guantanamo Bay files leak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Files on Guantanamo Bay detainees are leaked. (Post)
Article needs updating

I'm restarting this discussion. The file leak itself is ITN-worthy and we ought to be able to get a quick consensus and good, fast updates in order to post this. We have gotten distracted (below) by the issue of the extent of WikiLeaks' involvement in this. If there is consensus to include that, then so be it, but if we get a good article and consensus on the files themselves before we come to a decision about whether WikiLeaks, then we should go ahead and post the main story.--Chaser (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously consensus that this is an important story, but this "reboot" doesn't seem to accomplish much as you propose a blurb that is just as problematic as any other. Do you have a suggestion for how to post this story without getting into the issue of who is responsible for the data? -- tariqabjotu 18:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, changed above (previous version).--Chaser (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just decided to put both of them in, similar to your original blurb, but this new one doesn't convey much. -- tariqabjotu 21:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia floods

Article: 2011 Colombia floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Torrential rains in Colombia trigger widespread flooding, killing at least 93 people. (Post)
Article updated

More than a year's worth of rain is reported to have fallen in Colombia, triggering widespread, damaging floods. At least 93 people have been killed and losses are estimated at $5 billion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am about to add an image to the article but thats sizeble deatoll and economic impact to make it ITN worthy The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support without image. One of the major flooding events this year. ~AH1 (discuss!) 20:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 93 deaths is significant. --candle•wicke 02:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs more. The two paragraphs are not enough to post.--Chaser (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Significant event but the article in pretty thin. Oppose until it's expanded into something we can showcase. RxS (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While the article could be expanded, it is just long enough to report the basic facts already. Thue | talk 06:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not posting with the article in its current form. I have no objection if another admin wants to do so.--Chaser (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:ITN#Criteria the article needs at least three well formed paragraphs. It's still thin.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and for as long as it is unposted, it shrieks the systemic bias of the project. If this had happened a couple of thousand miles NW, it would have gone up hours ago. Kevin McE (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia biased towards things that impact English speakers, film at 11. --Golbez (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably comforting to know that there hasn't been a U.S. weather-related ITN blurb in 2011. Two articles were nominated (January 8–13, 2011 North American blizzard and January 31 – February 2, 2011 North American winter storm) but they were not posted. So much for being gone up hours ago, eh? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Systemic bias may well exist but we can't post it in it's current state.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes I would've liked this to go up, but this won't even pass WP:DYK. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Pulled] WikiLeaks

Article: Guantánamo Bay files leak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ WikiLeaks and several news organizations begin publishing 779 secret documents relating to detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. (blurb as pulled) (Post)
Article updated

"The Guantánamo Files" have just been released. The descriptions of how children, elderly and mentally ill are being/have been treated suggest this probably won't go away in a hurry... the listing of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) as a "terrorist organisation" by the United States probably won't go down very well either. And the six-year detention of a journalist to "provide information" on Al Jazeera news network. --candle•wicke 03:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some more reasons. The framing of the writer. This cosy arrangement between Americans, Chinese, Tunisians, Moroccans, Russians, Saudis, Tajiks, Jordanians, Algerians, Yemenis and Kuwaitis. All Muslims travelling to Afghanistan must be supporting Osama bin Laden thing. And the Casio watch thing. --candle•wicke 04:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good update target.--Chaser (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose to a link to Wikileaks - the information was obtained by The New York Times from 'other sources' even though Wikileaks obtained it as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "These articles are based on a huge trove of secret documents leaked last year to the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks and made available to The New York Times by another source on the condition of anonymity." [21] Basically, Wikileaks didn't provide these documents to the NYT or other newspapers, so the people publishing and analyzing the content will have not used Wikileaks' content. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the previous leaks, the material was originally leaked to WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks forwarded the material to selected newspapers (excluding the NYT), and the the NYT obtained the leaked material through some chain originating at WikiLeaks. This is probably a repeat of that, through the already established channels (though it doesn't say anything other than "condition of anonymity"). Since WikiLeaks seems to be the primary point of leakage, I don't mind featuring WikiLeaks. Thue | talk 09:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I regret to say that I am not. Note that the POV that the Great Satan is guilty of yatta yatta yatta as based on an Op Ed piece in Salon Magazine is offered as a response to my request to provide a WP rational for this post rather than a political one. What we have here is the declaration that the US is evul and a meatpuppet chorus of me toos. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at Guantanamo file leak article and its not that bad with one vague tag... i did not have a look at it before but right now it seems ok. perhaps issues with it has been fixed? -- Ashish-g55 17:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Remarking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the article is very little improved since yesterday. It's short and has other issues as expressed above. I don't see this as ready at all. It's not an encyclopedia article, it's a poorly written news report of some sort. RxS (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I never understood the problem to begin with. Articles get posted in worse condition than this one. People are wringing their hands over the Haiti election article, which doesn't really have an update. There are no orange tags, so what's the problem? -- tariqabjotu 18:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that we shouldn't be posting poorly written or short articles at all. If I had seen the Haitian article I would have said the same thing. I'm not going to go on about this but if there's one thing we need to work on is that we post bad articles in a space that's meant for showcasing articles. This (and others to be sure) are in no shape to be showcased. RxS (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pulling this again. I'm sorry, but the article is in terrible shape. The "Detainees" section contains only one detainee (out of the many there, plus it's sourced to a primary source). What point is the "Nuclear hellstorm" trying to make? Then there are three quotes. I very much agree with RxS. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say, for the record, that the only reason I reposted the article was because people were saying it was fixed and it was remarked as ready. Considering I thought the original was perfectly fine for posting, it's not like I could personally judge it as up to people's standards, so general remarks were the best I could go for.
That being said, I stand by the original decision to post because this call for higher standard articles is borderline infeasible. Other sections are capable of slowly raising their quality standards because they have a greater crop to choose from (getting a featured article is more difficult, getting an article in DYK becomes more competitive, people actually care now about the quality of OTD articles). For some reason, though, perhaps because it's hard to write a good article on the fly, ITN has not really had that.
And so while we have people in the background complaining, rather understandably, about the slow rate at which ITN is updated, here we are suggesting the we raise our quality standards -- make it harder for articles to make it into the section -- without any corresponding increase in volume. WP:OTHERSTUFF be damned, this article has the amount of content needed to post an article in ITN. It does not need to be comprehensive or top-quality; it simply needs to be of a minimum standard. I would love to see the day when we have so many important current events articles updated that we can be this selective, but, unfortunately, that day has not arrived yet. -- tariqabjotu 02:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tariq, I wasn't aiming at your original posting – there was consensus to post. With the amount of citations this has, it normally would be decent enough to post, but the content of this article is very far off (why is only one detainee mentioned, etc.). It has enough content, but we aren't covering the topic properly at all. Where is the background in the body of the article? Where are the general reactions to the release of the content? Why are the BBC and CNN quotes relevant? (there's no analysis of them...)
Whoever rewrites that article should probably model it off United States diplomatic cables leak. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTH is this. If you want to pull something post here and discuss first. This is clear abuse of admin power. just like we dont post stuff without consensus, stop pulling stuff without it. It doesnt matter if you are in agreement with someone. You have done it twice now for same ITN entry which is borderline wheel warring now... On the main page!!! it does not look good when things go up and disappear from ITN. Stop doing it without discussing... -- Ashish-g55 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Paraphrase re the repost: "Rather egregious" "No doubt in my mind this should never have been on the front page". Posting what amounts to the latest in a serious of monthly press releases from an advocacy organization as if it were news, without an article or a WP rationale, is POV pushing of the most obvious and shameful kind. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a quaternary text, not a creator of news or a house organ of any stripe. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Say what you want about the quality of the article, but there's little disagreement that the story itself is notable and ITN-worthy. You're walking down a path that leads nowhere. -- tariqabjotu 02:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the one who mentioned that this story was particularly egregious. What I find even more egregious, however, is how this story is getting posted and pulled repeatedly. This is ridiculous. Either leave it up or do not post it at all.--WaltCip (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reposting as the various complaints seem questionable. The content is there. The references are there, 18 of them at the moment. Primary sources aren't in use throughout the article (media from U.S., UK, Australia all count as primary sources? What then is to be used?) The article isn't tagged, can't even find the tags that were said to have been "all over the place" in the history (unless {{current}} counts?) "Why are the BBC and CNN quotes relevant?" From reading that section it seems they are part of the reaction referred to officially by WikiLeaks. Agree with tariqabjotu that some complain ITN is too slow and others complain about the quality when articles are put on the Main Page. Which is it? This article has at least five paragraphs, four sections of content, a lede of 2 paragraphs and 18 references. Yet the same editor has removed it twice in less than 12 hours, the first time due to "too many problems" and the second time with no apparent reason in the edit summary. --candle•wicke 04:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? So you don't see any problem with the "Detainees" section discussing only one detainee, or what the purpose of the seemingly random "Nuclear hellstorm" section? The almost complete lack of background information, like links to the other leaks? Are there any reactions to the release beside the US government's? What is the purpose of the CNN and BBC quotes? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reposting per Candlewicke. Have been to busy in 'real life' to follow this back and forth stuff closely. Article seems in decent shape and it's still in the news, it is a big deal and ITN-worthy. Put it up for keeps this time. Jusdafax 05:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a mess. There are decent arguments on both sides. On the one hand, the article is not ideal, and has had a number of minor issues and arguably serious ones. It may meet minimum standards, but I don't think it's a good article. It doesn't have orange-level tags which are normally grounds for not posting. The topic is notable, but not as notable as has been asserted here IMO--it's pretty much been off the front page of most the the major media sites for over a day now. As for my view, I maintain my opposition to this posting due to the quality of the article, which is frankly confusing at several points. --Johnsemlak (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal--I suggest we request an WP:UNINVOLVED admin to come, review this situation, either post or not, and close the nomination. Respectfully, I think it would have been better had both the involved admins requested a third party and not reposted or 'repulled' this blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what WP:UNINVOLVED is about. Both Ed and I are uninvolved. Neither of us were part of the original discussion; it's not like I said I supported the nomination or Ed said he opposed the nomination and that each of us are just acting in accordance with our positions. Yes, we both have commented on the quality of the article, but my approval of the article's quality was inherent in my posting of the blurb while Ed's disapproval of the quality was inherent in his removal of it. So, we're not adding anything new.
Now, what you're suggesting is have one arbitrary admin, who is no more or less qualified to judge this situation than me or Ed, to judge once and for all whether this should be posted. You could have just as easily let me or Ed have the final say. But, obviously, that wouldn't have accomplished anything. Neither will your proposal. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You became involved when you posted it IMO. Arguably, that's a purely administrative role, but I think reposting the same blurb you posted before when you clearly are in disagreement with another admin on the blurb's readiness and a nomination which is clearly controversial is not acting from a neutral position. We now have had the nomination posted, pulled, posted, and pulled again, and I think it's pretty undeniable that's not a positive state of affairs.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah, John. So... is HJ Mitchell involved now that he commented? Or is he just acting in a purely administrative role by declining to post it, even though he has provided a reason for not posting it that essentially is a repeat of Ed's reason, your reason, and the reason of everyone who disapproves of the article? There's no functional difference. And, to be honest, what I would expect an "uninvolved admin", whatever that means, to do is simply say "it looks like there is/is not consensus that this article is ready to post" and act accordingly. Even HJ didn't do that; he's provided a position. That's fine by me, but you have come up with a truly arbitrary metric of who is allowed to comment and make a decision. -- tariqabjotu 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well they don't come much more involved than myself—I had no part in the discussion and, in fact, wasn't even aware it was taking place. I only come here now because, finding myself with a working computer for a change, I decided I'd see if I could be of assistance here. I'm afraid I don't think the article is sufficient. It's neat and tidy and I can see why one might think it long enough, but there doesn't seem to be much substance to it. It's basically a very long headline. I'd like to see a longer, deeper article before reposting—it's not like the material isn;t there, one could probably write an FA (or at least a GA) with the volume of material available and The Guardian and the NYT seem to have it well-covered. What's there is of good quality, but there's not enough of it for me. It should most certainly be reposted, but the article needs some graft. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, regarding whether this should be posted now (20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)). No, it should not. As I said in my preceding comment, at 19:21 (UTC), I really think that an admin posting/not posting/pulling should be based on the consensus that exists (or does not exist). This nomination has taken a rather wild ride. At the time, I initially posted, it was pretty clear that people thought this was appropriate for ITN. So, I posted. Following that, a couple people started questioning the quality of the article. So, Ed removed the blurb -- that's fine. In the following hours, it seemed like the errors were fixed, as some people mentioned the errors were fixed and the nomination was again marked as [Ready]. So, I posted; it seemed the trend had swung back toward support for posting. Around the same time, RxS chimed in again to say he felt the quality of the article was still not to snuff. By the time I saw that, the article had already been posted again, and I felt it would have been obnoxious to suddenly pull it again. So, I left it there. And then Ed came back a few hours later, and removed it, which was a fair judge of consensus considering people said the article was still unsuitable. Since then, there have been a number of positions for and against the quality of the article (including one by myself), but regardless, it's quite clear there's isn't consensus to post. I'm not going to repeat my consternation toward John's call for an "uninvolved" admin, but what admins who choose to add/remove articles should be doing is looking at everyone else's remarks and making the aforementioned decision. Despite my position on the article's suitability for ITN, what's important here is that, as of now, there is no consensus to post. -- tariqabjotu 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

April 24, 2011 (2011-04-24) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters

Politics and elections

Sport

Cambodian–Thai border dispute

TRheres also unanimoius support for "Cambodian–Thai border dispute blossoms up" below...Lihaas (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please mark in the section name "[ready]" instead of posting a separate note on the highest day. I know you want to keep discussion going, but doing this can be particularly confusing. SpencerT♦C 00:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

haiti election

(from below) its been ready for some days now, its on ITNR and it has support below. Lihaas (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it yesterday and it didn't look ready. And it still doesn't look ready now. What/where is the update? -- tariqabjotu 15:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the lead and the results section both mention Martelly'as winLihaas (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Sathya Sai Baba

I imagine we're not going to have problems with this one, but I'll mention it anyway. His article describes him as having "attracted presidents and prime ministers from India and beyond who have become his devotees; in 2002, he claimed to have followers in 178 countries". An esoteric, but certainly notable spiritual leader, his death is definitely ITN-worthy. -- tariqabjotu 05:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. An iconic figure among Indian gurus. Generated quite a bit of controversy too. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I notice the article has some disputed sections. Still, count me in. Jusdafax 06:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Iconic personality in India. Though some sections are not really clear, It could be bettered. Yes Michael? •Talk 08:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. Crnorizec (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 09:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled, pending resolution to the tags on the article.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  12:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, posting again since it's only really the one section that's a problem and the notability of the person, in my mind, counteracts that problem in this case.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  12:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I cannot support putting an article with NPOV tags right on the Main Page simply because "the person was notable". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's from 2009!  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  13:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a factual accuracy tag from this month. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's another orange-level tag (factual accuracy) from this month. ITN criteria are pretty specific that articles with 'orange level' tags should not be posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looking at the history of the article (which includes a 2007 ArbCom case about this article specifically) and the fact that the removal of the tag from 2009 was reverted as "vandalism", I'm not very hopeful that other tag will be removed anytime soon. -- tariqabjotu 13:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've removed all of the tags, with explanations in the edit summaries and an explaination on the talk page. If Radiantenergy (talk · contribs) reverts again then we'll go from there.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

April 23, 2011 (2011-04-23) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Law and crime

An EF2 tornado strikes Lambert-St. Louis International Airport

An EF2 tornado strikes Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, closing it to traffic indefinitely. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 22:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[22] StrikerforceTalk Review me! 22:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's times like this that I wonder if Australians (like me) and Americans speak the same language. I've looked at the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport article and discovered the word "jetway". I travel a bit, and have never heard of it. The other additions around this event need quite a bit of clean up. The sources seem to be a lot of videos, and some are already dead links. But more importantly, while this obviously affects a lot of people, and some big money is involved, I would take a lot of convincing that it's really a big enough event globally to be added here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As always, Wikpedia comes to the rescue. Jet bridge seems to be the generic name, so you got that perfectly right! That article tells us that "Jetway is a registered trademark". In Australia such devices are known as "Airbridges" (mentioned as an alternative in the article). Ain't English wonderful? HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobridge is the proper term, must be a thing of our empire ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Damage was actually significant throughout the St. Louis metropolitan area. One of the neighboring communities to the airport, Bridgeton suffered extensive damage from the same storm, rated an EF4 during its time on the ground there. As part of a larger outbreak (last night was the second occasion in four evenings that a Cardinal game at Busch Stadium was delayed and fans moved to safe locations due to tornado warnings), this storm has received significant coverage within the region, but also national coverage (CNN and others). As a strong tornado striking a major metropolitan area, I don't see how an argument can reasonably be made that this isn't worthy of ITN. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 00:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is about the airport. You seem to be supporting a different one that I haven't seen yet. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the comment again, please. You are interpreting the context incorrectly. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, but my attempted use of irony may have been inappropriate and unsuccessful. Sorry. The nomination is about the airport. You have told us about impact elsewhere. If you want that to be relevant, the nomination has to be broadened. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this individual tornado striking the airport, but support posting the entire outbreak, as the National Weather Service appears to have confirmed an EF4 tornado. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This specific tornado was downgraded to an EF2, from original speculation of EF3. I can agree to Strange Passerby's suggestion above. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 02:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Cambodian–Thai border dispute blossoms up

Article: Cambodian–Thai border dispute (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ FurtherShelling occurs on the Thai-Cambodian border (Post)

The Cambodian–Thai border dispute blossoms up again with new fights surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple area, resulting in a number of deaths on both sides in a dispute that has been going on since 2008.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

source.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as nom.
  • Weak support Not a huge surprise with some serious flare-ups already this year but they were supposed to be in or progressing towards talks recently.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no article (is there?). I don't think that this is that big of a deal, either (aside from those caught up in the fighting, of course). Boarder disputes are fairly common, especially in this geographical region.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support been picking up in the new last 2 days after a firing killed 4 soldiers and then village evacuations today.Lihaas (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nightw 05:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb please I genuinely tried to write a coherent blurb for this, but I can't. This was on ITN two months ago, and I'm failing to see what's new. The update doesn't suggest to me that the fighting was in the vicinity of the temple. So... what should ITN say? The dispute flares up as/due to/with what? What's an uncontroversial thing to say? -- tariqabjotu 18:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Solomon Islands earthquake

Might be too early, but it reached a 6.9 magnitude. http://1.usa.gov/fDIwTr Diego Grez (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was a relatively deep earthquake, low risk for fatalities or damage. ~AH1 (discuss!) 00:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google / Apple "keeping records of everywhere you go"

Italy, France and Germany are to investigate this. U.S. lawmakers also asking for an explanation. A letter has been sent. It has been in the news around the world. The New York Times Xinhua --candle•wicke 02:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I say wait for further implications of this, such as a massive fine or something. Right now, it's only investigations. SpencerT♦C 02:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Not yet. Besides, there isn't even a dedicated article for this, yet.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this has actually got a lot of coverage over the past few days, and we very rarely post any tech stories. I think we should post it now if theres an update - otherwise we'll never post it, and never include a sensible number of tech stories. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As a huge techie myself, I hear ya. It's just that tech stories tend to be so... transitory (nevermind how such things tend to be overly promotional). There's just no meat to this yet anyway, since no one has actually done anything, really. I don't think that an article could be written about this until something more happens.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conceptual Support - Let's see if this story blossoms into anything big, like a lawsuit or something.--WaltCip (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It won't as long as they are not selling the information for marketing purposes. The fact that iPhones and Android phones track and store your information in stated in the Terms of Use or Privacy Policy, which most people ignore. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is just the idea - "which most people ignore". If there's no meeting of the mind, how can there be a valid contract, which is essentially what the terms of use is?--WaltCip (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because you could just not order the service...? Don't get me wrong, I understand the argument perfectly (I may even agree with it!), I'm just stating the counter-argument here. I, for one, just don't see this stuff going anywhere... unless the congress-critters decide to start changing laws or something... which is a possibility, I suppose, but I doubt it.
          — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is what separates ITN from a News ticker. We need concrete events not the latest "call for an investigations" This could be notable or it might be posturing that ultimately goes not where besides... what article are we talking about posting? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Yemen president to resign

Article: 2011 Yemeni protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ After four months of anti-government protests, Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh has agreed to step down within 30 days, accepting a GCC proposal. (Post)
I suggest we wait until he does resign. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big news and major development in Yemen. I think he will step down sooner than that but we can post it again when he does leave. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In a case like this, it is the agreement that is a significant development, even if the agreement is later reneged upon. That is because it is the agreement itself that has the immediate and significant impact on developments. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per above, and based on Hosni Mubarak precedent. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Major turnover from initial announcements in poor volatile country. ~AH1 (discuss!) 00:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the opposition hasn't even said if they will accept this compromise. Regardless of the GCC brokering, Western support and government acceptance, unless the opposition does too, this is a non-resolution. Wait for that, and then wait for it to happen. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After all, I think Therequiembellishere has a point here. Saleh wants immunity in exchange for his resignation, but the protesters are certainly not willing to accept that. So at the end of the day, he might not step down. Maybe we should wait until he actually does. --bender235 (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mkativerata. This story is all over the news, and it is ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 03:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Jzschrst. Another one down. Amazing. Ocaasi c 05:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have consensus to post, but not yet a sufficient update to either article.--Chaser (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K, updated lead and body. Ocaasi c 06:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
post-oppose he onyl announced it no guarantee he will in 30 days or before ro even later. and we didnt post every such event fro egypt/tunisia, so the comment about mubarak's precedent is not true at all.Lihaas (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
considering. The 'after four months part' makes it sound like the agreement is finalized. 'Maybe better to say that after months of protests, Saleh accepted his side of a proposal to step down under certain conditions. The opposition hasn't agreed yet.' That last part might be the problem. Ocaasi c 15:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the content merits behind this topic, the fact is that the story is currently "above the fold" for every news source that I'm aware of (meaning that it's certainly reasonable for us to feature our own coverage, to me), and we seem to have updated content now. I see no real issue with posting it. If it needs to change later, then so be it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ITS NOT THE #1 news stor y on any outlet...at anyr ate, the proests hve no t ended (just like egypt) theyre continueg to have him goo befre that (with good reason) so thsi is less ntoable b/c we didnt post the mubarak announement before the actual "recolution":Lihaas (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

April 22, 2011 (2011-04-22) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters

A powerful EF4 tornado strikes St. Louis, Missouri, injuring 5 and causing $250 million in damage.

International relations

Politics and elections

[Posted] Worst day of protests in Syria

Article: 2011 Syrian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Article needs updating

Unverified reports indicate that about two dozen have been killed in Syria in the bloodiest day of protests to date.Guardian NY Times. Government concessions are already on the main page, I'm just looking for consensus to move it to the top and modify the blurb. Today's bloodshed is now the main story.--Chaser (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've seen this news and its definitely a big deal. The article needs updating however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Eraserhead1 -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb please. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
somethign to the effect of "Protests in Syria result in the highest casualties through police firing so far" (i presume its police firing?)Lihaas (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're good for the update at 2011_Syrian_protests#Lifting_of_the_state_of_emergency. I'm a bit concerned about how we report this. All the international media seem unable to verify the protesters' own accounts of the number of dead. Of course, the reason for this is that the Syrian government has kicked them out of the country so that it can work under cover of darkness and lie through the state-sponsored press. I would suggest something along the lines of "At least 50 are reported killed in the biggest day of protests in Syria this year" without specifying who killed them.--Chaser (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"biggest day of protests"? This is being reported as the most violent day, but neither source above seems to address whether the protests were also larger than during preceding days. (Probably it's near impossible for Western media to reliably know the size of protests from day to day.) I would suggest saying something like "most violent day", unless there is a clearer attribution for "biggest". Dragons flight (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This much, however, seems clear: Today's protests were the largest yet in Syria." It's no easier to verify than the number killed.--Chaser (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian general election, 2010–2011

Article: Haitian general election, 2010–2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Michel Martelly defeats Mirlande Manigat in a run-off election for the Haitian presidency. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Sweet Micky was proclaimed new president. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michel Martelly is announced as the winner of the Haitian presidential election. Grsz 11 18:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
guaranteed posting its on ITNrLihaas (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, and working on uit.
but for a blurb: "Michel Martelly is elected president of Haiti"
dont think we need mentions of the earthquake and cholera crisis, but if need be one can suffic the blurb with the earthquake as building on was important in the election.Lihaas (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. First governmental change since disasters, unusual results. ~AH1 (discuss!) 00:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is ready. Is there any reason why it hasn't been posted? Grsz 11 16:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier when this was bumped, it does not look updated to me. -- tariqabjotu 17:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

April 21, 2011 (2011-04-21) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Politics

Amazon servers crash, bringing websites down

Amazon's web services servers crashed on 21 April, bringing down numerous websites and putting a dent in their generally good reputation for cloud webhosting [24]. I think this is marginal, but it is getting coverage in the mainstream press (e.g. this and earlier coverage). Amazon Web Services is probably the article to update, and which it hasn't been yet.--Chaser (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MLB Takeover of the LA Dodgers

Article: Los Angeles Dodgers MLB takeover (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Major League Baseball takes over day-to-day operations of the Los Angeles Dodgers. (Post)
Note: Nominated by Ohms law (talk · contribs). Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not even close to ITN criteria imo, it's pretty major in MLB but it's of little importance or significance outside baseball or Los Angeles. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, interesting story for some, but not really a big deal outside of that. RxS (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough (although I think you guys are incorrect, of course). We'll see what happens if and when McCourt sues MLB then, and the real possibility arises that they coudl loose their anti-trust exemption over this... :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this does go far enough to set precedence in North American pro sports, then it might be itn-worthy. As it stands, it simply isn't notable enough given the same thing has happened to two other teams in two other leagues in the past two years. --PlasmaTwa2 00:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The whole "the same thing in two other leagues" point is not really relevant, in my opinion. There's a big difference here because we're talking about baseball, and it's not merely because baseball itself is so much bigger (in terms of fans, money, markets, you name it). No, the big issue with baseball is the anti-trust exemption. Baseball is special because it's actually treated differently. Not even the NFL is as important, even though the NFL is at least as popular as baseball (arguably more so), simply because the NFL has to abide by all of the rules that other businesses abide by.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The MLB took over the Rangers last year and the Nationals even before that, neither were posted... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Vargas Llosa in the Argentine Book Fair

Article: Buenos Aires International Book Fair (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Buenos Aires International Book Fair is open by Mario Vargas Llosa, amid political controversy. (Post)

Actually, the book fair was open last wednesday, but it was on thursday that Vargas Llosa gave the opening speech Cambalachero (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, and just what is in the news here? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The start of a cultural event in Argentina, and a dispute involving the president of Argentina and a Nobel Prize awarded author. It's all in the "History" section, but I tried to provide a short blurb. Cambalachero (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason I'd oppose most cultural events - not really important anywhere but Argentina.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  05:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since the whole thing went down without a noticeable hitch. If he'd been detained or forbidden to open the thing then that may have been notable... Nightw 08:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as there is a lack of culture in general and culture from South America on ITN. Disagree with the comment above about it being "not really important anywhere but Argentina". It is the Buenos Aires International Book Fair, the article describes it as "one of the top five book expos in the world", it lists numerous international writers and Mario Vargas Llosa isn't even from Argentina. --candle•wicke 02:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you want to confirm the international significance, Buenos Aires has been appointed World Book Capital 2011 by the UNESCO (see here). As such, this is not just the book fair from some random country. Cambalachero (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today is World Book and Copyright Day. --candle•wicke 03:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gold price record

Article: Gold as an investment (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The gold price sets a new all-time high after exceeding $1,500 per ounce. (Post)

In the morning the price has reached the record of $1,509 per ounce, but shortly after moved back to an unchanged price of $1,503.50.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The news stories I've read about this don't attribute particular importance to the gold record. The emphasis here is more on the declining US dollar due to the government's inability to get its finances straight. Even this isn't breathtaking. Of course, the round number itself is arbitrary. But if oil goes over $150, then I think we'd have a story.--Chaser (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The possible oil high would also be an ITN topic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chaser is right, it is not the rising gold price, but the falling US dollar value. Anyway, I don't see ITN worthiness here. If we report this new record gold price, do we report it on every occasion? Because it will continue to rise. --bender235 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
several issues: 1. gold is goign to hit records over the nest months and years (weeks even) we can t keep psoting it, 2. its not only the dollar value, there are multiple factos for tis rise. Gold is a hedge against inflation and uncertainty as well (see th e hot topics so far in the world and youll notive), 3. what makes oil more important than gold? Gol d is, atleast historically, (and even now) far more internetionally isignificant. Lord forbid a couple of americans get squeezed for gas. gas ahs been much more expensive all voer the world than the american complants for eons. id say neirther is sinificant.Lihaas (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JFYI: If you're hedging against inflation, you're hedging against a loss of value of currencies. And that is, foremost, the US dollar. ;-) --bender235 (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The US dollar is the worlds most important currency, followed by the Euro, and then by the Pound, Yen and RMB. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The $1500 level is significant and a major benchmark. Story is significant, noteworthy, and in the news. It should be observed that I am not in favor of putting this type of article on ITN every time the gold price record is breached. To me, the round number is the trigger. My next support for this would be at the $2000 level. Jusdafax 21:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article needs an update. SpencerT♦C 01:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. There are lots of important commodities, e.g. gold, wheat, oil, cotton, copper, etc., not to mention many other major financial instruments including various stocks, bonds, currencies, etc. If the story is just "X reaches a record high", then in my personal opinion that's not much of a story. There needs to be content there beyond a simple numerical change, otherwise there is nothing to differentiate this event from additional new records that may be set by gold or other commodities in the near future. If the story is merely about a numerical increase, then the entirety of the update is contained in the hook itself, and there is no other news to be gained by reading Wikipedia. If on the other hand the story is "X reaches a record high because of Y", then that could be a much better news item depending on the nature of "Y". I might support if someone has a hook with more context or shows how this leads to a substantial article update. So far the only update in the highlighted article consists of simply tweaking a number [25]. Dragons flight (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if and only if the article is suitably updated. Gold is a particularly interesting commodity. The only more interesting commodities are food and oil. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No current assertion made as to real value - i.e. against other currencies or against inflation. I'm reminded of a review of the top earning films of all times that bothered to correct for inflation - Gone with the Wind was top by a country mile, but it doesn't even register on the usual "highest earners" lists. An article titled "Gold as an investment" that makes similarly simplistic comparisons should probably have some kind of financial health warning template at the head of the article, never mind being linked to on the front page. Crispmuncher (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is not news, and does not report stuff like this. The price of gold has been climbing up steadily for long,[26] but happened to just now reach and arbitary value that stems from us using the decimal system to express numbers. But otherwise gold value has continued its steady climb over the last few days and weeks. So nothing special here, move along please. --hydrox (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry Hydrox, but I strongly disagree. You appear not to understand the concept of a 'psychological barrier', so I'll give you a link from the Wall Street Journal [27] that uses the phrase, which indicates its notability in regards to the nomination at hand. And may I suggest that telling people to "move along" shows a lack of collegiality that is crucial in this type of discussion. Jusdafax 10:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I opposed an earlier posting of the gold price but I agree with Jusdafax, this was a big barrier and the U.S. dollar (major currency) is intertwined with the whole climb as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and the price is 908 GBP thus its a purely arbitrary point which has no meaning to those in who are not on the USD. It hit an all time high of $1488 last week why did we not post that? simply because 1500 is nicer rounder number. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The price has gone up because it has become more attractive as an investment. It has become more attractive as an investment because people believe the price will go up quickly compared to other commodities. So any record is expected to be broken many many times. So all we have is an arbitrary round number that has been reached, but that makes no difference. Petrol passed a £5 a gallon mark a few months ago, but it did so by increasing in price by 1p/litre overnight, which changes next to nothing of itself. This is similar. Kevin McE (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's not really logical. I can't imagine anyone bothering to post anything if and when the price falls below this very artificial "barrier". If someone can guarantee it will be posted, I may reconsider. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My objection from last time: it's a silly number. It's the highest dollar value attached to the price of gold, but in real terms - accounting for inflation of the measuring currency - the price of gold is less than it was circa 1978-80. We know this, we understand this, and we shouldn't knowingly misrepresent things even if news agencies are producing breathless headlines about it. Shimgray | talk | 00:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Real Madrid win The King's Cup

Article: 2011 Copa del Rey Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Real Madrid player Sergio Ramos drops the Copa del Rey trophy under the wheels of the open-top bus the team are celebrating in, after the 2011 Copa del Rey Final. (Post)
BBC News A bit of light-hearted hijinks for the main page. Oh, and a fairly important annual-recurring event (Yanks, it's called "soccer" from your part of the planet). Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping us idiotic Americans understand the news. Oppose trophy story as trivial and oppose the cup as essentially an intranational bragging rights game.--Chaser (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Withdrawing my oppose as this is now involving comparisons of football tournaments with which I am not familiar.--Chaser (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Thanks for helping us idiotic Americans understand the news" Anytime! "intranational". Chuckle. Lugnuts (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:intranational.--Chaser (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The leading story on BBC sport right now is Houllier's illness [28]. The leading sports story on their homepage? American baseball.--Chaser (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed that the Copa del Rey paled in comparison to the La Liga title. Plus it seems to be just a warm up tp the Champions League semifinal. But what do I know--I'm just a yank.--Johnsemlak (talk)
  • Support. In the post NCAA era, the Copa Del Ray winners is an obvious ITN worthy item. There's not a single argument of 'interest' that doesn't apply to this that didn't apply to that ridiculously boring and quickly forgotten domestic American college basketball game. This domestic top ranked professional cup final was broadcast live to several nations, and was news all over Europe as a first in 18 years for Madrid, a notable domestic drought for a team which is otherwise considered one of the best in the world. It's also notable because Mourinho isn't even halfway through his career and is on course to go down in history as one of the greatest coaches of all time, precisely due to trophy wins just like this with different clubs all over Europe. The cup fumble even promoted it to the mainstream news bulletins in the UK today, which is amazing considering it has nothing to do with the royal wedding next week. We don't even have that ridiculous 'too much football' non-reason to oppose this. MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly because all the major European competitions reach their conclusions imminently. I might support if the timing were different, but inclusion of this could be used as reason not to post more important football competitions over the next few weeks (although the same discretion doesn't seem to apply to US Space Shuttles...) Kevin McE (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, not only can we not post football stories during the 'busy period', we also can't post them outside the busy period in case people use it against items in the busy period. On what planet does ANY of this make sense as an actual oppose rationale to this item? As I said at the time, that NCAA item got a comletely free ride, and as I suspected at the time, it was not as it turned out evidence that ITN was reforming at all. It's still the same arbitrary and illogical system it always was. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One bad posting decision does not mean that we should make others to counterbalance. The current football content of ITN/R is what was believed appropriate: this was not included, and there is not enough special about this year's Copa del Rey to justify an exception to that rule, especially if the result of that is to have people complaining about the Champions' League final going up on the grounds that "We've already had Copa del Rey, FA Cup, Premier League within 6 weeks". Kevin McE (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's funny to see how many people are prepared to simply ignore the almighty consensus that was the NCAA decision, even though plenty in the discussion justified it on the basis that it was not going to be a one off relaxation. The current football content at ITN/R was set in stone well before decisions like the NCAA happened, so that's also a rather regressive argument. And I find the argument that if we post those, then people will oppose the Champions League, as absurd as if someone dared to oppose the Super Bowl because the NCAA football final was posted the month before it. And if you can look at this year's final and say it was nothing special, I question your overall football knowledge full stop - first win in 18 years for Madrid, the Cup gets dropped under a bus, Mourinho gets ever closer to sainthood etc etc etc. Villa Real 1-0 Mallorca this was not. And as I write this, Sergio's fumble has yet again been mentioned on the mainstream television news bulletin. MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The only thing that makes this somehow significant is the fact that the final match was played between FC Barcelona and FC Real Madrid which does not make the cup in general important and could easily pale during the next years. It was broadcasted in the whole world, and surely is more significant than the NCAA final, but the ITN football stories are far from a national cup final. If such competitions should be considered, I'd preferably go with the FA Cup, which in comparison is the oldest football competition still contested to date.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ITN football stories were "far from national cup level" before we started posting stuff like the NCAA. And posting one competition, the FA Cup, in exchange for NCAA basketball, football, and god knows what else, is not proportionate. Not in a million years. You just pointed out yourself how this final was significant, yet somehow you've still managed to oppose it?!?! MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not comprehensive enough, I must point out that there are bevy of other football competitions that should be included, and one of them is the FA Cup as the oldest football competition. On the other hand, the Barca-Real final does not make the cup more important or of wider interest. My opinion is still that we've made a mistake posting the NCAA, but I don't think we should regard it seriously as a criterion to vote something else.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is just proveably wrong. You don't get coverage like this or this in the UK if the story was 'Valencia have beaten Mallorca to win the 2011 Copa del Rey'. And no, it was not a mistake, it was a predictable function of how ITN stumbles on day to day. The mistake would be to pretend that ignoring such decisions gives ITN any credibility whatsoever. MickMacNee (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to your reasoning, should we post the outcome of every derby match between these two teams? My intention is not to misuse facts, but this match was not even mentioned seriously before their double-match they will play in the Champions League. And if you think this should be posted as a conclusion of the national cup, I don't think it's the most important such competition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even understand what your objection even is anymore, let alone what facts you base it on. I've provided the links to disprove the idea this was just another final, I've shown how the Copa del Rey meets all current ITN standards for 'interest' irrespective of that, and I've rebutted the argument that the FA Cup is the only cup we should be posting. I'm not going to get into an debate about what you think my argument means, as I never said anything of the sort to begin with.MickMacNee (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we deal with something that would make the ITN a football tabloid. If Copa del Rey is, then we must consider the Coppa Italia, and don't forget the Coppa Libertadores, or the African club championship. I don't object that this is absolutely not significant, but the ITN football stories should be more like World Cups, Continental Championships, and the strongest COntinental Leagues. It is enough football for the ITn, and for the sake of the other topics, I must reject the inclusion of something, even if it meets the criteria. If it was another topic, I would support it based on the facts.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a.k.a 'too much football'. You have no actual argument to oppose this specific item at all, and you even freely admit it meets the criteria. 'Tabloid' indeed. Ha. ITN wishes that it had the credibility of a tabloid tbh. By entertaining opposes like yours as being remotely valid, it's more like a state newspaper than anything which could lay claim to having proper editorial standards. MickMacNee (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To admit honestly my intention is to see as much as possible reports in the ITN being distributed in many different topics. Therefore I'd prefer to see only one report of any sport rather then many of only one. Bandy and darts are among the sports that should be included instead of some of the reports related to football or basketball. It's last from me, and I don't think my vote was crucial here. In any case, thank you for your time in the discussion.:)--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose ANY time the two are in the final the same would happen, and itsnot as rare as presumed. at any rate, awe should be mentioning the fa cup (the oldest competions ) the indian soccer cup (the 2nd oldest) and the copa italia, german cup, etc, etc. let snot forget africn a champions' league and copa libertadores..Lihaas (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not have a suitable update, whatever the arguments above about its notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this particular event seems to be particularly notable, and more notable than it would usually be. I think it is similar (but less important) to the cricket match between India and Pakistan. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
qwe did not post that.Lihaas (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we did, but it was pulled. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the admin who pulled it has admitted it was an error to pull it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is far less important than the India-Pakistan cricket match. India-Pakistan was notable because of the symbolism and appearance of harmony it created between the two countries which have been at war with each other four times in the last 65 years. I hardly think this matches up. Anyway, Oppose per Chaser's point—if even the BBC isn't running it on their main sports page, I don't think we should either. NW (Talk) 14:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC has a feature article on its sports mainpage right now. Though I'd agree the India-Pakistan match was a much bigger deal. That had the two nations' PMs sitting together to watch the match.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point was about leading stories. Obviously BBC is covering this. It may also have been the leading sport story at some point before I viewed the pages.--Chaser (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was my initial reaction, but we almost certainly won't be posting the Champions League semifinal, so I dunno.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Sukhoi Superjet 100 first commercial flight

Article: Sukhoi Superjet 100 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Sukhoi Superjet 100 regional airliner performs its first commercial flight. (Post)

[29][30][31] This is a very important project for the Russian aircraft industry and the Russian economy. Its the first passenger jet developed from start to finish in post-Soviet Russia. Its also perhaps the most publicised high-tech project in Russia and one of the few internationally competitive civilian products manufactured in Russia. The plane will compete with Embraer's jets on the international market. Sukhoi has 296 orders for this aircraft, and manufacture hundreds in the future, so we will be seeing this plane for a long time. Nanobear (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is likely to be perhaps the most significant airliner introduction until Dreamliner's entry in service in the end of the year. GreyHood Talk 09:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support We must highlight the jet being the first post-soviet aircraft developed 100% in Russia. If this was Boeing plane then i would be opposing but since this is a first of its kind then I feel obliged to post it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Obviously it's a very significant news, and the fact that the topic is of wide importance, but is not regularly represented in the template makes my vote stronger. This should be a typical example of an ITN content, not related with disasters, elections or sports.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

April 20, 2011 (2011-04-20) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] Hetherington, Hondros killed in Misrata

Article: Battle of Misrata (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Renowned photographers Tim Hetherington, Chris Hondros are killed during the Battle of Misrata. (Post)
Support, the articles meet the minimum update requirements. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose According to the article, somewhere between 500-1000 people have been killed in this battle. No reason to highlight 2 of them. Kevin McE (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the blurb focuses on the actual event rather than two of its thinly notable, but white, victims. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Hetherington appears to have been notable in his field, and his early death fulfills our death criteria, I think. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you would be aware, those death criteria are not criteria that bind us to post an item. They are minimum standards that a death must meet. After that, posting a death is still subject to consensus, as WP:ITN/DC explicitly says. So whether or not this death meets the death criteria, I don't think it is significant enough in the broader circumstances to post. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hetherington seems to be an important figure in his field and article is updated. The total battle death toll could potentially be mentioned in the blurb. JMiall₰ 12:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose wits just 1 battle in a war, we dont post all these. we ddont post the deaths of certainly more notable poeople in their fields like zarqawi an the others in the Afghan-Pak border area. (all these chieftains and talib military leaders)Lihaas (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are the kinds of risk people encounter in coverage of Wars and its really pretty American Centric as well. Kevin makes a good point too that its only two out of at least 500 who died. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This "500+ people died, we don't single two persons out" argument is absurd. There are thousands of people dying in car accidents as well, but if someone notable dies, we "single him/her out" and report it anyway. Hetherington and Hondros are notable, and the way they died makes this incident ITN worthy. --bender235 (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you, but with all those piled up opposes there is no way we can get this to Main Page. Let's forget about it! :D --BorgQueen (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think consensus has swung a bit now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even quite a bit. Jusdafax 08:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hetherington was a notable documentary filmmaker whose award-winning film Restrepo was also nominated for an Academy Award. His death in Libya was a major news story, and highly ITN-worthy. Opposes are unconvincing ('American Centric') and Hetherington's article is in decent shape. Jusdafax 21:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Jusdafax.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Widely reported death of a Academy Award nominee in a high profile conflict. Article's in good shape, let 'er rip. Not sure what his race has to do with anything RxS (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, bender235 said what I want to say. It's only natural that two acclaimed professionals get "singled out" for more coverage; they're both notable and were killed unexpectedly (meeting our death criteria). Also, in response to the ludicrous "American-centric" claim: Hetherington was born in Liverpool, England, and held British nationality. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This link [32] goes to a front page BBC tribute to Heatherington. Jusdafax 05:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this made the front page yesterday and seems like a notable news story. Given the support and updates marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piss Christ protesters hammer attack

This says controversy has followed this work since 1987... --candle•wicke 02:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has caused controversy for 24 years, has been called blasphemous and has apparently been destroyed by protesters with Nicolas Sarkozy being blamed. I don't know but I thought it was worth inviting discussion. --candle•wicke 02:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MuZemike, you may or may not think this is ITN worthy but no need to be combative. RxS (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zero international importance, but it might get enough international interest (news coverage). It endangered NEA funding in the United States, which was a significant controversy in its day. Still, it seems like just more damage rather than destruction of the piece, so I'd be inclined not to post it.--Chaser (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Intentionally Inflammatory art vandalized? I am shocked it lasted 24 years! France must be nice place! Fundamentalists would killed it here in the states within the month of its exhibition. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as its been controversial for so long, and has been vandalised "beyond repair". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose One print of a relatively obscure contraversial work has been damaged. It isn't even the only copy: photographs are inherently reproducible to the extent the very concept of an original is difficult to define. Would someone tearing out a page from a library book that depicted the Mona Lisa be considered ITN worthy? I think not. Crispmuncher (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis that this was only one copy of an obscure contraversial photograph. Crispmuncher's unwitting comparison with the Mona Lisa was extremely generous. Nightw 16:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I lurk here and rarely comment, but I have to chime in here as many of the statements show very little knowledge of modern art history. Piss Christ is is not "obscure" at all. It is a pivotal work in modern art history and was arguably the apex of Andre Serrano's career. Even though it is "just a photograph" as many have stated, it is a very important photograph. The defacement, not to mention the destruction, of a major work of art usually gets on the front page if it is by an artist from the Renaissance or early modern era, so why would we not include one simply becausue it is postmodern in nature?--Found5dollar (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...You mean a copy of the work. Not even the original. No, not to my knowledge, such things don't usually get posted. Nightw 17:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - If, as I understand it, we are talking about a copy instead of the original, then this does not meet the standards of being ITN-worthy, as I see them. Jusdafax 18:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - By the logic of the support comments, and similar to Crispmuncher's rationale, I could make a replica of Nelson's Column, destroy it, and appear on ITN because I defaced a (copy of a) famous work of art.--WaltCip (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a lot of opposers are misinterpreting what this is. It's true it is a photo, but the Guardian's article and our own article both strongly suggest it is the only original photo. True enough, copies can be made of a photo, but this appears to be the original photo. And it is hardly obscure. It created a national controversy in the late 80s. It is obscure only to my generation and younger because we were children when that happened.--Chaser (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not obscure at all. Per Chaser's reasoning, I think Meando a Cristo (:P) should deserve its place on the main page. Diego Grez (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how famous the work is. There are plenty of prints of the Mona Lisa, but unless the original is damaged it's not exactly history... This was one of many prints of the work. Rest assured, there are plenty more copies. Nightw 01:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I oppose, although I think it was a reasonable nom.--Chaser (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Nightw 02:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PSLV C-16 Launch

Article: PSLV (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Indian Space Research Organisation succesfully launches the PSLV C16, placing three satellites in orbit, including the first Singapore-built satellite. (Post)
Article updated

India's space agency, ISRO launched the PSLV C-16 today. Links here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13141562 http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/sriharikota-critical-pslv-launch-today-99991?trendingnow http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/01/indias-pslv-launches-successfully/

I would consider this important (and a candidate for the front page news), especially in light of the 2 GSLV failures in 2010. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is similarly getting a fair amount of coverage in the press here as the rocket carried the first-ever Singapore-built satellite into space. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to Proposal: According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recurring_items_on_ITN#Space_exploration, the launch of satellites, shuttles, and any space mission in general are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, that rule applies to satellites launched for research by NASA, ESA etc for example Herschel telescope. commercial satellites are launched all the time. perhaps that should be made clear in the statement. As of PSLV, simply putting it on due to its success is not enough since PSLV doesnt really fail. It was GSLV that failed. -- Ashish-g55 18:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to first Singapore built satellite, but there needs to be an article/update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rule as it reads now clearly says it applies to any space mission in general. I also fail to see the difference between a launch by NASA, ESA, etc and one by ISRO. All three of the satellites launched also have research applications. The details of the launch have been updated in the Launch History table on the PSLV page. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't enough of an update I'm afraid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the recent ITN features have had much smaller updates. Fidel Castro's resignation for example. I could do the research and include further updates but that can happen only in a few hours from now, would that be too late? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated additional details regarding the launch in the PSLV page. Also suggested the blurb in the blue box. Let me know what else I can do to help. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok let me put it this way. it is not the launch but satellite itself that gets showcased. a nice guide would be if satellite itself does not have a page/proper update then it probably should not be posted. -- Ashish-g55 11:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ashish, I am not sure where you are getting that from. The rule is pretty unambigous - it says "The launch of satellites, shuttles, and any space mission in general." In fact, the word launch is underlined in the page. So, its clear that the PSLV C16 launch automatically satisfies the 'significance criteria'. So, without taking away from the importance of the mission which was the lead South Asia story on BBC yesterday, a discussion or debate on how important the mission is not required.
I agree that the updation criteria still needs to be satisfied. After Eraserhead's comment, I have updated the Launch History Table on the PSLV page. It now gives a description of the launch and each of the three satellites with references for each. This is far more updates than made for Fidel Castro's resignation - it has just one line saying he resigned from the party on April 19, 2011. Happy to include any additional details which you feel should be updated.
Please let me know if you disagree. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that this is somewhat disappointing. A clear candidate for ITN (at least according to me and not much has been shown to the contrary) ... has kind of become stale news now. I cant edit it myself since it requires admin rights... but no admin has shown up so far to resolve this proposal or even act on specific edit requests in this regard. Could at least someone help me understand how to handle this better for a speedier resolution the next time I have proposal for ITN? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No item is ever guaranteed an ITN posting, even for incidents which may be at WP:ITNR. ITNR items can still be opposed, and of course all items must meet the minimum requirements of ITN to be posted. Even if you did have admin rights, if you'd unilaterally edited the template to add it yourself (as you suggest you would), you could probably be assured it'd be pulled very quickly and you'd have your usage of the rights questioned. There is no requirement for any admin to "[show] up ... to resolve this proposal". It's incumbent on you, as the nominator, to do the required updates etc if you want to see it posted; and if it's not an ITNR event (this is really borderline, although I'd lean towards it being covered by ITNR) it does require more than one/two supports to post. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:In_the_news#Criteria for all of the ITN posting criteria. SpencerT♦C 02:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Strange Passerby and Spencer, for your attention and suggestions. My point was that this case did qualify the ITN posting criteria (notability and updates) but not many have come forward to either support or oppose its candidature. As regards what I would have done if I had admin rights, I'm sorry if what I wrote conveyed that I would unilaterally edit it without consensus. What I meant was if the situation is similar to this (I had proposed, recived one comment saying the news had recieved substantial coverage, recieved one support subject to updates, made the update, recieved one opposition which I believe has been responded to... and silence). I understand that no one is required to do anything... my frustration was at a situation where the ITN posting criteria have been satisfied (or at least no one is coming forward to debate otherwise) and as requested by another user, made additional updates, but I'm unable to do anything further. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd venture to disagree about the updated content (I will "[come] forward to debate otherwise"). The only updated content related to the specific launch is in a table, and is a single sentence In the current flight, the standard version, with six solid strap-on booster motors strung around the first stage, was used.[42] So I would have said that the content requirement was not met, and I would not have posted even if there was unanimous support. SpencerT♦C 20:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 19

April 19, 2011 (2011-04-19) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Politics and elections

[Posted] Pulitzer Prize for Fiction

The article has a minimal update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although the Pulitzer Prize failed to get listed on Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items because it mostly (if not all) goes to Americans. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think we used to be more strict on that. But the Pulitzer Prize is the highest literary award Americans are eligible for except the Nobel Prize. We have the Man Booker prize on ITNR, and which is restricted to a certain group of nations and excludes the US.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I will still have to wait for more supports. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
with ONE SUPPORT???? nothing gets/can get/should get posted iwth only 1 support. incidentally the admin who posted it that is a clear conflict of interestLihaas (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
uh, conflict of interest?? Can you elaborate?--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Late Support. One of the highest literary awards. I had assumed this was on ITN/R. - JuneGloom Talk 19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Late support. Spike in page views (including bots pressing the refresh/reload button) suggest high viewer interest; higher than The Finkler Question's page views when it won the supposedly more "international" Man Booker Prize. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actress Elizabeth Sladen dies

Elisabeth Sladen, 63, British actress (Doctor Who, The Sarah Jane Adventures), cancer. [33] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.30.142 (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not British. How big a deal is Doctor Who there?--Chaser (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Put it this way: it ran for 35 years (1963–1989), had a movie made five years after the series ended (only analogue I can think of is Firefly and Serenity), then made a comeback and had a new series made beginning in 2005 and continuing until now. I'd say it's pretty popular just by that. However, I can't say how important Sladen was to the show. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Important enough that she was the only companion to ever get her own spin-off... much less twice, including one that has ran for four years and will now (likely) be cancelled. All that said, the only reason we know who she is is because of Doctor Who, so, very weakly in support, but I can see how this will get opposed. Courcelles 01:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm a huge fan of Doctor Who; I'm going to have to oppose this. I feel that this belongs on the recent deaths page for sure, but not ITN. NW (Talk) 01:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I may have been a big fan of the original run at least, but this is an actress who had one notable role for three years, and then a revival on a lesser spin-off for four years. It doesn't matter how big or otherwise Doctor Who is, on the notability-is-not-inherited-by-association principle this fails to meet the mark for a front page entry by a long way. Crispmuncher (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Playing a popular character is not the same as being an important actor. By no means a household name, and would appear a long way down a table of British actors by degree of fame, influence and recognition. Kevin McE (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We have Recent deaths for featuring recent deaths. Thue | talk 08:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, even though I had a crush on her back in the day. Abductive (reasoning) 08:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Her death is untimely and unexpected and comes while she had a titular lead role in a popular TV show which will have to be caancelled. She is internationally known, and known to people who were not fans of Dr Who. As above, she played the only original Dr Who character to have her own (two!) spinoffs. This is being carried by all the UK and US news outlets down to the Mercury News of San Jose CA - hardly a matter of small local interest. μηδείς (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (am British) - she had a major role in a major television series but I do not feel her impact on television as a whole was great enough to warrant inclusion.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  19:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Syrian government lifts emergency law

Article: 2011 Syrian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Syrian government lifted the emergency law after 48 years in placement in response to pro-democracy protests. (Post)
Article updated
References:
Support. In theory, lifting state of emergency is a vast transfer of power to the people. Even if they don't follow through, the announcement is notable enough in itself. Thue | talk 15:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is notable, but something should be done with the article along the same lines as the Libya one. Right now it's just one endless chronology. Lampman (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a Timeline of the 2011 Syrian protests, and summarized this in the main article. It has now gone from 135k to 75k, and is – in my opinion – in much better shape. Lampman (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support A state of emergency is always ITN worthy and regarding the current situation in the country I think it clearly represents the effect of what is happening in the country. Also I'd like to suggest to merge it with the bottom nomination, which could provide more information about the matter.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a major breakthrough in the poltiical status of a country that is both region-wise and historically important, and has been under martial law since 1962. --hydrox (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A concession, but may be worth mentioning that the martial law (?) is still in effect, while this means that the government wants an end to protests that these protesters are not necessarily agreeing to.[34] [35] [36] ~AH1 (discuss!) 22:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Matter of substance that fundamentally alters long-standing rule of law. Crispmuncher (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian protesters start a sit-in

Article: 2011 Syrian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Thousands of anti-government protesters occupy and start a sit-in at Al-Saa Square in Homs, the third largest city in Syria. (Post)
References:
  • The story in the section just above has gotten more attention and focus. I'm not certain that we shouldn't post this one, but if we do, I'd prefer to do it as a clause in that blurb.--Chaser (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Fidel Castro Resignation

Article: Fidel Castro (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Fidel Castro resigns from the Communist Party of Cuba's central committee. (Post)
References:
Support. It will be interesting whether he will stay out of influence once the reforms start, but the announcement is notable enough in itself in either case. Thue | talk 15:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nergaal (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's true that Castro is a very significant person and every breaking news regarding his career and life are somehow important, but I don't think this resignation has the power to influence too much as his resignation of 2008. My opinion is that this is only ceremonial resignation of the other functions he's held.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. News reported globally, and more significant than the Glenn Beck resignation. ~AH1 (discuss!) 18:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose he is resigning again three years after he resigned last time NYT 2008. Unless he officially comes back to power or dies we dont need to post again. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He resigned as President in 2008; now he is resigning from the central committee. So not entirely the same thing. I presume this second retirement will result in a further lessening of his power and involvement, and therefore be notable. Thue | talk 19:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesnt really convince me much more.... trivial event in the Scheme of things. You can't really convince me an autocrat like that is ever truly out of power. I am happy with being in minority for this one. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Would be a huge mistake not to report this. Have you seen

this? He is obviously not coming back. Marcus Qwertyus 19:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NDM 1 Superbug found in Delhi drinking water

Article: Plasmid-encoding Carbapenemase-resistant Metallo-B-Lactamase (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ NDM 1 superbug is found in New Delhi drinking water, making as many as half a million inhabitants potential carriers of this antibiotic-resistant bacteria. (Post)
References:
Support a major world capital having an issue with their drinking water is pretty embarrassing and worthy of coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have any such issue: [38]. NW (Talk) 20:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair they would say that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably true. However, parasites like Cryptosporidiosis are found in many water supplies. It is harmless normally if the water department is on top of things, but if the water purification system fails, you will be in trouble. If that happens in Delhi, then that's something to worry about. NW (Talk) 00:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was first reported two weeks ago. I think it's a bit too late to add it to ITN now. NW (Talk) 20:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I retract my support unless there has been a significant development since. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 18

April 18, 2011 (2011-04-18) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters
International relations

Politics

Sports
  • 2011 Boston Marathon
    • Geoffrey Matai of Kenya sets a new record for the fastest time to run the Boston Marathon, completing its 26-mile course with a time of 2:03:02. (New York Times)

|}

2011 Libyan uprising

Article: 2011 Libyan uprising (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Gaddafi's forces commit mass rape of women in battle of Misrata during the ongoing Libyan uprising. (Post)
References:
I strongly agree with Nanobear. Oppose. It would be shameful if this is posted in its current proposed form. StrPby (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Marathon

Oppose And no, no, no, no, no! The whole point of this not being recognised as a world record is that it's an easier course than those where records are accepted. I could design a course that was entirely and seriously downhill, and get even faster times. The time proves NOTHING! Report that this guy won the Boston Marathon, if that fits the guidelines. Great achievement. Mention his time if you must. Say it's the fastest time at Boston. But DO NOT make any comparison of that time with anybody else's anywhere else. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does his heading read the way it does, with "fastest" being so prominent? HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not what I was trying to imply. He is the winner of the Boston Marathon and set a course record, and that is what the wording should read. SpencerT♦C 01:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Sounds good to me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are doing that, then you may as well add that Emmanuel Mutai won the 31st London Marathon, setting a new course record in London. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 17:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support And it is not an easier course, quite the contrary actually. While it does have a net downhill it is by far the slowest of the world marathon majors, it is usually won in 2:07 or 2:08, as compared to 2:05 or 2:04. It was one of the greatest achievements in athletics. Also notable is Ryan Hall becomes the fastest non african in world history, running 2:04:58.24.16.148.194 (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 17

April 17, 2011 (2011-04-17) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Business and economy

Disasters

Politics

Sport

|}

[Posted] Nigerian presidential election, 2011

Unofficial results indicate a landslide victory for the incumbent president. --Tone 07:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] True Finns party wins election in Finland

Article: Finnish parliamentary election, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The National Coalition Party, led by Jyrki Katainen, win a plurality in the Finnish parliamentary election, while the nationalist True Finns increase their vote nearly five-fold to become the third largest party in parliament. (Post)

The Finnish populist political party the True Finns wins most votes in the 2011 Finnish parliamentary elections in a surprise victory.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support this if the issues on the article get worked out. Seems like an important story from a country that doesn't see ITN much. RxS (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for official results. Besides they not only lag in seats but this show they haven't acheived the most votes. Yes, I understand the history but, still, wait for the results. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Oppose Vote Ever Seen No, just no. Eww! Just because it happens (happened?) in Finland does not mean it is noteworthy, newsworthy, notable, and all that jazz. The True Finns, but oh well, a lot of people win every day in contests, lotteries, tennis matches, etc. I'm not sure why people think that Finland has a different criteria for notability here, I just disagree enormously. Most importantly, elections occur a lot in Europe so it may be worthless of even being included in the encyclopedia. It's like earthquakes here in Chile, we have a lot of them every day, and seems like we only had two 'notable' ones last year that deserve their article, but yet again, just because someone got elected does not mean this Finland crap is notable. Nutmegger (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try reading the article. This is a massively important election that will definitely send ripples across the whole European Union. See eg. [39]. Also a game-changer election in Finnish politics, that have been in a stalemate since the Second World War. I would support Chilean election to the main page as well. --hydrox (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nutmegger, indeed, try actually looking things up prior to posting angry "strongest oppose votes ever seen". Firstly, major elections (parliamentary, presidential etc.) are important and often on ITN regardless of country or result... And this one has particular significance, considering the result and what effects it will have on Finnish government/politics as well as the EU also. --KFP (contact | edits) 23:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A deeply inappropriate, unfunny and unhelpful parody... Kevin McE (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Preliminary results are in. Usually they won't change much in the verification count. Article is still a bit of a mess, and ITN would bring much-needed visibility. TF didn't win the most votes, only third most votes. Also, suggest a less loaded term than "populist party" for the main page. Maybe: "True Finns surprise in the 2011 Finnish parliamentary election with a five-fold increase in the popular vote." --hydrox (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, not sure if it was that big a surprise as opinion polls had indicated this. The wording should reflect both the fact that the TF party made huge gains, but also that it did not "win" the election (both the NCP and SDP got more seats). --KFP (contact | edits) 23:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A per the usual for these elections, we ought to mention that the plurality of votes went to the National Coalition Party, as led by Jyrki Katainen, should we not? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just editconflicted in coming to say same thing: not for us to offer analysis on parties' performances. Keep the blurb NPOV. Kevin McE (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. According to Wall Street Journal[40] and BBC,[41] the result (200 seats in the parliament, the True Finns jumped from 5 seats to 39![42]) could affect Finland's position on bail-outs of EU countries that are in the middle of debt crisis — in other words, Finland, if led by an EU-skeptic government, could turn down the whole bail-out program. -- Frous (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and I'd suggest something like "Nationalist True Finns take a landslide victory in the April 17, 2011 parliamentary election in Finland." -- Frous (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about: The National Coalition Party, led by Jyrki Katainen, win a plurality in the Finnish parliamentary election, while the nationalist True Finns gain third place and/or increase their vote five-fold. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As TF party is currently placed third, I would not mention it in the blurb (just the winner, in the standard ITN manner). If they enter the government, that would be a separate story. --Tone 07:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we are giving additional status to the party that came third, but ignore the party who came second? How is that NPOV? It would be at least equally valid to state that the Social Democrats retained second place: second place is more notable than third. I can think of no other election where the party coming third has been given such a profile in the blurb. Kevin McE (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the 4 !votes for this info about third place have been from those with strong Finnish connenctions, although obviously I don't know their political opinions: two of them have been proposing text that seriously misrepresents the results, and one of them is a main contributor to the article. The posting admin has been a voice in favour of this "innovative" way of reporting the result. Kevin McE (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I was personally expecting more independent opinions on this, and was actually rather surprised to see the story appear on the front page this morning. The lack of discussion is maybe a sign that this is not so notable, after all. I didn't mean to even vote, but was intimidated to after Nutmegger's reasoning, that I found only after closer inspection totally trollish and offtopic protest vote about something totally unrelated.. --hydrox (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kevin McE: Hmm, regardless of political views (I certainly don't support the TF, for what it's worth), the election result is quite unprecedented; I'm not sure it'd be neutral to *not* mention the TF party, since their massive increase in support is the main "news" about the election (both in Finnish and international media). The NCP, SDP and Centre have traditionally been the "three large" political parties with roughly 20 % support each and them being big is kind of "business as usual", whereas the TF's rise from about 4 % to about 19 % is not. --KFP (contact | edits) 16:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For context, see for example these reports on the election results: BBC News, The Economist, The New York Times, Helsingin Sanomat English Edition (main Finnish newspaper), Wall Street Journal etc. --KFP (contact | edits) 16:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We report every (with few exception) national parliamentary/presidential without mentioning rises/falls in parties' fortunes: the main result, with no commentary, is the only reliably NPOV report. Regardless, I do not believe that it was appropriate for an editor with a particular opinion on this blurb, with little or no history of intervention at ITN, to make the call on this. Kevin McE (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN (and Wikipedia in general) is not a club where you apply for membership before making edits (I recommend seeing WP:OWN & WP:BOLD for example). As for NPOV, I think it's reasonable to mention what was remarkable about the election but if there's disagreement, that bit can be removed of course. --KFP (contact | edits) 17:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
just to make a point. WP:BOLD does not necessarily apply to main page... otherwise ITN/C would be useless and every admin can just be bold and post whatever they want. -- Ashish-g55 18:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD doesn't mean being reckless. I added the blurb to improve the main page, and assuming I bad faith of me (or a conflict of interest) is not very fair. --KFP (contact | edits) 18:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nobody assumed bad faith. btw my comment was only about WP:BOLD not the above discussion. -- Ashish-g55 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly intended no accusation of bad faith: I do however believe that it is bad form for an administrator to adjudicate on a debate in which he/she has been a protagonist. Kevin McE (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have loved to see more discussion before ITN, but don't agree with what Kevin McE is saying about the TF's notability. You don't seem to understand that 'the main result' of this election was by all statistical, political and historic measures the rise of the True Finns - there is just no question about it. The NCP winning the election was an interesting sidestory, but could have happened in any past election of last 60+ years. The situation is comparable to a new party forming in the US and rising in 15 years to beat one of The Democrats/Republicans in an election. With your reasoning we would still only note the winner, assuming the new party came "only" second? Note that in this election 3 biggest parties (NCP, TF, SDP) are all within 1.4 pp. of one another too. --hydrox (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was obvious that this would be added in some form (as national general elections usually are), and while the initially suggested wording was inappropriate (as I and others pointed out in the discussion before making the update, yes) I thought it is neutral and appropriate to mention the TF success, as just about all reliable sources I've seen that have reported on the election have emphasized that part of the result (as does our article). It would seem potentially misleading to omit. --KFP (contact | edits) 22:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Kevin; the extra bit makes this blurb way too long and breaks established ITN convention wrt elections. I also agree that the story should not have been posted by an involved administrator, and strongly recommend we trim the blurb to what we'd normally post for an election. However, I wouldn't argue so much that this isn't NPOV, but more that this gives TF undue coverage. StrPby (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Marathon

It's ITNR. We need an updated article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The course record article has the update. Note this has been posted on the frontpage several times over the last few years (look at the talk page of the marathon article). Lugnuts (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 2011 London Marathon article: the only appropriate, non-recentist, update on London Marathon has happened (date of most recent edition in past tense). Kevin McE (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's super. It's a event that features on the WP frontpage each year, again I refer you to the article talkpage. Lugnuts (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The talk pages of both London Marathon and List of winners of the London Marathon are blank, so I'm not sure what that referal means. Note that the now bluelink to 2011 London Marathon is only a redirect to London Marathon. The updates to the two articles are done, but they are minimal: anything more would be recentism. Only substantial update would be if someone would be interested in making an equivalent to 2010 London Marathon.

FBI shuts down largest online poker sites

Article
Online gambling
Sources
USAToday, ABCNews, Independent, Telegraph

Considering that online poker is a 3 billon $ industry, this is quite big news. Nergaal (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support a big financial deal and the US's rather odd treatment of online gambling is worth bringing up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Online gambling sites were always illegal in United States. So this is not odd treatment by any means... they just decided to finally enforce the law when the banks complained. and it only effects customers from the US (sites are still up!)... thats no different than Canada not being able to see Hulu. -- Ashish-g55 14:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the fact that the sites are based in the States (where online gambling is illegal) mean that this is the equivalent to them shutting down a drug-dealing website.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  15:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't we post an attempt to bust a 3 billion drug-dealing website? 15:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't. I mean, the Pirate Bay being shut down, for example, I would support. But this was always on the cards, and now the string has finally snapped.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  15:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And why isn't that notable? We know that various politicians will be put up to trial or arrested for various crimes, and when they do, we do post that - wink at the three items posted now. Nergaal (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article online gambling gives undue weight to the these US legalities. THe article is supposedly about online gambling in general but more than 50% of the prose is about the legal situation of online gambling in the US.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support This nom meets all the ITN requirements. The oppose "rationales" are confused. Are we to believe the topic is not notable because the target article focuses on it, or that the FBI seizure is yet one more part of a concerted effort to bias ITN toward covering American news items? Can we hear some comments based on policy or technical issues like an article update that don't have to do with editor's POV towards the US or its barbaric laws? μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
did u read Johnsemlak's comment? updates are basically in an article which could use NPOV tag. in any case if you read my oppose then you will know that the sites are not down at all... its just blocked inside US, China does the same all the time. -- Ashish-g55 21:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will assume good faith on your point, Ashishg55, and ask whether you think HULU is unavailable in Canada because its commercial purveyors have voluntarily chosen not to offer it to Canadians or because jackbooted Canadian government mounties have used the threat of guns to stop them from doing so in the name of public morality? The two situations are entirely different. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Online gambling needs a proper intro.--Chaser (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Support. The $3B in requested forfeitures is extremely high (though there have been larger awards, such cases typically only come up a few times a decade). The fact that they went after the three largest sites is also notable. By one estimate there are several million Americans with accounts at one or more of these companies whose money is now in limbo due to the crackdown on transaction processing. It's a fairly big deal. That said, the online gambling article is pretty bad. The dedicated article U. S. v. Scheinberg et al. (10 Cr. 336) might be a better target in principle, but right now it is just an uninformative stub. So, I'd support posting this provided some article is brought up to a reasonable level of quality and informativeness. Dragons flight (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Dragons flight - the impact this will have on the finances of many Americans cannot be discounted, certainly not when some people have poured thousands of dollars into online gambling services.--WaltCip (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 16

April 16, 2011 (2011-04-16) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics

[Posted] National Democratic Party dissolved

Article: National Democratic Party (Egypt) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An Egyptian court orders the dissolution of the former ruling National Democratic Party of Hosni Mubarak as part of an overall reform. (Post)
References:
Comment: I am concerned that your nominations here are becoming ever-increasingly COI, given your very public statements of involvement in the anti-Mubarak protests. PErhaps you should leave it to other users to nominate events relating to Egypt? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As long as he's not posting the blurbs to the front page, then his nominations are absolutely welcomed. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination is just that, and certainly doesn't mean it'll get posted. You can't really fake notability. Providing the blurb and the article's content looks clean, I don't see a problem with nominations from any editor, partisan or not. Nightw 03:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone wishing to continue this discussion please take it to WT:ITN or the editor's talk page? Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and since it's a much more notable event in the same timeline, I think it should replace the story about Mubarak's detainment. Nightw 03:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I might have the same bias Egyptian Liberal does--we're happy to see democracy (or moves toward it) in Egypt--but that doesn't make these events less newsworthy. NDP was the ruling party in a country that basically had no other contenders. Its dissolution would not be tantamount to the end of the American Republican party but to the end of both the Republican and Democratic parties. The political power vacuum in Egypt with Mubarak and NDP gone is enormous and further seals the future of the country as one that will not be determined by Mubarak's family or his legacy of patronage or his former political allies. Re: Night's idea to replace it, we could also try a fusion: X days after Egyptian leader Mubarak and family were arrested, his former ruling party the NDP was dissolved by an Egyptian court. Ocaasi c 20:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 05:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - just for the record.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan war crimes

Article: Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A United Nations expert panel finds credible allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. (Post)
Credits:
Support war crimes occurring is a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to support "war crimes occurring". It seems this is a report of panel which has found "credible allegations" (ie a prima facie case) and recommended a full investigation.[43] I think we should publish the findings of that full investigation rather than the "credible allegations" found by the panel. Not that I have any great objection, as long as the blurb and article are accurate. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 KHL season concludes

Article: 2010–11 KHL season (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2010–11 KHL season concludes with Salavat Yulaev Ufa winning the Gagarin Cup. (Post)
Credits:

The Kontinental Hockey League is the strongest ice hockey league in Europe featuring teams from Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Latvia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not my choice of ITN sport item... in a month, there will be World Champion, and I think that one is ITNR.--Tone 18:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this also is of wide interest, and the frequency of the sports events should not be a crucial factor here. Also I don't think one month is too close to post two events in one of the most popular team sports with only another ITN item about ice hockey until the end of the year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The NHL also ends in a month gap after the World Championship.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak

Article: Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 26 people are killed by severe weather during a tornado outbreak in the United States. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Yes. What makes this special? (Do remember that we are not all Americans familiar with what tornados normally do.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a country that in recent years almost always has under 100 fatalities (and usually under 70) from tornadoes a year (source), having over 10 killed in a single outbreak makes this significant. Also, the sheer number of tornadoes reported makes this event noteworthy...see what it did to the yearly US tornado count here, and this doesn't even include today's tornadoes: [44]. Also, it appears that a very intense tornado has struck downtown Raleigh, North Carolina; see the outbreak article for more information. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support iff an EF4 or EF5 tornado is confirmed. Otherwise, oppose as this would seem to be yet another unfortunate storm cell. Storms kill people all over the world. Nothing special about them happening in the US. An EF4 or 5 on the other hand would be an extremely notable and fairly rare event and thus I'd support posting that. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless there is an EF4 or EF5 tornado, though a series of EF3 tornados would be fairly persuasive. As it is there is only 1 EF3 tornado. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's only local news with no international significance, and as I can see it is estimated very low on the scale.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 16 deaths is not a few with regard to tornado outbreaks, especially with current notification alarms and such. The article still needs to be fully updated (for example, it says 10+ fatalities). SpencerT♦C 15:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is not an event that is just getting local coverage, it has been mentioned on CNN,Reuters, NY Daily News, and CBS News. Truthsort (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most likely this is addressed to me, so I'd say that my comment was not such that it has only a local coverage, but who cares about something which is common in the spring season in the United States. We usually post unexpected events, so I don't consider a tornado outbreak, regardless of what the effects really are, something special to receive attention and get posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very large tornado outbreak, over 200 reports of tornadoes (hasn't been than many in quite some time for a single event). At least 17 killed by tornadoes and 7 more by straight line winds. The number of confirmed and rated tornadoes shouldn't be factored into the decision to post this as it takes National Weather Service teams several days to fully assess damage and properly rate tornadoes. All of Alabama is under a state of emergency and loss of life was spread over a wide area (Oklahoma to North Carolina). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Continuing into tonight, more tornadoes and fatalities in North Carolina, with more states of emergencies announced [45] Even more importantly, the article is shaping up really nicely. Large amount of coverage. RxS (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a storm cell killed 17 in sub-Saharan Africa, would we post it? Probably not, so what makes the US — which gets these systems every year — more notable in this regard? I still think we should only post with a confirmed EF4 or 5. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This by no means a yearly occurrence. RxS (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We wont know if there was an EF4 (from what I've seen there wasn't EF5-type damage) for a few days. The the scale of damage and sheer number of tornadoes makes this outbreak notable. In addition to Alabama, 26 counties in Oklahoma and 14 in Mississippi declared a state of emergency. I believe 15 more were declared in North Carolina but I'm not sure as of now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Deadliest US outbreak in over three years. Not a once a week outbreak. - CWY2190(talk • contributions) 01:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not enthusiastic about the blurb. Any other proposals? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Oppose Vote Ever Seen No, just no. Eww! Just because it happens (happened?) in the US does not mean it is noteworthy, newsworthy, notable, and all that jazz. Sixteen people died, but oh well, a lot of people die every day in bus crashes, airplane failures, etc. I'm not sure why people think that the US has a different criteria for notability here, I just disagree enormously. Most importantly, tornadoes occur a lot in the US so it may be worthless of even being included in the encyclopedia. It's like earthquakes here in Chile, we have a lot of them every day, and seems like we only had two 'notable' ones last year that deserve their article, but yet again, just because people died does not mean this US crap is notable. Diego Grez (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Classic... Nightw 03:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um...what? This was a violent tornado outbreak and included several long-lived, destructive tornadoes. The average tornado lasts only a few minutes and tracks a couple miles. Several tornadoes produced during this outbreak lasted half an hour or more and tracked dozens of miles. This is one of the largest three day outbreaks in over a decade, with >220 reported tornadoes. I doubt Ks0stm is posting this because it happened in the US, rather, he's posting it because it's a major meteorological event that resulted in significant loss of life in a developed country. I see your point of people dying every day from bus crashes, airplane failures and the like but those are (sadly) daily happenings. A deadly tornado outbreak to this scale only happens every few years. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of body count, it's the number of tornados, length of time they've been active, number of the states of emergencies enacted and number of people effected. It'd be posted where ever something like this happened. RxS (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fatalities reported in Virginia now, 29 deaths now attributed to this event. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. The article looks okay and I'm all for posting more and more stories, but it's not exactly huge. Nightw 03:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. I take Cyclonebiskit's explanation of why waiting for some of the later tornados to be rated as potentially EF3+ to not be a good idea. An event like this, if reliably sourced, would be posted for Sub-Saharan Africa, by the way. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (EC) - Ive been pondering about this all day and as it is according to Joe Bastardi it is one of the largest tornado outbreaks ever i am gonna support this going up on ITN.Jason Rees (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update. 38 people now confirmed killed from the tornado outbreak, 5 more from the overall storm, though we need to decide which total to post. This is the deadliest outbreak since 2008, which was also posted to the Main Page. ~AH1 (discuss!) 16:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

April 15, 2011 (2011-04-15) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

[Update proposal] Judgement of Ante Gotovina

Article: Ante Gotovina (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Croatian general Ante Gotovina is sentenced to 24 years prison after being found guilty of war crimes during Operation Storm. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Perhaps it's not a verdict against a former head of state, but the whole trial in The Hague against Gotovina received sufficient attention in the previous years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The update is currently too short. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support when ready,. its conviction not just an investigation/arrest/tiral during a major was r (or thereabouts)Lihaas (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a sentence or two more update, mostly regarding the public reaction to the verdict. Support then, this is the top story in the region. --Tone 18:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the update marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to the huge significance in Croatia and significance of war crimes tribunal producing a result. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update request

While Gotovina sentencing is important, I think the blurb should also contain a bit more important part of the news.

Please change the current blurb to

Former Croatian general Ante Gotovina is sentenced to 24 years prison after being found guilty of war crimes during Operation Storm while former president Franjo Tuđman is identified as part of a joint criminal enterprise.

Sources:

Like I've said, sentencing a general is important but it's more important that the President Tudjman was identified as part of the joint criminal enterprise. I tried to make it as short as possible, please I hope you take this into account.--Avala (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else want to chime in? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the President Tudjman article, it has a lot of orange-level issues, it has not been updated with the information from this year, and considering that the article is a BLP, I do not feel comfortable posting it without those issues being resolved. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Ready] Burkina Faso mutiny

Article: Blaise Compaoré (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Mutineering soldiers force Burkina Faso President Blaise Compaoré to flee the capital for his hometown. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Overnight reports of shooting around the capital of the country and the president is also reported to have left the presidential compound. (note, he has been involved in at least 2 coups in the past and this is coming about face against him, a leader who has ruled for 24 years...seems like long-serving national leaders are on their death beds...)Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A head of state fleeing his capital is notable even if he doesn't flee the country. Grsz 11 20:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article needs more references. SpencerT♦C 20:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
where? section is sourced.Lihaas (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blaise_Compaoré#2011_mutiny still only has one reference. SpencerT♦C 15:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to wait here for further development. Sacking the government is a big deal in princpile but there's one sentence about it. --Tone 18:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Pulled] IPv4 obsolete (APNIC runs out of IPv4 addresses)

Article: IPv4_address_exhaustion#Impact_of_APNIC_RIR_exhaustion_and_LIR_exhaustion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ APNIC becomes the first regional Internet registry to run out of IPv4 addresses. (Post)
Article needs updating

Up to this point, everybody who needed an IPv4 address could get one essentially for free. With APNIC out of IPv4 addresses, that is no longer the case. With any regional Internet registry out of IPv4 addresses, everybody on the Internet needs to have transitioned to IPv6 at this point to retain end-to-end connectivity. So even people in fx Europe needs to transition to IPv6 at this point, even though RIPE still has months worth of IPv4 addresses, or they won't be able to talk to the people in Asia who only have an IPv6 address. So this is the unofficial end of IPv4 as an end-to-end protocol. As such, the APNIC exhaustion is arguably more important than the IANA exhaustion in January was. Note that APNIC still has a last /8 block of IPv4 addresses, but that block is reserved for special uses such as NAT64. [46] Thue | talk 08:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, we posted this in February. We're not seriously going to post the end of IPv4 in every single RIR. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We posted the IANA exhaustion in February. This is the first RIR running out, not IANA; this is different but just as newsworthy. And note how I emphasized that the first RIR (APNIC) running out is special - I am not suggesting that we post each RIR running out, but only this first one, since it is the main point of IPv4 exhaustion. Thue | talk 10:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In English please. I reckon I have the amount of understanding reasonable for an end user, but this means nothing to me. I live in the UK, is that part of fx Europe? I have no idea what relationship, if any, I have with APNIC or RIPE, or whether I have an IPv4 or IPv6 (but presumably not v5) address. Is it the case that this essentially means that the internet service providers will do some sort of fix invisible to end-users, and everything will carry on essentially as usable. If so, it would appear to be a technical change equivalent to a change in the way the HMRC handle my taxes, or the manufacturers of my breakfast cereal package their product, ie largely irrelevant to everyone except industry insiders. If my assumption is correct, oppose, as it reinforces the prejudice that Wiki is for geeky types: if it means that I will imminently lose internet connectivity with whole continents, support and request a stick to beat my ISP around the head with. Kevin McE (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before this event, the Internet was in principle end-to-end. That means that if you had a friend in China, he could start a Minecraft server on his private PC, and your PC could connect to it directly, and you could play Minecraft together. With the exhaustion of IPv4, your friend may not be able to get his own IPv4 address, but only an IPv6 address, so you can't connect to his server until you also get an IPv6 address. The "give everybody an IPv6 address" is the "invisible to end-users fix", and it should have already happened, but is only done for ~5% of internet users. So the story here is that the invisible fix has not happened, and things will start breaking, though mostly for the "little guy" who wants to run his own server-like programs. The big datacenters will probably just buy IP addresses on the grey marked (buying IP addresses is in principle against the rules). Also, you will probably have to buy a new home router which supports IPv6 at some point. The Internet is the main information exchange system of the human race, and this news marks the breaking of full end-to-end connectivity in that system (until IPv6 is fully deployed, which will take years and billions of dollars). Thue | talk 13:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what this means is that if an ISP in Asia Pacific wants to provide Internet access to more users they will be unable to do so without using IPv6 (which isn't yet widely supported) or resorting to special tricks that don't work that well (carrier level NAT). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There will probably be no specific point in time when IPv4 will no longer be used - it will be a rolling transition. As I argued in the introduction, the point where IPv4 became obsolete is NOW, because it marks the first time where somebody who needed an IPv4 address may no longer be able to get one. Thue | talk 10:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks fine, and there's not all that much opposition, so posting - one thing though. I do feel this blurb may sound a lot more worrying than it is to a lot of non-techie readers - any chance of a link to IP6 or whatever it is they're using now?  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  15:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IPv6 isn't being used yet really - that's the problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is that it isn't even true. Read the announcement: [47] APNIC have started using their last /8 allocation, and have have introduced new allocation policies to conserve that space as a result. It has not "run out of IPv4 addresses", indeed they remain available for allocation, provided such allocation is in line with its new policy. For all the hyperbole there isn't much of substance here and the blurb on our main page is materially and uncategorically incorrect. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the last /8 they are only going to give 1024 IP addresses to each ISP, that's hardly a huge number by any means - see the FAQ. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1022 addresses actually, since the network and broadcast addresses are unusable. However, the size of the blocks is not at issue. The blurb says they have run out and therefore there can be no new allocations. That would be far more significant than the reality. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if you read the article it's fairly clear that they're simply allocating more restrictively, having hit their final /8. (And if you want to be really technical, it is 1024 and not 1022 since they can subnet them however they want...say 1024 /32s. :) The statement that they are out of addresses is simply incorrect. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that last /8 is reserved for NAT64. So APNIC is out of IPv4 addresses for normal use. We could modify the blurb to say "runs out of IPv4 addresses for normal use" , but that would just be nitpicking. There will always be unused IPv4 addresses reserved for special purposes. Bottom line is that if you asked APNIC yesterday for an IPv4 for your server they would say "yes", today they would say "no". Thue | talk 10:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last /8 is only restricted as a matter of policy - it is not reserved in the technical sense. New entrants can still get a vanilla IPv4 allocation regardless of use. It is only existing players that can only get space for IPv6 transition. That is their new policy - they are still available but on a much more restricted basis. That is what the blurb did not mention. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  17:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News of the World phone hacking scandal

Article: News of the World phone hacking affair (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Article needs updating

BBC, Bloomberg, ABC (Australia), the Economist (obviously there are plenty more UK sources)

This scandal involves one of the UK's top newspapers hacking celebrities phones and has been rumbling on for years in the UK, and it goes to the High Court today. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The Coulson angle and ongoing Murdoch-Sky aquisition issue makes this pretty significant, beyond being just a 'newspaper is corrupt' scandal. There's no way of knowing when the various court actions will conclude, so we may as well post the 'start'. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose dont have any facts/prosecutions to affirm so. atr any rate, no global significance.Lihaas (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low effect and generally more local sensationalism. Possibly if this has very significant repercussions I would support, but I guess that I am not seeing solid repercussions at this point. This kind of stuff has happened before, and will probably happen again. SpencerT♦C 20:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Going to the High Court" is not a significant development. Reconsider if and when something substantive happens. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, tabloid finally called out, will recieve hefty fine and move on. Not major news internationally, but reconsider if News Group suffers serious damages as a result.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  17:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

April 14, 2011 (2011-04-14) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Sports

A new Syrian PM

Article: Adel Safar (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Syrian President Bashar al-Assad forms a new government with Adel Safar confirmed as new Prime Minister. (Post)
Article updated
References:

(Al Jazeera) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support with a shorter blurb though. Either the PM or the protesters (the former being more noteworthy at this point)Lihaas (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significant governmental change. ~AH1 (discuss!) 19:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd normally support right away, but the article's very short on prose. I wouldn't say that this is "ready"... Nightw 03:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the one sentence about him becoming PM isn't sufficient. Courcelles 03:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

April 13, 2011 (2011-04-13) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

[Posted] 2011 BRICS summit

Article: 2011 BRICS summit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ BRICS states meet in Sanya, China for an annual summit that features South Africa for the first time. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Were more than 24 horus without an update and this seems the biggest thing happening today. Its also the first time South Africa has come meaning it now covers every continent of the "glboal south" and a strengthening of emerging market bonds. Like the G7 of the northern hemisphere.Lihaas (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support big meeting between countries with a large percent of world GDP and population - possibly even a candidate for ITNR. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note BRICs redirects to a dab page. Can somebody fix the link, please. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

im not sure how to move it as a non-admin. theres only 1-link so can an admin redirect? Lihaas (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its fixed now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main article redirected to BRICS now as well. --Tone 21:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Lihaas and Eraserhead1--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article needs more sources, its not updated yet. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it is thoroughly updated, it just needs more sources. im off to sleep but ill get to it in a few hours if no opne else had.Lihaas (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added little more, and im int he process of adding more. so its ready/getting ready.Lihaas (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, two sources is better than one source, posting. --Tone 13:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support: per Eraserhead1 -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Hosni Mubarak and his kids arrested

Article: Hosni Mubarak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his sons Alaa and Gamal are detained for 15 days following the revolution. (Post)
Article updated
References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 7 (Al-Arabiya), (BBC), (AFP via Yahoo! News).
JustinSpringer (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support any one of these stories. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support including the addition of Mubarak's emergency hospital visit (below).--NortyNort (Holla) 12:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - after his resignation the only importance will be his death. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The arrest of a former head of state isn't ITN material for you, while an aftershock that killed nobody is? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously notable given his resignation was only about a month ago. Nightw 13:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Head of state arrested..that's enough for me as long as there's an update. RxS (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major milestone in a national revolution. Indicative of the permanence of the change there and what's to come in terms of investigation and prosecution. Not every step of his trial will be newsworthy, but the fact that there will be one certainly is. Ocaasi c 13:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This do NOT mean there will be a trail. hes been arrested for 15 days as part of investigations. being a trail is the big deal i agree, but no asurety of that just yet. at any rate, hes also in hospital so dont know how much will b e done.Lihaas (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the articles is updated? NW (Talk) 13:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Clearly ITN stansard news considering that the ITN has not been updated from 27 hours. Also, I have added the blurb and other sources. JustinSpringer (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If anyone can suggest a better blurb, please do me a favour. JustinSpringer (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked indef as a sock. Sockmaster was blocked 1 month. Striking vote. StrPby (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose: our usual trigger for court proceedings is conviction. To have arrest, arraignment, opening of case, conviction is overkill. This is not an arrest after a long hunt for someone who has been on the run for many years: his whereabouts for the last few months has been a matter of public record, and an arrest could have been affected at any time. Kevin McE (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: @Kevin McE, how many heads of states have been arrested on such charges. And also, if we can post the arrest of Laurent Gbagbo, why not Hosni Mubarak, who was the subject of the largest revolution this year? JustinSpringer (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that I could only post an opinion with your approval. I've contributed to a discussion: that contribution will be borne in mind by whoever eventually takes it upon his/herself to adjudicate on the strengths of the arguments presented. Kevin McE (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither was I aware that I needed your approval to present my opinion on your view and the discussion thread. And even my response will be borne in mind by whoever eventually takes it upon his/herself to adjudicate on the strengths of the arguments presented. JustinSpringer (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to retract a comment directed at me, have the good grace to apologise and rephrase, rather than editing so as to change the perception of my reply. Kevin McE (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin McE, Please

  1. stop taking everything personally
  2. assume good faith
  3. be civil

Also, even you know that your explanation was completely wrong, as even Laurent Gbagbo was not convicted yet on the front page, so stop giving unreasonable explanations. Also before pointing a finger on me and telling me to read newspapers time to time, I expect you to read the front page time to time so that you know that our usual trigger for court proceedings is not conviction. To have arrest, arraignment, opening of case, conviction is not overkill. This is not an arrest after a long hunt for someone who has been on the run for many years: his whereabouts for the last few months has been a matter of public record, and an arrest could have been affected at any time(the same case with Laurent Gbagbo). Remember pointing one finger at others points three back to you.

JustinSpringer (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You show your recent arrival in this forum by such comments. Gbagbo may have been an exception, but his arrest was different in ways I commented on above: it changed the situation in the country radically: governance in Egypt is not changed by today's events as it was in Cote d'Ivoire the other day. The suggestion that the arrest of Gbagbo was as easily affected as that of Mubarak would be laughable if it were not for the destruction implicit in 11 days of urban warfare Kevin McE (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot pass comments on Egypt and Ivory Coast while sitting in an air-conditioned room. Had you even been to any one of the places that you are taking the liberty of lecturing me on this topic? JustinSpringer (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant development in the Egyptian Revolution and the arrest of the former head of state. Nuff said. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of order: There is pretty clearly consensus to post this. What is also true is that the blurb will not be posted without a significant update for the article in question, which has yet to be pointed out to all. NW (Talk) 16:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
THAT article is not ready for the main page if yanyone wants to read it. ive changed the articel to muabraks'Lihaas (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing an update in either the suggested article nor Mubarak's article. There's half a line on him being hospitalised in the latter and the former doesn't seem to have been updated for several days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree that there is consensus to post this at all; arrests of former dynasts are cheap - especially in non-democratic countries as Egypt (in fact, exile, arrest, and death seem to be the norm for ex-heads of state outside the democratic world) which has probably never had an ex-head of state living in the country in 5000 years of history - convictions, if any there be, in fair trials would be newsy in Egypt. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note We still don't have a sufficient update. Let me also make clear that, in its current state, Trials and judicial hearings following the 2011 Egyptian revolution isn't going anywhere near the Main Page. Given that most (if not all) of its subjects are living people, the poor referencing there is very concerning. In the meantime, Mubarak's article would seem the one to update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I like this one. Baseball Watcher 03:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Precisely because it's more common for an ousted leader to either be pardoned or ignored by his successor; taken bodily in a coup or war; or flee into exile in a country without an extradition treaty, the fact that he both remained and that then a month later the authorities didn't merely interview him but detained him at such length is noteworthy. (Again, often an arrest is followed by the posting of bail, which is followed by a plea bargain/settlement or a trial; or it is followed by throwing the guy in a cell to await trial; to detain him for 15 days of questioning seems extraordinary.) Similarly, the change in government in Egypt is a far more prominent story, and arguably has more wide-ranging implications, than the other instances referred to above. Abrazame (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Trials and Judicial Hearings article requires too much work to bring up to par at the moment, but the detention has now been added to the Hosni Mubarak bio. If we could get a couple of editors on the tagged sections there for a few minutes, the Mubarak bio could be presentable. Abrazame (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there's an update that I find sufficient, posting. --Tone 07:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

April 12, 2011 (2011-04-12) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • Almost all of 169 Chinese Christians detained on Sunday, after they tried to hold an outdoor prayer session, are released; the unofficial Chinese church vows to hold more services. (MSN Malaysia News) (BBC)

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Sport

Hosni Mubarak hospitalized

Lewis Binford dies

Southern Mehtodist University Lewis Binford pinoneer in the "New Archeology" dies. Letter from the President of the World Archaeological Congress Leader in his feild... some would even argue the "founder" of Modern Archology as he tunred Archeology into a science. He may have been old but He is in the middle of teaching a class this semester thus unexpected enough. If some one could mop up his article its postable. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.221.69 (talk) [reply]

I just read the first three paragraphs of Processual archaeology (the real name of the article - New Archeology is simply an anachronistically confusing redirect), and I'm lost! It seems to be written by and for insiders to the archaeological "industry". Full of jargon. Any chance something could be created in clearer, simpler English? HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At present, the article fails to meet this part of the death criteria: "the article needs to have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death (in accordance with ITN updating criteria), and the article as a whole must be B-class and/or be satisfactorily filled out with no major omissions of the person's life and effect." NW (Talk) 22:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This a a job for Recent deaths, which is already linked from ITN. Thue | talk 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Fukushima I nuclear accidents-Now rated at 7

Article
Fukushima I nuclear accidents

INES level jumps from 5 to 7 ,as rated by Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, ... On a 0-7 scale. This claims NHK here: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_05.html

Did this really (just) happen?--Alcea setosa (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify no one else seems to report this (yet) . I was just checking the article for updates when I noticed this posted by a new IP.--Alcea setosa (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got it on Forbes Support purely symbolic move but also means thing have been worse than they have been letting on The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•

(contribs) 00:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last 7 was Chernobyl, so this is highly significant, een if purely symbolic. Clear support. StrPby (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: just noticed all the report are saying Japan will do it in the "future tense." Lets not jump the gun here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-may-raise-nuclear-accident-severity-level-to-highest-7-from-5 --Alcea setosa (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only level 7 one was Chernobyl. IFF this is rerated as level 6 or 7 then it is worth reposting (there was only one level 6 until now anyways). Nergaal (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as both NHK and Reuters report level 7. Nergaal (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting soon. The update is a bit short but the accident rating section is overall well-updated, I think it is acceptable. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could including in the blurb ...comparable with Chernobyl disaster? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the hook is already long enough. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 11

April 11, 2011 (2011-04-11) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Sports


Gagarin's flight: 50th anniversary

Article
Yuri_Gagarin#50th_anniversary_tributes and Yuri's Night
News agencies
WSJ, BBC, Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, Reuters, AFP, Washington Post, ITAR-TASS, Fox, and many more.

This is a major anniversary (April 12)), and if I remember well, Russia in planning various events to celebrate it. Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unless there are events worldwide. It is also included in On this day. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ITN isn't for anniversaries. Grsz 11 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you guys really believe that shooting of 6 people in Netherlands, or winning a golf Masters is more worthy of ITN feature than the only 50th anniversary of the only first spaceflight in human history, then I congratulate you. Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The event is already going to be on the front page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
humans love numbers that are multiple of 10 or 5 or even better both. other than 50th anniversary being a number nothing new has happened here. so its not really for ITN. we have OTD dedicated for this stuff -- Ashish-g55 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Even though this has a small mention on OTD (nothing mentioning the anniversary, might I add), it would be nice to explicitly highlight the moment... I mean, it is the first time a human has ventured into outer space and back. That's quite a big moment in our history. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"nothing mentioning the anniversary": what do you think OTD stands for? Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As in outlining that it is the 50th anniversary. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What exactly's in the news about this? A simple anniversary is not what ITN is here for; as others have pointedout that's OTD's job. Would only support if there are international events that take place to mark the date as that would be what ends up "in the news". StrPby (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I would support per Strpby. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: These events are meant for On this day. Otherwise we could have added things like Rama Navami is celebrated in India or 150th anniversary of American Civil War. Also, it is already covered in On This Day. So no need for this special coverage. And I request User:Nergaal to assume good faith and not campaign for this event. @Nergaal, he is the only one pictured in on this day! Be Happy! JustinSpringer (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2011 Minsk Metro explosion

Article: 2011 Minsk Metro explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 12 people are killed in a metro terrorist attack in Minsk. (Post)
Article updated

- At least six deaths. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a terror attack, I'd support. Article needs major work though. WhiteKongMan (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least a piece of news should be written about that. 178.121.73.135 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say we have consensus. What we lack is a sufficient article. Even with all the support in the world, this isn't going to be posted until the article is expanded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

its about time an admin statement like that be made.Lihaas (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that once the references are tidied up the update is sufficient. The article looks in a better state than 2010 Jiangxi train derailment does today, and that was posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the article looked like this when I made that comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the article is now improved enough for the news to be posted.--Avala (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few sections; it should be all set to go. Nutmegger (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated + changed blurb to reflect updated toll. Nutmegger (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article looks pretty good to me. It seems clear that considerable work has been done on it. The notability is also there, in my view, as this event raises the stakes in this former component of the USSR. Jusdafax 07:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --Tone 09:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Laurent Gbagbo is arrested

Article: Laurent Gbagbo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The arrest of Laurent Gbagbo is announced amidst the standoff that opposed him to Alassane Ouattara. (Post)

Laurent Gbagbo the President of Côte d'Ivoire from 2000 to 2011 is arrested by French special forces and hand over to rebel fighters, effectivly ending his time as president.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support if an adequate update is provided. Nergaal (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, confirmed, broad-reaching implications. Abductive (reasoning) 16:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
concur with cenarium. it seems to be spculative at the momtent iwth only claims thereof. if it is then it should be added for sure. may need to wait a few hours instead of jum[ping to senstaionalist news.Lihaas (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The UN, France and the Ouattara government have indicated that it was Ouattara forces, denying the claim by the Gbagbo aide. Reliable sources seem to consider that the UN/France/Ouattara version is more likely. We may never know for sure, so we should post. If we want to be prudent, we can add "It has announced that...". Cenarium (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 18:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
seems fair, cenrium's "his arrest was announced" is more npov.Lihaas (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's confusing now. Please agree on the npov blurb and then I'll put it back. --Tone 19:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
also its not quite "concluded" that is clear OR. (esop as it comes within hours of his "arrest"Lihaas (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the blurb. Cenarium (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BUT WHY was i t re added without any comment whatsoever? not sure who the admin wqas who readded it but he has given no explanation whatsoever despite Tone's responsibility.Lihaas (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 East Honshu earthquake

Another strong aftershock - 7.1 magnitude. - [51] - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Individual aftershocks are, like all other earthquakes, not ITN material unless they result in lasting effects/impacts. Any article should be redirected to the main article's aftershock section for now. Note that there is an active tsunami warning so the situation might change. Nothing happened in the end, onshore quake so no tsunami, no apparent impact, so sticking to oppose. StrPby (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] French ban on face covering

Article: French ban on face covering (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The French ban on face covering is implemented making France the first European country with such a ban. (Post)
Article updated

The French ban on face covering is met with severe protests on the first day of its implementation. Women appeared with their faces covered in front of Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. Parisian police arrest 61 including 19 women. Veiled women risk a 150 euro (£133) fine or having to attend special citizenship classes, but not jail. Those who force women to wear a veil are subject to up to a year in prison and a 30,000 euro fine. Although only a small minority of France's five million Muslims wear the veil, many see the ban as a stigma against the country's second biggest religion. The ban affects women who wear the niqab, which has just a slit for the eyes, and the burka which has a mesh screen over the eyes. Refrences:

  1. Yahoo!
  2. AFP
  3. Montreal Gazette
  4. The Independent
  5. Washington Post
  6. Forbes
  7. The Telegraph
  8. Belfast Telegraph

JustinSpringer (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Trending issue in France due to alleged 'racism' and violation of Freedom of Expression and Religion. JustinSpringer (talk)
Is that directed at me? I don't see how my statement held any POV — that a democratic country that professes freedom of religious expression as a fundamental civil right is now enacting laws that retract from said civil right is exactly why it is notable. Notability is what is being decided here and that was the intent of my comment. Would you mind retracting your accusation? Nightw 18:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment In light of the previous comments I strongly suggest to avoid posting before it has been made clear that the article and the blurb have no WP:NPOV issues. The blurb seems POV, I've not seen any evidence of RS reporting severe protests on the first day of implementation. The 61 arrests were made regarding a protest on Saturday, not today. A neutral blurb like: "The French ban on face covering has entered into force." would be acceptable, but not the proposed one. Cenarium (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support:France is the first European country to have such a Ban.[52] AFAIK no "severe protests" have occurred anywhere. Blurb should instead reflect the fact that France is the first country to have such a ban which is notable since France has the biggest Muslim population in western Europe.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support not sure if it is an important step towards individual freedom or on the contrary, but it is an important step nonetheless, with potential large implications. Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind the blurb, the article (or at least the updated portion) is POV. If I'd read that and didn't know otherwise, I would think this was totally uncontroversial and every Muslim in France was looking forward to being liberated because they all have oppressive husbands and none of them wear a veil by choice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If anyone has a better blurb, do me a favour by updating it. JustinSpringer (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @HJMitchell: It is possible that every Muslim in France was looking to be liberated but the concern is that France is a democratic country and supports freedom of religion in their country, yet they pass such laws which hurt the very sentiments and laws of Islam. It is an important news trending in France and more so, even Britain has taken the back-foot in this controversial topic as they support diversity and freedom of religion. Also, the article is considered a high-importance article in WikiProject France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinSpringer (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not NPOV. There are positives with women wearing a veil, such as avoiding getting judged on your appearance which is fetishised by Western culture. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article doesn't appear to be updated either, there have been no substantial changes since the 25 March. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Justin many Muslims have said that Burqa and other such face coverings are not required by Islam. Other Islamic apparel like Chador is exempt from this ban. Since many Muslim women don't have a say in what they wear this may possibly be construed by some as a step in the right direction--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plus it had been in the news for a long time, and France does have a large Muslim population who will be negatively affected unlike Belgium I do believe. Passionless -Talk 18:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caution with blurb: Belgium has had a ban, although I believe specific to the burqa, for some time: some towns for a few years now.[53] The French legislation is apparently different, and so in some ways a first, but not totally unique. Kevin McE (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC clearly states France is the 1st country to enforce such a ban.[54]--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does (although their TV news broadcast earlier today acknowledged the Belgian precedent): they appear to be wrong. Kevin McE (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Belgian law hasn't cleared the Senate. Al Jazeera and the other sources I looked at when updating the article said it was the first country to go with such a ban. The current lead seems fine to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Last year (2009), the city of Brussels fined only 29 women — down from 33 in 2008" Legislation clearly was in place in Belgium. France will become the second country in Europe, after Belgium, to apply the ban, starting April 11 (The Telegraph) Kevin McE (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment Please maintain NPOV. WP's Main Page cannot be used to advocate a point of view, comments in support of posting with the intent of advocating a POV will be disregarded. Cenarium (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support if w didnt cover the legislation being passed (i sense we may have)
more importanylu, mitchell and eraserhead need to keep political discussions off, that is for the ta;k pages of each user ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Guys if we need to post this, we have to post this fast, we have less than 5 and half hours before the date changes. But the thing that bewilders me is that why wasn't this topic added to the In the news: Future Events section of Wikipedia, JustinSpringer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
We can easily post this tomorrow ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how women in Belgium have been fined in the absence of legislation. If Reliable Sources are inconsistent, we should be conservative in our claims. Not mentioning whether France is first can't be wrong: multiple reliable sources (including BBC TV News) suggest that it is wrong to say that they were. Kevin McE (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a nation-wide law. It was the city of Brussels taking those actions. RxS (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your source for this being...? Kevin McE (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera, BBC, Sky News etc etc. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb posted is erroneous, as I have pointed out several times already in this thread. France might be (the sources are not consistent on this) the first country to have a nation-wide ban: it is not the first country to have a ban. Question: Was there legislation enforced in Belgium on this issue prior to this week. Answer: Yes. Kevin McE (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that part from the blurb. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NortyNort isn't an admin. I think he meant that he supported posting it soon. Since we've had several new items on ITN in fairly quick succession, I'm inclined to leave this for a few hours and post it this afternoon (UTC) so we don't end up with lots of stale items and no new postings. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I saw your comment after posting it. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that France is the first nation to enact this kind of law. The confusion is coming from the fact that Belgium law allows local authorities to make rules of this nature, for example [57]. But there are plenty of sources that point that out. In addition, sourcing the fact that France is the first nation to enact the law is simply done, there are hundreds of sources saying that. RxS (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it's clear that the French are the first to ban it nationwide, but I think that's too much qualification for ITN. Readers can click through and read the article for that kind of detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
France being the first nation to take this action is what makes it ITN material. It's a pretty simple concept, and one that major news sources think is appropriate to make for their readers. Are our readers simpler? RxS (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

April 10, 2011 (2011-04-10) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] Icelandic loan guarantees referendum, 2011

Article: Icelandic loan guarantees referendum, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Iceland rejects a plan to repay the British and Dutch governments over guarantee savings over Icesave's failure. (Post)

Early results have shown that the Icelandic people have rejected an offer to repay (over a period of 30 years) the British and Dutch governments 4 billion euros that they paid to guarantee savings lost in the collapse of the Icelandic banking system. This follows the referendum last year where a scheme with a higher level of interest and a shorter repayment period was rejected. Finance Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson has ruled out a third referendum with the matter to be referred to the court of the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority. (BBC) Article needs some work and obviously we should wait for final results - Dumelow (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. $4 billion is a big deal, especially for Iceland, and the follow-up to the banking crisis is an interesting context. Thue | talk 10:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While referenda are not ITNR a case can be made for this. but id say wait till final results. it looks liek a rejection but nothing is confirmed jus tyet.Lihaas (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - big deal. itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enough many votes have been counted that the result is sure, so no need to wait any longer. Narayanese (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no, thats not precedence we work with. it has to be certified wholly.Lihaas (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were quite a few elections (this is not really an election) where the whole results were in but were certified by the authorities and was posted. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Europe's finances are in a mess, and this is an interesting byproduct. The article seems OK. Jusdafax 08:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This item is good to go. Can I get some help with the blurb? Icelanders reject another proposal to repay guarantees in a referendum? --Tone 09:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
per HTD "whole results were in but were certified by the authorities " the whole results are NOT in thus it cannot be wholly certified. the page needs the update, so it can be ready to go.Lihaas (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification on my comment as Lihaas didn't understand it: In some cases, the authorities declare a winner (in this case announce the result), despite not all ballots being counted. For example, the lead is too wide and the remaining ballots would not overturn the result. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support UK and Holland are planning on suing Iceland already. Nergaal (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE article is all set with final results announced. Should be posted..
btw, per Tone, those details are in the article alreadyLihaas (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] The Masters

Article: 2011 Masters Tournament (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ (South African) Charl Schwartzel wins the 2011 Masters Tournament. (Post)
Article needs updating

The 2011 Masters is wrapping up. On ITNR and should be added when updated. Grsz 11 22:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth mentioning what sport this is. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this is an ITNR event, the article has no sources or references for any of its prose. Seems like it's been updated by people who followed the event in an OR style without sourcing. Therefore, unless this issue is rectified, I have to strongly oppose. StrPby (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no need to oppose for issues with article. it wont go up unless those issues are fixed... -- Ashish-g55 01:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HJ, of course, is right. It's golf! (A fun game is to look for articles on the sports pages of newspapers, that never name the sport being discussed. They are remarkably common.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ITN, good candidate; big internationally represented golf event.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Just a point of order, opposes based on the article's quality aren't absolutely necessary, since neither I nor any other admin would post it without issues like sourcing being addressed first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I find such opposes to be distracting. When it comes time to judge consensus, I have to just assume they'd support the nomination because they don't comment on anything but the article quality. -- tariqabjotu 02:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've posted a couple opposes due to article quality before, but I now agree with HJ and Tari above – if there are quite a few comments on a nomination, they get really distracting. If the article is later updated, they can create the illusion of no consensus when there really is. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out an article is in poor shape, but perhaps we could dissuade people from using the bold oppose for those items. Maybe they could write something like comment article lack references, poor prose, etc. WhiteKongMan (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with HJ and changed my vote. I never opposed it in general, just the lack of references.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

April 9, 2011 (2011-04-09) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Restored St Francis tomb reopens

Article: Basilica of San Francesco d'Assisi#Crypt (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The tomb of St. Francis of Assisi is reopened after its first restoration in 800 years (Post)
Article needs updating

BBC Seems interesting. The media coverage has been sparse, but it surely is of interest to thousands of potential pilgrims to the site worldwide. A good chance for a history posting as well. An update is needed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support sounds like an interesting story, and one we don't normally cover. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - interesting one.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently htere's a fair bit of news about this in Italian some saying there are cameras now for longdistance prayer!.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article updated--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Director Sidney Lumet Dies

Article: Sidney Lumet (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American film director Sidney Lumet dies at age 86. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

An aclaimed and influential film director dies. His more notable films include 12 Angry Men, Serpico,Murder on the Orient Express, and Network, which won 4 Academy Awards. The update is short at the moment. I think it might be worth waiting a bit until some notable reactions come in, which can be used to form a substantial update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose who? None of these films are that notable. Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the response of the classic Wikipedia editor? The young, male, geek who needs to get a life? Sorry. Some humour is intended there but really, that's a very silly post. I'd suggest a short study of what films are regarded as classics historically, not just this century. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that notable? Are you high? Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I very much contest your presumption that 12 Angry Men is not notable. What standard do we use for determining death postings on ITN if not something as prestigious as multiple Academy Awards?--WaltCip (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He created bunch of movies, won some awards. This isnt quite an exceptional individual as far as some directors go. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the movies he directed are now classics. I'd say the quote in the New York Times obituary about why he got his honorary Oscar is apropos: a "consolation prize for a lifetime of neglect." Still, I agree with the others that he's not quite notable enough.--Chaser (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of classic movies that are certainly of note, but his golden age was decades ago and he was in his 80's, so... In the interest of getting more stories, however, weak support. Nightw 21:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose no great notability. every director is not news-worthy,.Lihaas (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To those saying "not notable", how many Academy Award nominations make a director notable? Lumet had four. Does one need five? If not, how many? This is a classic example of a discussion where numbers of comments (voting) must NOT count. All comments that say a person with four Oscar nominations is not notable should be disregarded as being written in ignorance. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A little clarification on his oscars. Lumet 'won' one Oscar, a lifetime achievement award. He never won the Oscar for best director himself, though he was nominated 4 times. His films have been nominated for about 50 Oscars in total, a notable achievement. His film Network (not 12 Angry Men) won four Academy Awards (actor, actress, supporting actress, and screenplay). Generally, his films were noted for strong acting performances, and garnered many acting awards.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Highly notable and influential, but as User:Mkativerata says, "recent death material". Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the lifetime achievement award until 2009 was only given to one person a year, and so if we posted every film person who had received that award - and any similar award in India, we would only be posting 2 film deaths a year (as some people are clearly notable enough but haven't won this award - e.g. Elizabeth Taylor) I think we can post this guy (even though I personally haven't heard of him). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mkativerata, this is what recent deaths exist for. Thue | talk 10:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section Sidney Lumet#Death has a substantial update now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there's an update I'd like to add some more reasons that I think this deserves posting. The film 12 Angry Men, while as I noted did not win Lumet an Oscer for directing, was awarded the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival. It is now widely regarded as a classic. It is #7 at the IMDB all time best films list and has a 100% critics rating at Rotten Tomatoes. It is listed by US critic Roger Ebert as one of the 'great films' (and receives similar praise from other critics). Also, appropriately, it is about a group of 12 men attempting to arrive at a consensus. The film has been remade many times, including an Indian version and a Russian version which won the Golden Lion at Venice. Overall, as noted above, his films earned over 50 Oscar nominations. The Guardian's obituary called him 'one of the most significant film directors of his time, a man dedicated to the cinema as an art form and to the pursuit of truth and social justice as a dramatic theme.'1. Lumet easily qualifies for death criterion #2:The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to further comment that the New York Mayor, Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese have made tribute after his death. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking [Ready?] as the argument above by Johnsemlak is highly persuasive and we judge on consensus not vote counting. I would like an uninvolved administrator to check however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs more discussion. On useful comments, were basically 50:50. I do find Johnsemlak's argument persuasive, but not so persuasive as to counter the opposition of half the commenters. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
please dont mark items as ready if you are involved and there does not seem to be clear consensus. thanks -- Ashish-g55 16:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given HJ Mitchell's statement saying that the useful comments were 50:50 and that Johnsemlak's comment was persuasive then given the additional two support !votes I think the consensus was clear enough here. Additionally the instructions make it quite clear that the posting admin is supposed to judge consensus anyhow. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain things that require an involved editor or admin to do, such as closing an AfD discussion. I'm not sure that marking and ITN blurb 'ready', which is just meant to help admins who still must judge consensus, really requires an uninvolved editor.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i only meant for discussions where consensus is not clear. the ready system is useless if admins cant use it to post items that are ready to be posted. which should also mean consensus has been reached. and IMO i dont think an involved editor who supported should decide if consensus is clear... HJ said it needs more discussion and according to Eraserhead Johnsemlak comment was persuasive... not something an involved editor can use to decide on consensus. should be atleast an admin -- Ashish-g55 18:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing was after HJ Mitchell made his comment there were two more good supports from Wikireader41 and RxS, that's why I marked it [Ready]. However I think you have a point, in future I'll mark a similar case [Ready?]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
pull it. on what reasoning was it posted? mitchell said "basically 50:50-" we hardly have stronfg support for it. what people have already said here is that thsi is too american-centric. if its because of the timer then we have the st francis tomb thats unanimous in support.Lihaas (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The St Francis tomb hasn't been updated. And I don't see anyone mentioning explicitly his nationality. RxS (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, we're not pulling it. The arguments in support are much more persuasive than the ones in opposition, and my reading of the consensus (and BorgQueen's as well) is to post. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments against seem to be able to be summarised as 1) I'm young and have only watched movies made in the past 20 years, so I've never heard of this guy, so he cannot be important, and 2) Old people cannot be important. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As is mine, now there are more supports. His nationality is wholly irrelevant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Gunman kills five in the Netherlands

Article: Alphen aan den Rijn shopping mall shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A gunman opens fire at a shopping mall in Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands, killing seven, including himself.[58] (Post)

I've updated the History section at Alphen_aan_den_Rijn.—Biosketch (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not built by vote counting. Every nomination here is presumed to be "itn material" that comment doesnt constitue any reason to include it.Lihaas (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose how major is it? The attacks arent that uncommon in europe (gernmay, finland, etc)
theres not change whatsoever of getting a 1 line article upLihaas (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Raintheone. -EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not built by vote counting. A mere "support" doesnt have value. WP:CONSENSUSLihaas (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well, in fact it has value. as it shows a pattern of users that feel this story is ITN-worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that may very well be (and obvious) but WHY thats what Consensus has against vote-counting.Lihaas (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and the 8 pm News, the best viewed News-programme in the Netherlands just spend 17 of its 25 minutes on the issue; so there is at least no doubt on what the impact is inside NL... L.tak (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: major incident for Holland. Crnorizec (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at least until the article is improved. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major and unusual event for the Netherlands. Mjroots (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion, location does count. Mass shootings are much rarer in Europe than the United States, hence why I would generally support putting up European shootings and not American shootings. In this instance, it's even rarer for an event like this to happen in the Netherlands. Fair amount of casualties, so support. Franklinville (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In response to the "Death toll is small", well what does that have to do with it being ITN worthy. You have to look at the context in which the incident occurs and the amount of subsequent coverage it gains in reliable news sources. IMO this is a rare thing for the Kingdom of the Netherlands and there are sources to back the claim up. It's got world coverage, so it is not limited to national attention.Rain the 1 BAM 01:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Discounting the two support !votes which add nothing to the discussion, it's 5:3. That's not the strongest consensus we've ever seen, but we are 24 hours without an update and there is a case to be made that these events are rare in Western Europe and especially so in the Netherlands. We also have another shooting with comparable casualties currently working its way down the template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-post oppose. To me it's simple. If this happened anywhere else in the world, would we post it? If this was the US, probably not. If this was Fiji or Samoa, probably not. If this was Africa, probably not. If this was Indonesia or Singapore, probably not. Western Europe shouldn't be "special" just because "it doesn't happen". "It doesn't happen" in a lot of places which we wouldn't post anyway. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error in post The posted indicates 7+killer, while it is "7 including killer" (I have seen no reports of an update of the death yet; posted some time ago to ITN/errors as well, but am not sure how well that is watched) L.tak (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Needs update] Atifete Jahjaga first female Kosovo President

Atifete Jahjaga is elected as Kosovo's first female President in a majority vote by the Parliament.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-nominated this historic political event as the original hook wasnt correct and by that those in favour /or not in favour didnt get the correct information.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we dont need to move it up just to get more responses. At anyrate, with the new article now its more warranted to get posted.Lihaas (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • disagree with blurbing but support posting May I point out under Kosovo current constitution she is only the third offical president thus not really as big a deal about being the first woman. Since 33% of Kosovo's presidents have been female, that not really too big a deal to emphasize in my book The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I must point out that this is not covered under ITN/R, since the criteria explicitly rules: "Disputed states ... should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." But since I disagree with this clause, I'm supporting. Nightw 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my reasonings below. Stop reposting proposals to distract from oppose votes. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing, neither the president article or her article are in anywhere near decent state to deserve posting. Nergaal (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont accuse users of doing bad faith edits just because you happen to disagree with them. The president article is OK for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NEITHER article says why there was an early election. To a complete outsider this could as well be something like "hey guys look at us we have randomly chosen a new president ONLY 6 weeks after we chose the last one." Nergaal (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITN/R. Kosovo is a recognized state by most of the free world. Crnorizec (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean most of the less than half of the UN members? Nergaal (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might not like Kosovo or what ever.. But that doesnt change the fact that Crnorizec is correct.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support new head of state- not necessarily a fan of emphasising her as the first woman to hold the post, but the change itself is enough. Courcelles 23:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I find both the President and Jahjaga's articles to be in very poor condition. I am still confused as to how/why this woman became President of Kosovo, which is the main point of this item, is it not? --PlasmaTwa2 00:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Plasma2. The articles are conflicting, it's difficult to judge her importance.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support new head of state; the confusion on how or why she became president articulated above would also apply in many minds to George W. Bush, the confusion which after 10 years remains.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ITN didn't exist in 2000. But we can't post these articles on the main page in their current condition, IMO.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Jahjaga's article is in a terrible state—the vast majority of it is totally unsourced and there's no explanation of how she came to be a candidate or any background information. The consensus is leaning in favour of posting, but the article needs serious work before it can go up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

April 8, 2011 (2011-04-08) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

Politics and elections

2011 United States federal budget

Article: 2011 United States federal budget (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States Congress reaches a deal on the 2011 United States federal budget an hour before the deadline to avoid a government shutdown. (Post)
Credits:
  • Passed after 6 months of delays, during which the US govt was funded by the 2010 budget while Congress fought over this year's budget. The deal has resulted in 38 billion dollars in spending cuts, and avoided a shutdown of the federal government.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support clearly a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is somewhat confused. We haven't passed a budget. The parties reached an agreement, in principle, on what the budget should be and then passed a 6-day temporary extension to allow the government to continue functioning while they work out the details. The budget negotiations could still fall apart during the next week, or one of the houses of Congress could balk and fail to pass the resulting budget. We avoided a shutdown (for now), but its not really a done deal yet. Dragons flight (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say nothing happened. A deal on a budget was reached, that's something. $38 Billion dollars in cuts and significant political ramifications (though exactly what those are are to be determined). We certainly dont' post every time a government passes a budget but last year we did post the UK Spending Review, although those were much more historic cuts for Britain. While Dragon's flight is correct that the budget hasn't been passed, the media is reporting it as a 'deal' and the way the parties are talking it really appears unlikely that it won't go through.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I really abhor statements like "People are interested in the deal." Any thinking person instantly asks "Which people?", "How many people?", etc. Not a sound argument. Ever. HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I should have said was "people won't know where the article is". Abductive (reasoning) 04:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing's actually been passed yet. Only an agreement in principle which, as has been noted, has the potential to still fall apart before anything is passed - we shouldn't play WP:CRYSTAL and assume it will definitely hold together. Franklinville (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources reporting that there's a real chance the budget won't be passed? From what I've read it seems pretty definite, though of course it hasn't been passed officially yet.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is the story? That a budget has been agreed? That happens in every economy, annually in most. That a budget catastrophe didn't happen? Lots of planes didn't crash yesterday, and Paraguay didn't declare war against Malawi: we won't be posting either of these facts. That politicians negotiated and compromised? We may as well publish that bus drivers sat down and co-ordinated the movement of pedals and a steering wheel. Kevin McE (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose did something major change? passing a budget happens every year (in every country) as far as i understand. this time they were just a bit fussy about it... politics as usual -- Ashish-g55 14:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose though clearly the bickering was of interest to Americans the shutdown was averted. That American political system is deeply polarized is not exactly news. That said I would have supported if a shutdown had occurred as that is a relatively unusual and rare event.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2011 Syrian protests

Article: 2011 Syrian protests#8 April (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 27 people are killed in the anti-governmental protests in the Syrian city of Deraa. (Post)
Credits:
Updated with the information about the risen death toll.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Yemen is far more important than syria here. if we were to combin the two then id support.Lihaas (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then nominate Yemen; we can post them both. Combining blurbs on recent protests in Middle Eastern countries has not gained consensus before because they are distinct stories. The same is true here. It's not a monolithic region.--Chaser (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stock exchange merger

Article: Singapore Exchange (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Australia's Treasurer Wayne Swan rejects the proposed merger of the Australian Securities Exchange and Singapore Exchange. (Post)
Credits:
  • "Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan officially blocked the proposed merger of the Australian and Singapore stock exchanges, branding it a takeover that would damage national interests." [59] The article Singapore Exchange needs some more update, but it should be easy enough. Any thoughts? --BorgQueen (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So... nothing will happen? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the rejection of a proposed event is an event in itself, even though its notability is subject to debate. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an Australian I need to tell others elsewhere that it is big news here, with some "big money" people doing a lot of complaining about it. I'm not saying that this makes it a big event on a global scale. I have no idea, and I'd suggest the same is true for most others. It needs to be put in context of how it compares to how the governments of other "free market" western democracies have behaved on such matters. Does anybody know? HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
us shot down DP World's aqcuisitions and some chinese aquisition of a CA oil co.Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I grew up in Sydney. If the merger happened, it would have been huge news, and would have my full support. But it didn't. So, it's basically a non-event. – SMasters (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (like SMasters, I'm an Australian). This was fairly big news here, but I don't think it is ITN worthy. It has little international significance and there was no suggestion of any change in the nature of the ASX's regulatory responsibilities. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why is it news here? (See my question above. All I'm looking for is some context.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

April 7, 2011 (2011-04-07) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

US Government Shutdown

Article: No article specified
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)

Might as well start the discussion on this now. The US Federal government is likely to shutdown at midnight tonight EST (4 UTC I believe), for only the second time in the nation's history. There's no article yet, but I assume it would be created soon. This is being covered by BBC, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Mail, Telegraph, Xinhua, The Australian, Times of India. WhiteKongMan (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't understand this point. Surely, it's clear that this has significance beyond the Washington Monument closing. (as I state below, amongst other things, all US national parks/monuments would close, such as Grand Canyon National Park and Yellowstone National Park.) A blurb hasn't been suggested yet, so its hard to debate it, but I imagine the words 'government shutdown' will convey a fair bit of significance and will link to an article explaining the details.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if a shutdown happens and if there's the required update. A shutdown means that the government ceases to provide any non-essential services it normally provides (bear in mind the US's federal system where many day to day services are provided by the state and local government which will not be affected, notably schools). A good article on the details would be the United States federal government shutdown of 1995. I'll copy a key part fo the text from that article which details many of the services which are stopped:
health and welfare services for military veterans were curtailed; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped disease surveillance; new clinical research patients were not accepted at the National Institutes of Health; and toxic waste clean-up work at 609 sites was halted. Other impacts included: the closure of 368 National Park sites resulted in the loss of some seven million visitors; 200,000 applications for passports and 20,000 to 30,000 applications for visas by foreigners went unprocessed; U.S. tourism and airline industries incurred millions of dollars in losses; more than 20% of federal contracts, representing $3.7 billion in spending, were affected adversely.
The shutdown will also have a very signficant political impact. The 1995 shutdown is widely believed to have increased Clinton's popularity (because the public blamed the republicans) and contributed to his reelection in 1996.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a lot of news reports that this time will be different than 1995. The internet makes everything go (or not go) faster. We now have a homeland security department and counterterrorism has shot up the priority list. We're in the midst of tax season, so tax returns are due, but unless you e-file, return checks won't go out until after the shutdown ends. This is a good place to start, although their politics index has other good stories, including one on the effect on the economy.--Chaser (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, on the condition that the shutdown does occur. They've still got about a day left to figure things out, but it looks like the shutdown will occur. Bcperson89 (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

its one thing to say support, etc. but if it is up for chosen what will be posted. were not going to paste this trail of debate on the main page.Lihaas (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point but given that fact that the shutdown hasn't happened yet this debate is a bit theoretical still. I've assumed were just discussing the general possibility of whether the govt shutdown is newsworthy, which I believe there is a consensus for. However, we still need to see if it actually happens, and then suggest a blurb and arrive at a consensus on that. I personally haven't suggested a blurb because I think it's best to wait until the event actually happens.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
one can add it to the curremt vcongress article (i dont know whcih it is).
alternatively, where were the other govt shutdown put?Lihaas (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Started this 112th_United_States_Congress#Potential_government_shutdown. Feel free to continue it.Lihaas (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious support, If it happens of course. Truthsort (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Looks like government will not shut down. Thanks to the U.S. government for preventing another U.S.-centric blurb. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the media attention that this has gotten, it might be appropriate to mention on the front page that a deal has been made. Truthsort (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a nomination for the budget deal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since it never happened (like the Aussie-Singapore merger above). John's nomination is a little better I guess. Nightw 07:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atifete Jahjaga first female Kosovo president

Atifete Jahjaga is elected as Kosovo's first female President by Kosovo's parliament.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per ITN/R. It has international recognition on every continent and this is a first for females. --candle•wicke 20:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose let's be serious here. The last president of Kosovo was posted less than 1.5 months ago. The limitedly-recognized state does not have sufficient significance abroad to deserve such a post more than every 4ish years. Plus, the first female, when there were only 2 before her, is hilariously notable at best. Nergaal (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "hilariously notable" is a little unfair. I think the concept of such states in general having female presidents is key here, not that Kosovo itself has had only three presidents. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes first female president..an historic event. Also she has been elected in a more official manor than the previous one. Shes here to stay for a long time it seems.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose until there is an election article with details as to why there was a n early prez election (last one was some 2 (?) years ago)Lihaas (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasnt an election. it was a decision by members in the parliament. so get the fact straight. have you even read the article i wonder?--BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He probably read your nominating statement, "Atifete Jahjaga is elected." We usually have elections articles for this, such as the German presidential election which should be sorta similar to this one. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITN/R. Crnorizec (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Ai Weiwei detained

Article: Ai Weiwei (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Chinese artist and dissident Ai Weiwei is detained in Beijing as China's Communist Party’s six-week crackdown continues. (Post)

Since this has now become official, with Chinese government confirmation of his detainment. (BBC) --bender235 (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on April 3 it was just rumors. Now it is official. --bender235 (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It continues to be covered internationally and the article has been updated. RxS (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Anna Hazare's fast-unto-death

'Article: Anna Hazare (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Indian social activist Anna Hazare, fasts until the Indian government passes stronger anti-corruption laws (Post)
Article updated

A huge movement currently going on at Jantar Mantar at Delhi for more than 60 hours. The movement is against corruption in India and the leader Anna Hazare is on a fast-unto-death. Anna is supported by various celebrities and sports-persons. Deserves to be on the In-the-news section of Wikipedia. References for further reading:

  1. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/govt-tries-but-anna-fast-to-his-cause/148593-3.html
  2. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social-media/Cyberspace-abuzz-with-support-for-Hazare/articleshow/7903863.cms
  3. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/hrithik-priyanka-express-support-to-hazare/148590-8-66.html
  4. http://www.hindustantimes.com/Badal-favours-all-party-meeting-over-Anna-Hazare-s-demand/Article1-682434.aspx
  5. http://www.sify.com/news/sonia-appeals-to-hazare-to-give-up-his-fast-news-national-leht4edhefh.html
  6. http://www.sify.com/news/thousands-hold-candle-light-vigil-in-support-of-hazare-news-national-lehvkgiihcf.html
  7. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshowpics/7898430.cms
  8. http://www.timesnow.tv/Anna-is-the-voice-of-millions/videoshow/4369779.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyEditor (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DailyEditor (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if government lets him die that would be a news in iteslf. but i think it should be posted now regardless of result given the support its getting (not ITN supports). -- Ashish-g55 00:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he dies this will be worth posting. If the government concedes it will also be worth posting. But the cat-and-mouse game is NOT worth posting. Nergaal (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's now the trending topic of the Indian sub-continent. Please expand some more.

--Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Anna has supposedly won the battle against corruption after a fast-unto-death. This is the talk of the town in the sub-continent. If facts and opinions are to be believed, instead of watching the IPL (Season 4), people are watching the rally of Anna, a formal announcement on the victory is anticipated to be held soon, i.e., within 30-40 minutes. Request editors to edit and expand related articles so that the news can be posted in the WP:ITN section without a glitch. JustinSpringer (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011 Tōhoku earthquake

A 7.4 aftershock. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

since its an After shock with no significant impact (at least as far as I have heard). I have to say it seems hard to justify it in its own article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Rio de Janeiro school shooting

Article: Rio de Janeiro school shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Article needs updating

Seems to be pretty significant, IMO. At least 20 deaths. Article under construction. [60]- EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And now you must send me a message to inform that my nomination/creation is on the main page. Or not? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sent. ;) --candle•wicke 19:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ☺ - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Beck leaving Fox News

This has gotten no support other than the nominator's. If you want to support this, then please re-open the discussion. Otherwise, it has run its course.--Chaser (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

this made the front page (not the top story) for the Guardian. Is this significant enough? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, we did not have Larry King either, if I remember correctly. --Tone 09:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, Larry King wasn't posted. And Larry King's retirement was far more notable than the resignation of some right-wing nutjob who's really only made a name for himself in the US. Oppose. StrPby (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we'd post King now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minor clarification: the Grauniad front page header has "Too far out for Fox Glenn Beck ousted This section Page 24" as the second teaser, after "How Anne the elephant became a cause célèbre" which features on page 3. . . . dave souza, talk 14:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also note: despite the article heading "network ditches Tea Party icon", the article says the joint statement put a "face-saving spin on the decision to end Beck's show" and mentioned "unnamed future 'television projects for air on the Fox News Channel'" without giving any detail. Since the statement also says "Glenn intends to transition off his daily programme" not sure if that's immediate termination or if we can state baldly "leaving Fox News". . . dave souza, talk 14:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a section teaser right at the top of the newspaper counts as being on the front page - though obviously that doesn't make it the top story. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beck was employed at Fox News? Forgive my ignorance, I've never seen the show. Nightw 11:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This hasn't really been a top story even within the United States. Only one way of spinning it is it even close to ITN: that his stupid comments killed his own show--BLP anyone? The other narrative about how it got cancelled is that the ratings dropped and advertisers deserted him and it got cancelled. That's not really ITN-worthy, even with the advertiser boycott.--Chaser (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Who leaving what? Lugnuts (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as not significant to the majority of readership (or even a significant minority, most likely) and per StrPby. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 13:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't care one way or another but wanted to make 2 points. Not having heard of, or seen a show isn't a good basis for opposing a nomination. Lot's of stuff get's posted that you may not have heard of. Secondly, he's a big story here, (here being the US which makes up half the readership at the English Wikipedia). If the idea is to draw people into our articles, there's nothing to be gained by ignoring that fact. Again, this isn't a support but some of the opposes don't make much sense. RxS (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • And we're sure to solve the BIAS issue if we keep pretending that Wikipedia exists to serve US readers, or that the US is where we are lacking in recruiting new editors. Yes, while it's true that this is probably as important in the US as the NCAA was, that's actually a reason to oppose, not support, if the goal of ITN is to actually recruit editors, rather than act as American's cornflakes fodder. As ever, ITN's failings are obvious, and hard-wired. MickMacNee (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cornflakes fodder? No one is suggesting that Wikipedia exists to serve US readers. But the fact is the a significant number of our readers some from the US (see above). The goal of ITN is not to recruit new editors it's, and I quote:
The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest.
      • So, there's little to be gained by ignoring or depreciating half our readers (except to serve some obvious anti-US bias). That bias is the only thing hard-wired here. The comment pretending that Wikipedia exists to serve US readers is an incredible straw man and is remarkably off the mark. RxS (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The idea that the above sentence justifies ITN favouring American readers/topics is an invention entirely of your own making. BIAS makes it pretty clear that holding such a view is completely and utterly wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's only wrong if you accept the premise that people will click on articles they are not interested in. That's obviously not the case. The fact is that people click on articles they have interest in. And half the people reading our articles are Americans (as much as that annoys you). So it follows that it serves ITNs purpose to include articles of interest to Americans...even if folks from the UK or where ever are not familiar with the topic. We post plenty of items that have limited international interest. You need to accept that fact that we have lot's of American reading En-Wikipedia and this ongoing anti-American bias does damage to ITN and our readership.
  • Is there a reason why this should be posted? I can't find any in the above. I've never heard of this and all I can tell is that someone from the radio has left their show. Perhaps it is important but nobody has given a reason why so it is very difficult to tell. --candle•wicke 15:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN/C is not the place to throw shit at the wall and see if it sticks. I wasn't aware we were the Guardian, because since we aren't, what they have on their front page (and I suspect they have a lot on their front page, more than 4 stories maybe?) has zero bearing on us. I expect much better from someone with an infobox saying they've submitted 19 successful nominations to ITN. --Golbez (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I not particularly strong in my support for this item, but I thought getting an article update would be easy, and I was curious to see what everyone else's views on it were. Not every nomination needs to be cast iron. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's lighten up here a bit :). @Golbez, headlines from major news outlets are often used as evidence of notability here, I don't know why that makes you 'expect more' from someone. @Candlewicke, I can't really say 'why' this should be posted to you--you'll have to judge this on your own. But I'll say that Glen Beck is a relatively well-known American conservative pundit who with a highly successful radio program that became a tv program on FOX NEWS. He was considered somewhat influential. I listen to several news podcasts that cover US politics and he is mentioned now and then. He is to stop his daily program on FOX later this year, according to our article, but he is planning to continue projects with FOX. He has not been fired. The update is only a couple of sentences long. So I'd say oppose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anyone here who even watches this nut to begin with?--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose c'mon personnel changes in the news biz/show biz/corporate world are generally not that notable. Now if he was going to NPR become an atheist and change his tune altogether, well.... wishful thinking. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Larry King's retirement didn't get on this page. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm perfectly content with this not going up, however I don't like this reasoning as the criteria have been significantly loosened since, and not posting King wasn't exactly a landslide decision. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as neither the man nor the thing he has left seem to be very important if the above is true. --candle•wicke 20:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

April 6, 2011 (2011-04-06) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Sport

Portugal seeks bail-out

Article: European sovereign debt crisis (2010–present) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the continuing European debt crisis, Portugal becomes the third Eurozone country to request financial aid from the EU and IMF. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

(BBC). --bender235 (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support We posted Greece last April. I cannot tell whether we posted Ireland or not. Anyway, this isn't high up on the NY Times page, but is the top story on the BBC News, El Pais, and Spiegel sites, so clearly of great interest and probably of great importance to some European countries that will be funding it. Le Monde is focused on former colonies Libya and Cote d'Iviore, and the Italian press is leading with the shipwreck.--Chaser (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YES Nergaal (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

obvious wait we dont need to [post a request, its pertinent, yes, but when they get it.Lihaas (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'd say post now, but there has been no update in the target article yet...--Tone 21:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say post now, too. --bender235 (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment still no update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery of new particle

  • I have no idea what this is all about, but they call it the greatest discovery in physics for half a century. Maybe someone with more expertise within the field could weigh in on this? If it is as big as they say, I guess at least we should prepare for it. Here's a scholarly article, and some news articles: MSNBC, NYT and Nature. Lampman (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Interesting, but 3.2 sigma isn't considered that significant in new particle hunting terms. JMiall₰ 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Standard practise in particle physics is to wait for a 5 sigma result before claiming anything. 3.2 sigma is significant, but not enough for a discovery, yet. Modest Genius talk 02:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest waiting but the problem is that these kinds of things get accepted more gradually than other ITN topics so there's not a bright line. On the other hand, if we look at it as an opportunity to introduce a topic we might not have to wait for something to be totally accepted (especially if the article gives a good picture of how accepted it is). I'd lean toward not waiting too long to add something, it could be years. RxS (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support ANY new particle deserves an ITN psot, even the obscure ones. However, waiting for an actual full confirmation would be ok. Nergaal (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support we can always post it again, but we should post now if its in the news now as we may well not get another opportunity. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citing from the Nature blog, "enough to be considered intriguing, but not enough to claim a discovery." So, we should wait here. --Tone 09:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times says that the results, if they hold up, indicate either proof of the existence of the still-hypothetical Higgs boson or evidence of a new force of nature. It also says the probability is less than .25% that the results are statistical noise. It's not clear to me if that means there's a better than 99% chance that the results are one of the two groundbreaking possibilities. But assuming so, then which one do we post? It's still not clear what this is other than (probably) a striking pattern in data. So wait.--Chaser (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that there's a >99% certainty or a .25% chance of it not being real shows a misunderstanding of the statistics. Funnily enough, today's xkcd shows exactly that fallacy [62]. You would be right on a single trial, but there are a ton of mass bins that the signal could have been found in. Do not blindly trust statistics. Modest Genius talk 18:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point about the statistics. Anyway, are you saying that trials like this have been done before and nothing was found?--Chaser (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, plenty of 3-sigma results have turned out to be nothing. Often they were systematics, but sometimes just pure noise. What I meant about the stats is that if you run 100 different trials, and one of them turns up a result which has a 99% chance of being a detection, you shouldn't believe it. After all, you ran 100 trials, so something that happens 1% of the time (a false 99% detection) will crop up roughly once in your 100 trials. I remember an article about exactly this topic in Physics World a about a year ago, but can't find the reference. Modest Genius talk 09:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This XKCD sums this up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
which I already linked to above... Modest Genius talk 23:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ange-Félix Patassé

- Former President of Central African Rep 1993-2003. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 17:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT Kevin McE (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no thank you. I'm fully entitled to oppose posting an article on the basis of quality without taking six hours that I don't have, on a topic on which I lack the expertise to properly edit, to try to fix it. You need not lecture me on the "wikipedia way". I know how to fix things, having rescued numerous articles from deletion, updated numerous articles to make them ITN-postable, removed thousands of copyright violations from the project, and turned two redlinks into featured articles. I am very sorry that because of a full-time job, a family for whom I am the sole breadwinner, and a chronic illness, I am unable to devote substantial amounts of time to work on an article that one would need to be fluent in French, knowledgable in African politics, and familiar with sources, to do properly. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
cionditional support we generally post former heads of states' deaths as we did with the Lithuanian chap and Kirchner. but when the article is up to shape.Lihaas (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As vice-presidential candidates are now occasionally posted I think there should still be enough space for a president, especially one who was president for ten years. --candle•wicke 15:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't think the Central African Republic is notable enough, and the vice president candidate was of one of the two most powerful nations on earth, and was particularly notable and successful. I will retract my oppose !vote if there is a good reason as to why he is particularly notable beyond being president for 10 years. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article does say that he was the first CAR president to be elected in a fair and transparent election. However, crucially, this point is not sourced, as is very very much of the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if that's the case (and the point is sourced) then I'll retract my oppose. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Baruch Samuel Blumberg

Article: Baruch Samuel Blumberg (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 1976 Nobel Prize for Medicine winner and discoverer of the first vaccine for Hepatitis B Baruch Samuel Blumberg dies at 85 (Post)
Article updated

Oppose. The article is in poor state currently and doesn't indicate his death.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support once updated a little more (it does now indicate his death), although there isn't much else to say. He identified the Hepatitis B virus and, as mentioned above, was the co-recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose his nobel is notable not his life.Lihaas (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctic meteorite yields new mineral

Article: Wassonite (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Credits:

[Posted] Migrant shipwreck off Italy

Article: 2011 Mediterranean Sea migrant shipwreck (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A boat sinks off Lampedusa, Italy with around 300 African migrants onboard, killing over 20 (Post)
Credits:
Oppose - not significant enough. there have been bit too many migrant shipwrecks recently anfd migrant movements to Lampedusa. although we can put mention of the whole recent events there on itn.Lihaas (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I suppose 150 dead migrants may not be significant to some. Have we posted this sort of thing recently? I thought suicide bombings in Pakistan etc are pretty common, but we have that at ITN right now.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas may be referring to this pair of suspected shipwrecks reported a few days ago. Both ships went missing, with a total of 400 aboard. I think we could integrate both stories into an update to the Lampedusa article (just move some text for an update on the current crash) and cover the fact that almost 600 are suspected dead in a trio of shipwrecks. That's clearly news.--Chaser (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010–2011 Ivorian crisis

Article: 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Forces loyal to Alassane Ouattara move to seize Laurent Gbagbo at his residence after failed negotiations to end the presidential succession crisis in the Ivory Coast. (CNN) (Post)

April 5

April 5, 2011 (2011-04-05) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime
  • Police investigating the murder of Sian O'Callaghan have identified human remains found at a second site as those of Swindon woman Becky Godden-Edwards, who had been missing for eight years. (BBC)

Politics

Science

Sport

Aggies win the Womens?

At the risk of causing ITN to implode from outrage since we posted the Men's NCAA winnings should we add to that blurb the Women Victory. In full disclosure they are "my team" Sport illustrated The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're pushing your luck. What channel was this even on? -- tariqabjotu 03:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was on ESPN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)I was about to make the same suggestion. Maybe we can unify the blurb, something like:
Whadja all think? --Jayron32 03:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Note that alone I would oppose this, but if we can seamlessly add it to an existing blurb, why not? Ed [talk] [majestic titan]
thus my logic in nominating it as an addition to the blurb The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That doesn't get nearly as much interest as the men's final. Anticipating the gender discrimination objection, ITN reflects whatever news that is of interest to people. In the encyclopedia articles, WP:V teaches that we don't get ahead of the sources and what they say, and ITN is similarly conservative (but not in the political sense). Notably, we cover the NBA finals, but don't automatically cover anything from the WNBA.--Chaser (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, we had six hundred people look at a terrible article because nothing links to it. If we'd like to expand articles, we should promote their awareness. Keegan (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rules are that updates happen before things are put on the main page. Posting this seems like it was premature, and thus not appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A women's team won the same championship as the men, and included in the same sentence. This was not added before they won and I don't see a rule about that. Neglecting to add the championship for females over nobody cares or policy wonking regarding a sentence is terrible form for Wikimedia. Keegan (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keegan, what he means is the article needs to have more than a couple sentences and tables before posting. I'd try to add a bit but I need to go to bed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blatantly a WP:POINT nomination... "at the risk of causing ITN to implode"? StrPby (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  FacepalmNo not pointy nom, at least that was not my intention. I just try and find humor in a lot of these on Wiki. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we add it I suggest streamlining the blurb as much as possible. Something like In college basketball, UConn wins the NCAA Men's Championship while Texas A&M wins the Women's.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see Jayron already suggested the same blurb. Sorry. Anyway the article on the women's final needs more prose text.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could've been historic if UConn won both men's and women's titles. It hasn't happened so oppose this one. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support Speaking as an ardent feminist myself why discriminate against the women? If one i s notabl e the other is. And we need more women's sports there too. Right now soccer si the only one i beleive. (ofcourse when the article improves)Lihaas (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
THe article must have a decent prose update (a couple of referenced paragraphs probably, preferably updates on the final four matches) to be posted. The NCAA men's final wasn't posted until the article was updated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All over the news where? Not a word of it here.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  23:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose I'd better support otherwise a certain duck will kill me as I sleep.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  23:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - only supporting adding this to the mens blurb, not making a new one.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  23:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota halts production

  • Possible temporary or long-term shutdown, reduction in output, multiple planned shutdowns in North America.[66] [67]

~AH1(TCU) 23:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactive water leak

  • Some quantities of radioactive seawater containing iodine-131 from the Fukushima Daiichi plant reactor No. 2 leak into the Pacific Ocean, before being stopped partly by an injection of sodium silicate into a pipe. N.B. some similarities to BP oil disaster.
[68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76]

~AH1(TCU) 23:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support without a sticky running, this is a perfect update. Nergaal (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a big deal.--WaltCip (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me, a bigger deal is that they have finally closed the crack... Still, I'd prefer waiting a bit more, this does not seem a ground breaking event in the wider scope of the recent development. --Tone 13:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Fukushima I nuclear accidents article timeline gives a reasonably measured assessment, citing TEPCO as saying that the leak has stopped. Radioactive iodine in the sea is a fairly short-lived problem, we need a good quality assessment of the health impacts of this issue and of the entire incident. This is still a developing story, and any blurb should be careful to avoid the common exaggeration of problems. . . dave souza, talk 08:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Andorran election

Article: Andorran parliamentary election, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Democrats for Andorra win an absolute majority in the Andorran parliamentary election making Antoni Martí the Prime Minister-designate. (Post)
Credits:

Support once confirmed.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - a country of 84,000 people? No. I live in the extremely rural Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which is only a part of the US state of Michigan, and we have nearly three times that population. There would be precedent for this given the previous opposition of Suriname's election. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No need to be stingy, as long as the article is quality and the event is newsworthy, why not? --Jayron32 03:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO! if they were on the UN security council then yes. Otherwise, the head of the government REALLY has no world influence. I bet even the amateur college basketball generates more money than the whole economy of the state (which is much smaller than even Rhode Island). Nergaal (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This "might-is-right", "power by numbers" attitude that has come onto these discussions is appalingly arrogant. Smaller nations will have very limited opportunities to gain a raising of profile through ITN: their periodical elections are one way of doing that. The UN affords them exactly the same rights and status as Brazil, Japan, Nigeria or Spain: what encyclopaedic reason is there for us not to do the same, at least in this regard? Kevin McE (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Jimbo says (forget the word, but to paraphrase) wikipedia is here to educate...no better way to teach about more and more...Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because we've posted elections in all sorts of other microstates and I think that is reasonable. If you guys don't want to post this challenge the inclusion of microstate elections on ITNR. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ditto, this needs to be challenged at ITNR for opposition.
and for the record, no idea why suriname was not included, it should have been.Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been, indeed. --Tone 13:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. The UN Security Council has five permanent members so most countries aren't even on it. The Andorra article's "foreign relations" section says it "is a full member of the United Nations, the OSCE, and has a special agreement with the European Union". It is also known for its tourism industry. Lots of people like to go there to ski. --candle•wicke 11:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a referenced update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Nightw 12:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just went looking for sources and found the one you added. But i also added 2 more. so were all set for INT then?Lihaas (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go. I was tempted to write: ... party, led by ... REDLINK. Oops ;-) --Tone 13:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thats the point of ITNR, if there are exceptions it should be discussed there
anywaysm, bigger expansion just done, more detailed and sourced. and also just created marti's page.Lihaas (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see it posted, but can we put Marti on the page? it exists now.Lihaas (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Arctic ozone damage

Article: Ozone depletion#Arctic_ozone_hole (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Arctic ozone layer experienced the highest level of depletion on record as result of cold temperatures last winter (Post)
Article needs updating
I agree it still needs more of an update, but the Antarctic ozone hole has been around for a long time. The reason this is in the news is because it is new. There's nothing wrong with that.--Chaser (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it has gains in between losses. Unfortunately, the article is a bit short on detail. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The current wording is still a bit ambiguous, as it could be interpreted as having reached the lowest altitude ever. Are we going to mention any causes (lingering CFCs, tropospheric warming, low stratospheric temperatures, PSCs, oscillations, Arctic amplification) or is that too speculative? What about specific locations affected and forecasted movement of depleted area? ~AH1(TCU) 23:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone mind if I post this? I've been involved so I don't want to get any COI comments...RxS (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post it! It's clear case, the update is made, and no base for COI after all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks...posted. RxS (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest changing this to cold stratospheric temperatures, unless we can link to an article explaining the continental cold versus general Arctic warmth while we update the ozone depletion article with this info cited. The current wording seems too much of an overgeneralization. ~AH1(TCU) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Coast crisis

Article: Second Ivorian Civil War (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Ivory Coast standoff, Laurent Gbagbo's forces have ceased fighting and are negotiating a surrender, following interventions by United Nations forces. (Post)

I am not certain yet which to mention and how, but there has been significant developments in the crisis. UN forces attacked Gbagbo forces [77], Gbagbo's army chief called for a ceasefire [78], and Ouattara forces seized Gbagbo's home [79]. Cenarium (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggested a blurb. The cessation of hostilities is a highly significant event, as well as the negotiation of surrender and prior interventions by UN, which have been a factor in this. This is a developing event and will likely need to be updated. Cenarium (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once he surrenders. I think it's probably ITN worthy now, but surrender appears inevitable and the change in government will make it ITNR and be the most logical time to post.--Chaser (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when he resigns, which now looks likely, if not inevitable in the next few hours or days. wackywace 17:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wait hi s resignation is imminent, so we can post it then.Lihaas (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Edith Klestil

Not a great article but she is the former First Lady of Austria. --candle•wicke 10:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

April 4, 2011 (2011-04-04) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

Michel Martelly becomes president of Haiti

Article: Sweet Micky (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Michel "Sweet Micky" Martelly defeats Mirlande Manigat in a runoff vote for President of Haiti. (Post)

Basically this isn't a discussion on whether or not this should be posted, but if it should be posted now. The official results are due out on April 16th, but it's been pretty much confirmed[82] and accepted in the media that Martelly has won. BBC, NYT, CBC. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBC claims the results are unofficial and the shady circumstances surrounding the Haitian election suggest that the election may not be as "final" as we would hope. Let's wait on this one.--WaltCip (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is indeed the case, I would prefer to wait for the inauguration. NW (Talk) 16:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which body is supposed to proclaim the winner? If that body does that this can be added. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the New York Times' lead story calling him the "new Haitian leader" enough? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to something like the electoral commission or the Parliament of Haiti or some governmental agency that will proclaim who won. From what agency did the NYT quote? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] NCAA basketball final

Let the debate begin anew.

Article: 2011 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In college basketball, The University of Connecticut Huskies defeats Butler University to win the NCAA Championship. (Post)

The final of the 2011 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament is tonight. Every year, we have a big argument about this (and the NCAA football championship). For those of you who live in a country where people don't get insanely obsessed with the hoops-playing of 20-year-old students, here's how big "March Madness" (yes, it runs into April) is in America:

  • Last year, 48.1 million Americans watched at least part of the final game, with an average TV rating 61% higher than that of the last game of the World Series.
  • In 2010, CBS made $613.8 million in ad revenue from the 10 days of the tournament, compared with $345.3 million the broadcasters of baseball's playoffs got.
  • About $12 billion is wagered on the tournament, 99% of it illegally.
  • One-fourth of respondents to a Spherion Staffing Services poll of office workers said they have participated in an office March Madness pool.
  • "NCAA bracket" is the number three Google search in the U.S. over the past 30 days, behind only "Japan earthquake" and "Japan tsunami."
  • The game will be played in front of 75,000 people in a football stadium.
  • The greatest moments in March Madness history are well-known enough to be recreated in Lego or Disney form.
  • Yes, it's primarily popular in one country. But it's hard to use that as an argument against its inclusion when we have sumo wrestling on ITN now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support. This is a huge event inside the United States, and is the championship for the highest level of amateur basketball that I have heard of in or outside the United States (and even if there are others I would still strongly support). This event is also being broadcast in countries outside the United States. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 00:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which people? HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have no intention of arguing against this, but I just want American fans to have a quiet think about how this compares with the recent Cricket World Cup Final, which would have had an audience of over a billion people, and which some editors argued against including here. I accept that this basketball game is important to a lot of Americans. Cricket is important to a lot more people. Let's never argue about that again please. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm curious about the 1 billion number, is there a source for that? Might be true but unless I missed it the article doesn't reflect that number. RxS (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
btw... List_of_most-watched_television_broadcasts#World. it wasnt just 1 billion, it was most likely the most watched sporting event of all time. i say most likely because it is not an easy thing to calculate but it would definitely be up there. -- Ashish-g55 01:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So where does the Houston Rockets-Milwaukee Bucks game a few years ago (first NBA meeting between Yao Ming and Yi Jianlian) fall? I thought more than a billion watched that. HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was watched by 10 billion (they forgot to include the aliens who are receiving our TV signals in outer space). Nutmegger (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is possible that the CWC final was watched by a billion given the large populations of the two finalists but the fact is reliable sources publish unreliably large audience figures for sports events all the time. The source indirectly referred to by Ashsih above is a Guardian (generally a RS of course) article which mentions the figure in passing and doesn't cite a reliable research group which came up with the data. I doubt the Guardian themselves went door to door and checked how many TVs were on.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Cricket World Cup was undoubtedly far bigger than March Madness in terms of the number of people in the world who care about it, if for no other reason than the fact that 1.5 billion South Asians were obsessed with it. I think it's sometimes very difficult for people to understand the importance of sporting events of other countries since they're so foreign. Most Americans have probably never even heard of cricket, while Europeans can't fathom anyone caring about a student sports event. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt it's huge and had no problem with posting it; helps educate, big sport. Keep in mind the populations and the fact that English isn't a primary language in those countries.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
English is an official language in India and I'd be surprised if it wasn't in Pakistan and Bangladesh too. I'd go so far as to say its the official language, as while it is the #2 language, it seems to be the #2 language in all of India. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting the final result. I was too late to support the posting of the Cricket World Cup, but the point of Wikipedia is to educate. The whole English-speaking world should know about college basketball and cricket. Abductive (reasoning) 01:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose When you compare the arguments made here for NCAA to something like the FA Cup Final, then they are as weak and utterly insular as they have always been. Never mind the FA Cup, I could probably make this weekend's pretty insignificant 2011 Football League Trophy Final seem like it deserved a spot using the domestic interest metrics used above. And that's before we even get into the whole amateur vs. professional issue, or even the basketball in the US vs. football in England vs. Sumo in Japan issue. And in case anyone missed the point, while Sumo is indeed getting the love, the FA Cup is not currently getting posted, although bizarrely many of the opposes were based on something the NCAA doesn't have to deal with at least, 'we've already posted too many other college basketball finals' is certainly not going to be an issue here I don't think. If that doesn't ring alarm bells about this nomination's lack of merit, then nothing will frankly. I find it amusing that the world apparently needs educating about NCAA using Wikipedia's Main Page, but ITN is otherwise fine about giving out the impression that the Champions League Final and the FA Cup Final are much of a muchness. At least they'll be in the same stadium this year, lmfao. Although the elevation of (false) variety over pure merit is hardly unsurprising, it's just one of 101 hard-wired ways ITN is utterly broken, endless arguments about the NCAA being another, ironically enough. C'est la via. Or Go Termites or whatever. MickMacNee (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support all the sporting events you just mentioned, not just this one. When it comes to sporting events, I'm a pretty ready supporter mostly because sports are the one thing that are of multi-national interest...I know people in the United States who have favorite English soccer (sorry, force of habit) teams and I know people from the UK who have favorite American football and baseball teams. NCAA sports are no exception to this rule, in my opinion. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Of interest to a large segment of Wikipedia readers. I'm doubtful about the argument that it shouldn't be posted because the world needs educating about it. That implies that we should only post things with which "the world" is already familiar. And I'm also not sure why there's a distinction between amateur vs. professional, there shouldn't be one. The standards should be article quality and interest. Claims of insularity do no good and cast aspersions at editors, and pointing at a failed nomination from a year ago is not productive (nominate it and I'll support it). Referring to support here as merely based on generic domestic interest ignores the high numbers of readers from the US the read these articles. RxS (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Which article would be bolded? (As in which one needs to have a substantial update?) SpencerT♦C 03:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Futile support and expect "basketball is a minor American sport" argument, or a comparison to the CWC, or both, if it hasn't been. Probably the third strongest basketball league in the world, behind the NBA and the Euroleague, and probably all three will have strong opposition for inclusion, eh... probably not for the Euroleague. –HTD
Euroleague is not in the top 3 (see NBA Development League. Nutmegger (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No way. Players from the Euroleague beat the USA and their NBA B-team in the 2002 FIBA World Championship. :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per MickMacNee, who makes a very good argument about the way this nomination has been presented. It's not of interest outside the US, unlike the Premier League (or even the FA Cup) if you want to compare association football to US sports. StrPby (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the fact that it's not of interest outside the US relevant? We post lot's of items that have limited interest. And, by the way, Americans make up a large part of En-Wikipedia's readership. Why are we not trying to serve that readership? Or is it the fact that's it's an American event that's the issue? Unlike a Sumo posting? RxS (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting and thought provoking post. Would you accept an item on a sport relevant only to another single country? How big would that country have to be? And, on that population issue, I often see Americans claim that they are a high proportion of the readership here. The fact that the cricket under discussion was in India got me thinking. My impression, and I could be quite wrong, is that while a lot of Indians don't speak English as a first language, a high proportion read English as a second (or third or fourth or...) language, and would be attracted to En-Wikipedia because of its wider scope. (There's certainly a growing number of articles on places in India.) Given that that's a high proportion of well over a billion people, it perhaps diminishes the significance of that American claim. I'm speculating here, and thinking out loud. (Well, writing unrefined thoughts.) And, should one country be allowed to dominate Wikipedia, even if it's big? HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, a country with a population less than Singapore is good enough. It has two ITNR events. Like I said before you beat CSB not by rejecting but by allowing more items. I tried nominating at WT:ITNR some annual sporting events from countries a hundred times larger than Singapore and we all know what happened. :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: These stats may come in handy. :) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me take your comments in order:
I'm totally in favor of relaxing the "notability" bar for inclusion a little (and have said that over and over), so yes in general I would support something relavent to only one country.
Just to make it clear, the US makes up very close to half the readership here. See the link in the post above.
No one is asking for the US to dominate Wikipedia and the inclusion of a huge sporting event in the US wouldn't qualify as "dominating" Wikipedia anyway.
So I ask again, why can we not try and serve a group that makes up half the readership here? RxS (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This objection in comparison with the FA Cup (I don't think the Premier League is an issue, it was posted last year and is now on ITNR) is a fallacy IMO. The sport of football suffers from a dilemma here at ITN that there are far too many competitions that are arguably appear notable, and even more problematically they mostly finish around same time. This problem has NOTHING to do with the NCAA, it could be made against any sport besides football/soccer. The FA Cup is far more notable (well, popular) than many sporting events posted at ITN. If we wanted to make ITN's sports criteria purely based on global popularity, then we would have football items ONLY, save the closing of the Olympics and the occasional boxing match.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Totally invalid comprison: that was not a routine annual result, it was the conclusion of a long investigation, the forced retirement of many major figures in the sport, the first cancellation of the sport's main annual championship for 65 years... If you mean "This is clearly vastly more of interest to me than Sumo", say so. Kevin McE (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the Game Summaries section to three referenced paragraphs. It's not glorious I admit but I believe it meets minimum standards. The !vote is 8-4 in support currently (of course, Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY and all that). If someone wants to further expand, add the box scores, or help improve my bare references I'd appreciate it. I'll go ahead and mark the article 'ready' however and put a blurb at the top.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose All the figures mentioned in the lead are fascinating, but the other facts point that the importance is limited on the area of the United States, it's not a top-class sport and it's a student sport which critically disputes its professionalism. And since we should not use those figures, I think the report and more voluminously the sport do not obey at least one of the other factors I've mentioned. Only if it were internationally more significant, I would rethink my decision.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support the "international criteria" argued by several people above is invalid as this was also heavily covered in Canada (Though I suppose if people want to oppose this they are going to start making "Canada is the exact same as the US it doesn't count" arguments). Bottom line, this was a heavily followed tournament in more than one country (IE internationally), regardless of "professional" status. Anyone who claims this is not a significant and heavily popular sporting event does not know anything about sports. --PlasmaTwa2 14:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have very good point here, but people who claim that this is sufficiently significant and of international importance are surely from the United States and you probably from Canada, who don't know anything about sports, except ice-hockey, basketball, some varieties of football and baseball. Unfortunately for you, there are so many other sports played in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For all the people whoe were claiming this had huge interest even if its just in America, I forgot to include something else I noticed about the nomination last night. The claimed 48.1 million who watched at least part of the NCAA Final, is infact, a whopping 15.6% of the population of the USA. I don't see how anybody can claim in all good conscience that this is evidence of major interest even in the one country. Forget the FA Cup, the 2009 BDO World Darts Championship was watched by a peak audience of 4.1 million people, which is 6% of the UK population. And that's for crappy old Darts, which is laughed off of ITN every single time as being a totally insignficant minority sport only played in England as someone once put it, even though it's probably got the same level of viewers in at least one whole other other country, the Netherlands, and was broadcast to 54 more countries and in 20 different languages via Eurosport, and 70 countries via BBC Worldwide. It even has Americans competing in the finals FFS. Which channel pray tell could I have watched the NCAA Final over this side of the pond, eh? It seems from our own article that unless I was Canadian or Phillipino, I was pretty much screwed if I wanted to watch it. For the supposedly insignficiant Darts at least, I'm spoilt for choice, with one World Championshp on the BBC, the other on Sky. And Sky Sports is this afternoon and into the evening going to offer me Speedway Elite League, WWE, British Rally Championship, NASCAR Sprint Cup, Cricket World Cup review, La Liga (that's Spanish soccerball folks), UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships (some funky cycling thing), World Cup of Pool, British Basketball League, not 1 but 2 Champions League games (that's Eurosoccerball), and a preview of the US Masters Golf. So, it's pretty obvious that the NCAA is not as significant as is made out in the home television market if all it can muster is 15%, and it is frankly pissed all over in the international markets by other exported domestic sports that do actually get posted. On all measures, the NCAA is closer to the sort of domestic finals that don't get posted, than those that do. What's the US audience share and number of syndicated countries for the NASCAR Sprint Cup I wonder? And even that had to be fought over FFS. The NCAA has got a seriously easy ride, with not so much as an explanation of the logic behind the posting. That much is screamingly obvious. MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I must thank you for the long comment and completely agree with you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone who watch part of the NCAA finals last night made up it's own country it'd be the 27th largest on earth, between Spain and South Korea. I'd call that pretty major interest. RxS (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd call it systematic bias tbh. Infact no, I'd call it blatant double-standards - we don't even post the La Liga Champions - widely regarded as the 1st or 2nd biggest fully professional domestic soccer league in the world, and the most popular sport in Spain by a million miles. You really have absolutely nothing to gain here by pointing out to everybody that a country the size of Spain is the starting point for what's getting shat on by posting NCAA as a sport of 'wide interest' on Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes we will. And some of La Liga's friends too. 17:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Ooops. Looks like ITN won't, automatically. But I'd support those, considering I supported EPL and the FA Cup back in the day... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate it and I'll support it (as long as the article is updated etc). I'm very interested in being much more inclusive. ITN has everything to gain by getting off the natural disaster/election treadmill. RxS (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the NCAA tournament was broadcast in 185 countries, not just three. I don't know what channel you could have seen it on in the UK, but you could have paid to watch it online I believe. Oh, and winning team had two players from Germany and one from Nigeria, btw. Regarding La Liga, I personally think if it gets nominated this year and there's a good update, it'll be posted as it got decent support at the recent ITNR discussion. But as I mentioned above, the whole 'where do we draw the line on posting every football championship on earth' issue is something that could be brought up vis-a-vis any non-football sports competition.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcast is a pretty loose wo
  • Post-posting Support The name 'March Madness' says it all. It's really the whole tournament rather than the final game that is newsworthy, but ITN inherently does not handle well an event that stretches over one month.--Chaser (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MickMakNee, one of the reasons this is getting an "easy ride" is that we are now being less fussy about what we post. @Opposers It is also worth pointing out that we are now going to post 5 (association) football items a year. And that Gaelic football is on ITNR and there are less people of Irish descent in the world than people who watched the final of this game so if we post too much sport removing that from ITNR seems like a good first step. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, I've gone and removed Gaelic football from ITNR. I've seen multiple discussions using Gaelic football as a punch line, and I think that proves it is no longer "considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, in considering Gaelic football's inclusion on ITNR, can you have a look at this debate over the issue and its nomination last September when it was posted. Personally, however, I think it shouldn't have been posted last year as at least now the article has only one paragraph of prose text.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed, as your bold edit has been reverted I've suggested removing Gaelic football on WT:ITNR. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fair comparisons (and thus quid pro quo items for people to support next in exhange for a free ride for NCAA) are not the FA Cup or La Liga (as good as they were at showing this nomination's lack of merit) - the real equivalent of posting the NCAA is finding a non-professional non-top ranked competition of a 2nd/3rd level national interest sport which is watched by 15% of a domestic TV audience (each at some point during the final). Or...we can just try and put more meat on this whole idea that absolute figures of X million people watching something is more significant if they're American rather than being from any other country (or countries, as we might as well start comparing like for like - viewers on Eurosport / STAR / Al-Jazeera with those on Fox etc), and all other considerations are immaterial. MickMacNee (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it's probably the latter, as I'm pretty sure Gaelic football meets the former, pretty easily. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the more this discussion goes on, the more obvious it becomes that we could do with some straightforward guidelines for inclusion of items. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] UN plane crash

Article: 2011 United Nations Bombardier CRJ-100 crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A United Nations aircraft crashes in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, killing 32 of the 33 people onboard (Post)
Credits:

United Nations aircraft crashes in Kinshasa killing 32 of 33 on board. (BBC). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found the article. It is significant, so support, the article looks ready or close to be. Cenarium (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but the article is a bit thin still, needs expansion before adding it. RxS (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been significantly expanded over the past eight hours or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the article has been moved. I've retitled the article here and fixed the links to avoid the redirect. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • The only no-brainer here is the fact that if you make hundreds of flights a week in the Congo as the UN does infact do, sooner or later one of them will crash and people will die. If there was any actual evidence offered up above to back up the claims that once the inevitable happened, that it was infact an ITN level significant event, rather than simply newsworthy, I missed it. And as we are always being told, ITN is not the news. I tried in vain to find this special defining quality from the article, but as ever, it's a simple news report about a plane crash. What you've just done here is given world wide exposure to an event about which the BBC News only managed to write 9 lines, and put yet more fuel on the RECENTISM bonfire that is Wikipedia of the 21st Century. There wasn't even a semblance of an idea here that we might actually wait to see if there was any WP:EVENT type aspects to this crash at all before we shoved it down people's visigoggles. While nowadays it's simply a given that this sort of forethought is unimportant to the whole 'shall we fire up the Wikipedia news archiver' decision making process in regular editting, I had hoped this was still at least a minimum standard at ITN. MickMacNee (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reasoning behind this, and the above posting, is that I am a bad adminsitrator, and unworthy of the tools. There are, of course, other reasons why these two items were posted. I will not bore you with my actual thought processes, since they are unlikely to change your opinion of me or of the ITN process. Since it is clear that you already believe that I am an unworthy human, and shouldn't be an administrator anyways, I will merely confirm that that is the sole reason why these items were posted. The actual personal deliberation that I actually did to decide to post these is, of course to you, uninteresting in light of my unworthiness as an administrator. --Jayron32 15:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL. What a sensitive soul you really are Jayron. On the contrary, the machinations of your personal deliberations are of extreme interest, to me at least. That's kind of what I expect from admins in my complete wiki-innocence - communication of their thought processes and reasoning, as they wield their super-powers to influence the way the world sees Wikipedia. As opposed to simply making a decision, and offering up nothing but sarcasm and hurt feelings by way of an explanation. Take a personal day on me, the heavy weight of responsibility that comes with being an admin is clearly weighing you down. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • MickMacNee, your position is untenable and unwarranted. There were clearly consensus for posting and even if consensus were mistaken, Jayron cannot be held responsible for this. Cenarium (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Only if you define consensus as the collation of simple personal opinions. I wonder what would have happened if someone had opposed on the grounds that nobody had put forward any argument at all as to how this was significant - what then? Would an explanation of where your personal opinion that this was "significant" actually came from have been forthcoming? Or would you have just fallen back on the vote count? Not that it matters, it's up there now, being broadcast to the world. I tell you what, it's a good job we have all that info in the MONUSCO article about UN air operations. Oops. Ah well. Maybe there's something in the history section about the significance of this crash. Oops!. While it's a bit sketchy, the article at least gives us the impression tha the mission probably totals over 20,000 personel by now, with the total deaths so far of UN personel standing at over 100 (before this crash obviously. I think anyway...), so at least we can divine by ourselves as readers some real perspective and context in which to place this ITN worthy event into. You have to question the whole article's accuracy though, as the word "Georgia" appears nowhere in it. That's odd to say the least. Ho hum. All in all, it's a triumph all round for the 'encyclopoedia' and it's ITN system, which apparently exists not as a news service, but as a way of giving readers links to articles providing depth and perspective to augment the significant events of timely and wide interest they are served on the Main Page by the not news news section. Ha. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can we just ignore the troll? For Pete's sake, do not call her out by name! Nutmegger (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a few credits to be sorted out (hint, hint). Apart from that, the accident has increased MONUSCO's casualties by around 25% in one fell swoop. Consensus was clear that it should be posted. Any lack of info in the MONUSCO article that an editor notices should be fixed, not complained about, per WP:SOFIXIT. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juliano Mer-Khamis shot dead

Article: Juliano Mer-Khamis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Israeli-Arab filmmaker and political activist Juliano Mer-Khamis is shot dead in Jenin. (Post)
Credits:
  • If a couple of no-nothing insignificant settlers' deaths are posted here why not this? Far more significant.
Let the opposes follow...Lihaas (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, subject had garnered over 100 Google News mentions before 2011. His death looks like an assassination by a right-wing Israeli(s). On a par with the assassination of Theo van Gogh. Abductive (reasoning) 01:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 3

April 3, 2011 (2011-04-03) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters

Politics

Environment

[Posted] Dera Ghazi Khan bombings

Article: April 2011 Dera Ghazi Khan bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Double suicide bombings at a Sufi shrine in Dera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan leave 50 people dead and 120 wounded. (Post)
Credits:
Support due to the high number of casualties. --candle•wicke 10:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support casualties exceed 100. --Kslotte (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance we have more than a single source in the article? Besides, we have an article on the shrine, Dargah. A couple words of update would fit there. Otherwise, ready to post when this is addressed. --Tone 13:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better? --candle•wicke 14:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This is one of the deadliest incidents in Pakistan in recent time, and its widespread interest is obvious.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support one of the more significant attacks in Pakistan in recent times.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Major extremist incident. ~AH1(TCU) 18:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks sufficiently updated. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Air France Flight 447

Article: Air France Flight 447 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The wreckage of Air France Flight 447 which disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean in 2009 is found. (Post)
Credits:

BBC. Pretty significant in the crash investigation if you ask me. StrPby (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait big but only if they find some black boxes or recordings. At this point they seem to have found "parts" which could mean just a small piece of fuselage. Nergaal (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is reporting bodies will be brought to the surface,I think that makes it offical thing that the main site has been found The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: major breakthrough in the investigation. Hopefully they will find the black boxes too. Crnorizec (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if they find the black box & data recorder. It appears, from what I could gather from the article's short update and the reference attached, that not much had developed other than the main fuselage being found. I would prefer this being posted when/if they discover what caused the crash, but finding the black box/data recorder would be a significant enough step in this that I would support then.
Support considering the conditions under which it disappeared and how completely it disappeared largely with out a trace. The fact they are raising it up from the bottom of the ocean significant to me. The raising it up should be included in the blurb. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per all of the above. Lugnuts (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I've seen pictures of undercarriage etc, but they found lots of debris after the crash. The really significant find will be black box(es) which help uncover the reason this flight crashed. That really would be an ITN-worthy venture as it's a modern-day mystery of aviation disasters. Right now, we're just looking at more wreckage, more bodies (perhaps). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, note the target page has two maintenance tags and a very, very brief update regarding today's developments (which isn't surprising given the developments just say - found more wreckage and bodies). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Major development in long-standing crash mystery. ~AH1(TCU) 18:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Baseball Watcher 21:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not entirely certain as to the state of consensus. This is significant in and of itself since it has been a long and difficult search, the crash remains mysterious and this is an important step towards finding out what happened. It is suggested that we wait for the black box, but it isn't sure that they'll be found, and it is going to be in some time in any case. The update on the situation seems to be within guidelines. Some parts of the article might need to be updated, but this is very common in articles on developing events, I'm not persuaded this should be hold against the article. So I tend to think that the arguments favor posting because of the significance of the event even if further significant events related to this case could happen. Cenarium (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this is a big enough development to include, but I'm afraid we might be stuck a little if they find the black boxes in the next week or so. But if we wait and they aren't found it might not get posted at all. So, post it and we'll see what the rest of the search finds and think about it then...RxS (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Cenarium (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Temporarily removed] Floods in Thailand kill at least 120

Article: 2011 Thai floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A series of floods that began in Southern Thailand kill at least 120 people and affect nearly two million. (Post)
Still a stub. The global flood season begins. Note however that two million is a relatively low number of people affected compared to other recent floods. ~AH1(TCU) 22:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As cynical as it might be, is this business as usual? Nergaal (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Business as usual, yes. ~AH1(TCU) 18:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well even if it is 120 deaths is a very substantial number so support. --candle•wicke 08:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as one of those 2 million. Nightw 12:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high death toll. --Kslotte (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 13:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
article is really not that bad. and has many decent refs. i dont see how random content to expand article is better than quality updates. length of article was never really a requirement... -- Ashish-g55 01:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current article quality is good; I agree. The article needs more content updates, not "random content", such as context, current disaster response, and preferable sections, as opposed to a single prose paragraph. And length of article is a requirement (see here). SpencerT♦C 02:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cricket final didn't need to be pulled - as I don't believe there were any copyvio's beyond what John originally removed, but I understand why that happened as it was a very easy mistake to make - you see one copyvio and then see think there are more. The cricket semi-final shouldn't have been pulled as the admin in question misjudged consensus. This is the first one that shouldn't have been posted IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing the detail, I'm arguing that we need to stop posting/removing/posting, in any circumstance. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. I added this article to WP:METEO with a rating of stub class. Despite being newsworthy, the article is no no shape to be on the main page in my opinion. To be honest, for it to be considered start class I would at least expect it to have sections and a summarizing lead (which I will tag it as needing), no matter the referencing. See for example National Weather Service Wichita, Kansas, which I wrote and consider a stub class. I don't care if I wrote it; I wouldn't want it on the main page...thus why I didn't even check to see if it was good for DYK when I wrote it. On the other hand, there is 1950 Red River Flood, which I didn't write but I consider a good example of what I would consider start class quality. I would at least expect quality of the latter for an article to be posted on ITN, regardless of how updated it is. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ai Weiwei detained

Article: Ai Weiwei (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Chinese artist and dissident Ai Weiwei is detained in Beijing as China's Communist Party’s six-week crackdown continues. (Post)
Latest development in China's crackdown, helped design Olympic Bird’s Nest stadium and is the son of a very well known poet.[3] RxS (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a notable development given he designed the Bird's Nest stadium. However the blurb is incorrect. He wasn't detained in Hong Kong, but was instead detained in Beijing as he was going to fly to Hong Kong, which is an extremely important distinction. Secondly I think calling him a dissident is a POV. The Guardian doesn't do so therefore I would suggest the blurb:
Chinese artist Ai Weiwei is detained in Beijing as China's Communist Party’s six-week crackdown continues.. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term is pretty common in this context and the NYT uses it in the headline [83] RxS (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Would this have anything to do with his new studio in Berlin or his Tate Modern exhibition in London? He is well-known, London and Berlin have been recently discussed in the media even before this occurred. His disappearance has since received a lot more attention worldwide than may usually happen in such cases (see sources below). And his studio has now been targeted as well. AFP BBC CNN Al Jazeera The Irish Times The Sydney Morning Herald Toronto Star The Independent The Guardian The Daily Telegraph --candle•wicke 08:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose every individual during ongoing global protests is not noteworthy. we didnt post wael ghonim in egypt.Lihaas (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was wael ghonim nominated? Egypt has certainly spent time on ITN. Ai Weiwei doesn't seem to be an ordinary individual. He is described in such terms by the sources above (which range from U.S./Canada through Europe, Australia and the Middle East) as "internationally acclaimed", "one of China's most outspoken critics", his "artwork is known across the world", "one of China's most famous artists", "one of China's most famous contemporary artists" whose "public comments, activities and art are some of the loudest, most flagrantly defiant forms of speech in China today", "China's most controversial artist", "China's best-known artist", "China's most famous artist" and "the famous Chinese artist who recently exhibited to acclaim at the Tate Modern". His international acclaim and that of his father were thought to have protected him from being detained before. The Independent compares him to Liu Xiaobo (2010 Nobel Peace Prize) and says "With 70,000 followers, Mr Ai is a Twitter star in a country that bans the social network". It seems he uses Twitter to count the numbers of those who have been arrested and passes this information onto his followers. --candle•wicke 09:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would need major background on the source of the "crackdown", and how common it is. ~AH1(TCU) 18:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some background [84]. The Guardian uses the term dissident and crackdown in relation to this story. Also has the ongoing nature of the crackdown in recent weeks covered. RxS (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This story attracts increasing attention with every day. The blurb might actually have to say that Ai Weiwei disappeared, because there's still no official information from the Chinese government. Ai's family has even put out a missing person's note (ABC). --bender235 (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of largest Bahrain opposition newspaper

Article: Alwasat (Bahraini newspaper) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bahrain suspends Alwasat, the largest opposition newspaper. (Post)

Suspending the largest opposition newspaper is significant, whether the reason for its suspension is legitimate or not. Thue | talk 13:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems like a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I now see that the paper expects to republish monday, so was probably not as big a deal as I thought. Thue | talk 15:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Election in Kazakhstan

Article: Kazakhstani_presidential_election,_2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)

Elections are occurring in Kazakhstan - Al Jazeera. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once sufficiently updated with results, Support. I'm also a little concerned that all of the other candidates (except the current president) are redlinks, but perhaps that also says something about the freedom of the election. SpencerT♦C 20:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated as is usually done in these cases. --candle•wicke 08:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is ITNR but I'll note that Nazerbayev has won by 95%, had no real opposition, and has been president for over 20 years. The article is getting very few page views, and the international media coverage isn't very strong.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note from the country's article that Kazakhstan is the ninth largest county and the largest landlocked country, now considered to be the dominant state in Central Asia. --candle•wicke 09:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... what has land size got to do with anything? Unless rocks read newspapers, that is. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any debate that Kazakhstan is important enough as a country, though it is true that it generally does not loom large in Westerners' consciousnesses. Ultimately ITNR policy is to post the elections of all nations big and small. I'm just saying IMO this 'election' is, well, barely an election. Of course some people may consider the manner of Nazerbayev's victory notable in and of itself.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The correlation of land area =! importance just struck me as... odd. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Zhuchengtyrannus

Article: Zhuchengtyrannus (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bones of a new dinosaur almost as big as a Tyrannosaurus are found in eastern China (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating
The correct pronounciation is very similar to the English "j", as in "John". The Chinese portion would be something like Joooucheung. ~AH1(TCU) 18:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know, except it's voiceless and retroflex, right? What I meant is that "zh" in English is usually pronounced /ʒ/ and I would expect spelling pronunciation to triumph in this case. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is not going to be listed under ITN it is perfect for DYK. I suggest the hook:
"Did you know that only the jawbones of the giant flesh-eating tyrant of Zhucheng are known to posterity?"
If this is going nowhere it should be nominated there. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, not a groundbreaking discovery. Abductive (reasoning) 01:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marking [Ready?] there does now look to be enough of an update but I'm not 100% sure on the consensus. And I think the discovery of a new dinosaur as big as the T Rex is a pretty big deal, and the sort of story we don't normally post. Additionally we get to link to Tyrannosaurus on the main page which is an FA. If the consensus isn't judged to be strong enough, I think DYK is a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
T. rex was not the largest theropod. Size is an uninteresting attribute. Abductive (reasoning) 09:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it is the most famous large predator dinosaur. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding me? A trivial ITN from an abortion of an article. Well done! Lugnuts (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoan Kiem turtle

Article: Hoan Kiem turtle (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Among the rising concerns about the water quality in Hanoi's Hoan Kiem Lake, its giant sacred turtle has been captured for study and (possibly) medical treatment (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

.

April 2

April 2, 2011 (2011-04-02) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics

Sport

[Removed] Unsticky: Japan and MENA

Maybe time to unsticky the two stickies. See Japan and MENA articles, no sufficient updates since the 31st -- the Japanese article was actually trimmed. We can add a regular blurb now about the two events, remove the sticky then let them drop off unless something big happens. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support unsticky, I was thinking about suggesting this as well, the stories seem to have died down in importance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support unsticky - per above - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 18:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like the both are down.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-marking [Ready] as they appear to have returned accidentally. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Cricket World Cup

Article: 2011 Cricket World Cup Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ India defeat Sri Lanka by 6 wickets in the Cricket World Cup final and, after their semi-final match, India and Pakistan pledge to improve relations and jointly investigate the 2008 Mumbai attacks (Post)

Alright there we have it the best sporting event culminates and what a party itsw gonna be...should be down by the stadium and set to post pics on the page too (that we may be able to use on the front page) Lihaas (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending completion of the match and the update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (in principle, pending update etc) I suggest if Tendulkar scores a century that we include in the blurb that he becomes the first player to score 100 centuries in international cricket. There will be a lot of focus on that if it happens. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have supported this but it already got posted three days ago (without consensus). If that was the important part of the cup, then it follows that the final is less deserving to get on. Nergaal (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
my god give it up. this does not even need supports to go up -- Ashish-g55 22:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, we posted the fact that two nuclear nations who have been in conflict for decades played against each other and it was a significant symbolic moment in world history. It wasn't about cricket per se more about the fact that India and Pakistan had a peaceful match that meant a huge amount to over a billion people. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The World Cup final in what is probably the world's second most popular sport. There can surely be no doubts. (Apart, apparently, from Nergaal's) HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is wikipedia: in what is probably the world's second most popular sport[citation needed]. Just because it is the only popular sport in the second most popular country in the world, does not make it worldwide popular. By that measure, table tennis should get automatic 5? ITNR entries per year. Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So where does that put Sumo? HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I think the sumo thing is worthy of posting as well, it is only of widespread interest in one, fairly insular, non-English speaking country with 100 million people living there. There is a large amount of double standards here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ITN has put up sporting events from an English-speaking country with a population less than Singapore (S League FTW... wait don't expect that to be posted) so I dunno what's keeping the admins the sumo item off ITN, unless it's not updated. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't updated last time I checked. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LIke my sig says, update first before posting/sticking. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Still oppose this and similar sports with major interest I admit but only in a few select parts of the world. with this i mean there is no real world interest for this event.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we'll never again have an item relating to baseball or American football, HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you haven't seen the two Gaelic games on WP:ITNR. :)
BTW, it was the Cubans, not those damn Americans, that were really upset at baseball being dropped from the Olympics. BTW, where's rugby now? I thought that was the #2? I thought basketball was the #2 sport in China? Where's that in the mix? Or that doesn't count since the Americans invented it... oh wait it was a Canadian. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt, plenty of ITN regulars would love to see the exclusion of all American sports here. RxS (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the Cubans were really pissed when the IOC dropped baseball from the Olympics, wait 'till you tell the guys at the Japanese Wikipedia to exclude the result of the Japan Series, an American sport, on their ITN section. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1, 2, 3, 4, 5... want more? no real world interest for this event??? WTH. seriously are you both from pakistan and just mad that they lost? cause opposing cricket world cup for ITN sort of means you have no idea what ITN should or should not post. its hard to even WP:AGF -- Ashish-g55 23:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, more than 1/4 of the world's population knows about cricket. Less than 1% knows about NFL, NBA, etc. Let's just post this result when it comes up because English Wikipedia should be about appealing to Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, English, Irish, Canadians, Kenyans, etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, as I tried to highlight earlier, incredibly popular among immigrants from the countries where it is played, of which there are hundreds of millions. I'm no expert on the USA, but I'll bet Apu would be watching tonight. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Now I can't wait to see the discussion when the Stanley Cup is awarded. :) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support an international sporting event that transcends the franchising nonsense and really is global, affecting the sub-contintent pertinently. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is on ITN/R, so when the article is sufficiently updated (obviously, after the final is complete), I expect this to be posted -- if not by someone else, by myself -- despite any oppose comments noted here. So, ultimately, this entire discussion is a waste of time. And I must say, the suggestion that cricket is a sport with a niche, regional interest is absurd. Cricket is well-followed in England, South Asia, the West Indies, Australia, and South Africa, with each of these places having successful, competitive teams. -- tariqabjotu 01:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITN/R. well said Tariq. The most popular sport by far in soon to be most populous country in the world.(LATimes)--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still very bare and doesn't even have the scores updated. I know the final just finished a little while ago but a bit of work needs to be done to post this.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Cricket's probably the second most popular sport worldwide after football/soccer. I'd like to see a blurb about the warming of relations between India and Pakistan as a result of their semifinal match also included as to me that's of even greater worldwide significance than the score of the final. N419BH 17:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not just an end to a major sporting event, but given the nations involved, the people taking part (including world record holders many times over) there's almost no question doktorb wordsdeeds 17:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India defeat Sri Lanka by 6 wickets in the cricket World Cup final and after their semi-final match India and Pakistan improve their relations and for the source for this I use the front cover of this weeks Economist - which states as its second biggest story of the week: "India, Pakistan and cricket diplomacy". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think actually India defeat Sri Lanka by 6 wickets in the cricket World Cup final and after their semi-final match India and Pakistan jointly investigate the 2008 Mumbai bombings is better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not do both? N419BH 18:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the right link is 2008 Mumbai attacks, if the admin will add this bit of info. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did some updating but the jargon Cricket uses in impenetrable to me...maybe someone could help out? RxS (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to fix up the final article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted the first half of the proposal (India defeats Sri Lanka), but there is no consensus to post the India-Pakistan part right now, I think. That can be added later if there is consensus for it. NW (Talk) 19:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I hope this doesn't mean that this article won't be improved anymore. Half the match summary is about the coin toss. -- tariqabjotu 21:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, in case you hadn't noticed, the article is being actively worked on and has been for the past hour or two! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well it seemed like the Match details section hadn't been. Indeed, it hasn't been in awhile, but I see you're working on other sections. -- tariqabjotu 21:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said at Talk:Main Page#Cricket, for a match that took a long time to finish, the match summaries are terribly short. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive discussion - lets move on
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Adding India vs Pakistan politics to the blurb Any further comments on this? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agree. The thread below shows how the second half of the blurb is completely unsupported by the sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that was the case the Economist wouldn't have "India, Pakistan and Cricket Diplomacy" on their front cover of this weeks print edition - and if there wasn't a political angle the reliable sources who did talk about the semi-final wouldn't have done so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you for real? Did you take anything away from the discussion below where you tried 54,234 times to work a political angle into the blurb but it couldn't pass WP:V? Show me one RS that directly attributes a diplomatic agreement or outcome to the cricket match. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suggest we agree to disagree and allow someone else to decide who is correct. The reason I stopped arguing with you below was because it wasn't a productive discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right well it's quite simple. No WP:V. No blurb. We can't make stuff up, let alone on the main page. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Drop the stick please. Your argument is not persuading me that I am incorrect so the only productive thing to do here is to agree to disagree - an uninvolved administrator will decide whether or not you are correct that the blurb doesn't passes WP:V if a consensus is found to post it - which is perfectly satisfactory to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, there's no need (in my opinion) for the second half of the proposed blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to hold the position that we shouldn't be making the India v. Pakistan match more than it really was. Drawing such an overt political conclusion from the match has never gained consensus. Further, I'm worried this insistence on figuring in the India-Pakistan match into this blurb has something to do with thumbing our noses at Prodego. -- tariqabjotu 19:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - and probably accurate in my case - if this is considered any arguments I have made in favour of this addition should be ignored. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of Wikipedia's challenges is to overcome the potential dominance of American influence. Cricket is an obvious example. Other sports rarely played by Americans also fit here. In my lifetime I've seen sporting bans on South Africa (mostly in sports American know little of) have a noticeable influence in moving that country awy from Apartheid. I don't think Americans are, in general, aware of the possibilites of sport in such an area, perhaps because their biggest sports are not played so much at serious international levels. (Apart, obviously, from basketball.) The comments from some Americans on this topic about a) sport not being significant in diplomacy, and b) cricket being a minor sport, have been ignorant, sad and inflammatory. Naturally, some of those who know better have become a little angry and frustrated at this. Let's all take a broader, global view of these things. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was patronizing. Just us dumb Americans who don't know anything about what goes on outside our borders. Get off your high horse. -- tariqabjotu 20:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cricket World Cup final article has many possible copyvios. I've removed an entire section from the article. Please see my note at WP:ERRORS.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the cricket world cup has had more global appeal than any of the other news items currently posted. The article too seems to have reached a level of maturity that it could be posted on the front page. 122.177.147.5 (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the MENA violence does IMO. Regarding the postings overall, I was expecting this article to get around the size of let's say Super Bowl XLV. If events like this are so important to have on English Wiki ITN, you'd expect there to be a comparable amount of editors and viewers Super Bowl Cricket Final. Cricket has ~3 occurrences yet American football one. Doesn't seem to make sense or be fair.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 Cricket World Cup article had tons of more hits but no day had it surpassed the Super Bowl's 500k. (For comparison, the 2010 FIFA World Cup view stats also didn't beat the Super Bowl's view stats, but probably if you add the rest of the interwikis it will. Of course, ITNR lists items with more pitiful view stats; some domestic college league outside the U.S. even had more hits but that'll never be added here.) 10:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard the Duck (talk • contribs)
I think this is a reasonable case, and one worth making the next time there is a American Football match worth posting on the front page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there are only 2 American football matches that matter: the Super Bowl and the BCS National Championship Game. Super Bowl, despite being on ITNR, generates more opposition than any other ITNR event (followed closely by the World Series, NBA Finals, and the Stanley Cup Finals. I'm beginning to doubt if those ITNR-able since it's perpetually being opposed at). Now if another American football item will be added ITNR, or even at a regular ITN/C discussion, it simply won't happen, or will be added by a drive-by admin, then more post-posting opposes until someone sorta debunks the opposition but the opposers don't care and bring about U.S.-biaz/centrism and someone labels Americans as either ignorant or, stupid, or both. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lets hope we can avoid throwing the toys out of the pram next time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bet on it. Those who oppose are more rabid than those who support. Most who oppose on U.S.-centric items won't accept any explanation. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to understand those editors who declared cricket to be a minor sport. Such claims are simply wrong from a global perspective, and just have to be based on either ignorance or stupidity. They will always inflame debate, something we surely don't want. There have been several such claims across this and other concurrent discussions. Is there any other explanation than ignorant Americans? Please note that this is definitely not a declaration that ALL Americans are ignorant (many understand cricket's status very well), but someone sure is. Such statements ("cricket is a minor sport") are guaranteed to raise sensitivities to anything that looks US-centric among non-Americans. So, is there a better explanation for such stupid claims? HiLo48 (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think no one said cricket is a minor sport. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator (!) who first pulled the India-Pakistan match item used that claim as part of his justification for doing so. There have been several parallel discussions about cricket, and similar claims appeared several times. All guaranteed to inflame. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hilo, you're making a mountain out of a molehill on this one. Since keen on having such a global perspective, you might want to remember that despite cricket's popularity in some countries, in most countries in the world, hardly just the US, it barely registers in people's consciousness. In the country where I live (Russia) people barely know what cricket is and are more familiar with baseball (at least via American movies) than cricket. So it's understandable that some people will not grasp, or care about, the importance of cricket to other parts of the world. The purpose of Wikipedia, and in particular the ethos of countering systemic bias, is to inform people who for whatever reason don't have all the information. You, frankly, seem to have some agenda besides that which is rather offensive to a some.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the countries I have visited or lived in, I note soccer as the most popular sport. I knew what cricket was before I started editing on Wikipedia and became familiar with some terms (which I still don't fully understand) like wicket. Not saying I don't respect other sports but I don't think it is as popular as noted. It is a minor sport in some countries and major in others. Regarding the Super Bowl vs. Cricket World Cup stats, the Super Bowl (a single game) still had an enormous amount hits in the month prior to its showing. I think it would be appropriate for the conclusion of the NFC Championship Game and AFC Championship Game in ITN next year.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno if you've been into this page a lot, but Super Bowl discussions are an annual early February event at ITN where allegations of U.S. biaz/centrism is thrown like a football, American style. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So lets add more things for American Football, but this is a discussion for WP:ITNR. PS The copyvios look to have been solved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People will put ITN at WP:MFD if that happens :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Hilo, the fact that you say some Americans doesn't make your point any less offensive. Only one person suggested there was only region interest to cricket, and I see no evidence that that one person is American. And, even if he were, that does not suddenly make it acceptable to paint a broad brush about Americans being ignorant. Keep stereotypes about Americans out of the conversation. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because there was a copyvio from ESPN, and there is some other content which in my view has been copied from here to an Indian blog, but which there are some copyright issues still being discussed at WP:ERRORS. I hope it will be up on the main page soon. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any further copyvio issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

April 1, 2011 (2011-04-01) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

Sport

Southwest Airlines Flight 812

Article: Southwest Airlines Flight 812 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Article needs updating
Oppose: I'm not even sure that that meets Wikipedia:Notability (events), let alone ITN standards. The only real reporting on the story so far seems to be coming from the Associated Press. NW (Talk) 04:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and consider AFD. We've declined to post crashes of commuter planes with loss of all hands this year, and this one is inconsequential by comparison to those. WN2294 went to AFD and got kept in the days after the incident, I wonder if, two years later, it would get the same result. Courcelles 05:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've expanded the article, which should establish notability via worldwide coverage and subsequent grounding of all 80 of Southwest 737s. Accept that this in probably not notable enough to appear on ITN as there are bigger events occurring worldwide. Mjroots (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this seems to be a significantly wider issue than originally thought involving the grounding of lots of aircraft. It has also made the front page of Al Jazeera and affects Americans who make up a large percentage of our audience. Additionally there aren't a great deal of stories that look like they could be posted in the queue. The elections in Kazakhstan are a good candidate, and the dinosaur story might be updated enough (and obviously the cricket world cup as well), but other than that there isn't anything. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Apart from the fact that no body died, structural failures happen every now and then. Not of any notability. I would also have serious doubts about the relevance of the article. —  Cargoking  talk  20:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted]Sumo#Match-fixing

Can someone suggest a blurb? RxS (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Mazar-i-Sharif UN compound attack

Article: 2011 Mazar-i-Sharif attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 11 are killed following an attack by a crowd of demonstrators on a United Nations compound in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

At least eight UN workers are dead, according to the BBC. Fairly small protest and low number of deaths but fairly significant IMO as the attack involved UN workers, rather than local victims. Protest appears to have been against a Quran burning in Florida. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Proudly anti-April Fools') 16:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support when we have an adequate article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a stub 2011 Mazar-i-Sharif attack--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as there is now an adequate stub. The blurb should relate the incident to what happened in Florida, per the sources.—Biosketch (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am marking this nomination as ready as the opposers previously opposed due to article quality/length, and those issues have been resolved by C628. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Proudly anti-April Fools') 01:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
great job C628. the attack definitely deserves a dedicated article. --Wikireader41 (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Today is Friday...

April Fools' Day is over. Extremely long discussion is hampering the page's readability when scrolling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Main Page does look odd now without it... at least four are ready now... --candle•wicke 00:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the whole kerfuffle about whether to add April Fools' blurbs? -- tariqabjotu 00:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was it removed from the page with the heading "Please use this page for discussions surrounding the creation of "In The News" items for April Fool's day 2011"? Every other section has changed. What's the problem here? --candle•wicke 00:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down, Candle. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Now we have one? --candle•wicke 00:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And... it's gone. -- tariqabjotu 00:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I see. Haven't had time to read all that. I thought all discussion was to take place on the special page? It's not even happening under the correct day here. --candle•wicke 00:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on. Has this become a support/oppose issue? Many who initially left comments seem to be in favour or to have assumed it was happening but they didn't leave bold supports. Whereas many who oppose have left bold opposes. If that is so then I support as ITN is now the only section without the changes, there has never been such a problem before and several have been prepared here (though the page which says "Please use this page for discussions surrounding the creation of "In The News" items for April Fool's day 2011" seems to have been mostly ignored). --candle•wicke 00:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that people "assumed it was happening" is a major part of the problem (and might have been for the past couple of years). Most of the earlier discussion primarily focused on coming up with humorous items. Only the later discussion adequately addressed the idea's applicability to the section's standards and the principles on which our April Fools' Day endeavor is based.
The section was deliberately excluded from the April foolery (for the very reasons discussed below) until 2009, and it's been suggested that there wasn't consensus to change course then (though I can't personally attest to that). —David Levy 00:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or in simpler terms, those who clearly supported the idea but did not expressly say so don't count, and because of a technicality years ago, ITN can never take part in April fools like the rest of the MP does. Passionless -Talk 00:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can, if it gains consensus. Cenarium (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. The implicit support is bereft of any rationale beyond the presumed belief that the suggested jokes are funny. The underlying idea of including the section in the April foolery was barely addressed, let alone justified.
2. I don't know what "technicality" you mean. I suspect that you've misunderstood what I wrote. —David Levy 01:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the only way consensus for this may come about is if several others boldly supported and left some sort of reason why they believe what they believe. Since this does not seem to be happening there is therefore either no consensus or consensus against the motion. --candle•wicke 01:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Would have been nice if those opposers came out and told those working on april fools blurbs before the 11th hour rather that they sought to keep ITN as the only april fools free section, and that the only way they would approve participation is if consensus, something which always takes at least 12 hours, is reached. Why didn't you oppose yesterday, you all knew what was going on... so why didn't you oppose yesterday, what a pathetic game. Passionless -Talk 01:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would have been better to have more thoroughly considered the issue before, it can indeed be disappointing for supporters. Cenarium (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I tried. —David Levy 01:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'll bite. Support, since it is current, (particularly the fact that the song has been thoroughly ridiculed, yet hit the Billboard 100), and the article is in good shape. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as right now it make sit appear that the normal news is a joke, seeing that everything els eon the main page is.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are my 2 cents. The topic had already gained consensus on talk page and the discussion below was never supposed to be about support/oppose. but the opposers in last minute made it so and by doing that also made it look like there is no support for April fools items on ITN. And i could'nt more strongly disagree with Passionless for his statement, "those who clearly supported the idea but did not expressly say so don't count". This new bolded support and oppose which i have never really liked since beginning makes this page looks like a poll. for ex. Nergaal below in India vs Pakistan is WTFing by noting the count. There is absolutely no rule that you have to bold you support. But just for sake of this conversation i will SUPPORT since ITN right now looks awfully out of place. -- Ashish-g55 01:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with formatting and everything to do with the posts' actual content (and lack thereof). —David Levy 01:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is a messenger from Mercury, Fred is dead and Spider-Man has climbed the tallest building. There is nothing particularly misleading about these. The Friday one I don't understand but I assume somebody somewhere does. It certainly is Friday and yesterday was Thursday, that much is true. --candle•wicke 02:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The MESSENGER item is the only one pertaining to an event meeting our normal inclusion criteria (which is one of the key principles of our annual April Fools' Day endeavor). —David Levy 02:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i see updates, references and fairly funny news item. i dont understand whats this strict april fools day criteria you have going. -- Ashish-g55 02:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The events, apart from the one described in the MESSENGER item, do not rise to the level of significance that we require, and some fall outside the normal time frame.
Our April Fools' Day main page material, while presented in a jocular manner, is intended to be based upon links to encyclopedic content that could appear in the respective sections on any other day of the year. This is the key principle to which I referred. —David Levy 02:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) A renowned climber ascending the world's tallest building wouldn't have a chance? A polar bear dying amid nationwide (and international) mourning is acceptable but the capture and death of a baboon who has established a reputation for assaulting tourists from around the world over a period of several years is not? --candle•wicke 02:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NO they are not. there is no chance of that picture ever making to TFP besides today. or TFA. -- Ashish-g55 02:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. They're a featured picture and a featured article. —David Levy 02:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They all meet the criteria of their respective processes. The picture gained featured status in February, the TFA is a featured article. The DYK hooks meet the DYK criteria, so does OTD. This today is Friday thing hasn't been shown to meet ITN criteria. Cenarium (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's all about the prose people. You can still have the current items up there, but re-word them to something else. Think of headlines as if you were writing for a tabloid and you are there. – SMasters (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)David i dont know if you have tried to get an article on main page for TFA. the amount of points needed to get it done basically ensures that article would not ever pass since there is always a lineup. or something with higher points. that picture is featured but it will never ever make it to main page on normal day. I dont know what world you live in but i would be very very surprised if i saw either of them on main page on any day other than april fools. and for ITN entries, as ive already said on talk page before and ill say it again, interest trumps importance today and those stories are updated and with references and hence they pass ITN criteria. Seriously now its just getting to a point for an admin to make a decision because doesnt matter how many points the supporters put you dont seem to be moving from your position. Im sort of tired and done trying. -- Ashish-g55 02:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ashishg55, it's not about the content of the article being considered, but about meeting certain content-neutral criteria, being a FA for TFA, being a FP for TFP, having being recently created or significantly expanded from a stub and satisfy some word counts criteria for DYK, some other for OTD, and for ITN there are also criteria: essentially, documenting an event of major international interest. All April Fools content in other parts of the MP meet the relevant criteria. Does the Friday thing documents an event of major international interest ? Are the criteria at Wikipedia:In the news satisfied ? Cenarium (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a point, DYK does modify some of its criteria for April fools. The article can be created anytime during the past year and rules as to how the hooks are worded are changed.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, but they are free to make special rules for April Fools, as long as they have consensus. There's no consensus for special rules at ITN. Cenarium (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are minor modifications to arbitrary rules. Apart from the MESSENGER item, the suggested ITN items fail to comply with a fundamental quality standard. —David Levy 03:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ashishg55:You're conflating the issues of "eligibility" and "scheduling." Obviously, special efforts were made to time the appearances of that article and picture for April Fools' Day. But they absolutely were eligible for inclusion on any day of the year. And in fact, the very same picture is scheduled to appear as the picture of the day on the Commons main page on 10 July.
Your assertion that "interest trumps importance today" is backed neither in policy nor with anything resembling consensus. Being "updated and with references" aren't the only criteria. —David Levy 03:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reasons of MP balance, we can't have more than four elements unless someone finds a way to compensate. So please make your case as to why we should discard putting articles on time critical highly important current events for the sake of some jokes while there are already plenty on the MP. I'm OK for one 'joke' item at the bottom, provided all of the four currently present blurbs are preserved and we find a way to compensate. Cenarium (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
???!? what balance?? real blurbs will be back tomorrow... -- Ashish-g55 02:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The right side must equal the left side in length for the main page. Passionless -Talk 02:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it was more rhetorical question :) -- Ashish-g55 02:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see...any ways the rest of wikipedia is having fun...here are two very serious matters going on already...Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard After this whole turn of events at ITN I wish an admin would go an nominate the MP for MfD. Passionless -Talk 02:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are internal issues. –SMasters (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing! Maybe it should be all the items that were recently rejected. – SMasters (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's an idea I wouldn't mind supporting, provided they were rejected for lack of consensus rather than lack of update. They'd still meet ITN criteria but it'd be our own way of marking April Fools'. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 03:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose and suggestions

Instead of whinging, can we quickly come up with some re-writing of the prose and maybe some rejected ones for today? For example, "India ran a bit more than Pakistan during the semi-finals of a ball and bat game, with the prime ministers of both countries in attendance." That also gets rid of the "defeat" issue. More? – SMasters (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording serious items isn't funny. Including rejected items is an inside joke of no relevance to the site's readers (and still replaces items deemed suitable with ones that haven't been). —David Levy 04:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, suggest some then. – SMasters (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are several here. --candle•wicke 04:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you asking me to suggest? —David Levy 04:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty there seems to be alot more support for putting something funny in INT than there is for not. Now just pick something so the front page doesn't look weird, and it so it doesn't look like we are making fun of the "serious" news stories that were there yesterday.--Found5dollar (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is they're still there today. It looks unbalanced somehow. --candle•wicke 04:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mayotte ITN has been posted now which is fine but will it not lead to some confusion among the readers? They may not all believe that it has "officially become France's 101st department, as approved by 95% of the population in a 2009 referendum" due to the timing of the event. --candle•wicke 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nunavut (a new territory of Canada) was announced on April fools in 99 and people took it as a joke. People will be skeptical of the news so we might as well make it all humorous blurbs. Passionless -Talk 04:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion

here is my suggestion, post the hooks suggested at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/In The News for today. Then starting tomorrow, we will come up with more concrete rules and regulations regarding exactly what is allowed for ITN on april fools, and hold a vote at ITN on them, so that this mess does not happen again.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. Anyway, if we are following UTC time, there's only 19 hours left. It wouldn't kill anyone to have it up for this time. – SMasters (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I don't see why any other supporters so far would not support this suggestion. Passionless -Talk 05:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, you're casting votes for a proposal that amounts to "Let's do what was rejected below, and then we can discuss it later (which we could regardless)." There's no material difference.
Please stop trying to backdoor your desired content onto the main page and actually address the opponents' arguments. Mocking us and continually demanding that we simply do what you want (because it's fun and you don't care about our concerns) isn't constructive. —David Levy 05:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When an item gets on the ITN with 5 Sup and 4 Opp and then "popular" items get rejected, you cannot seriously expect people to still care to provide actual arguments. Nergaal (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, get over it, vote counts are only one method of obtaining consensus. David, there's no real counter-argument to what the opposers are opposing on. It's like trying to combat religion with logic: it doesn't work. :-) Essentially it boils down to "I like it" and "I don't like it." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what is happening here, with the April 1 proposal. There is no consistency between this and other items such as the cricket one. Nergaal (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess

We'll I'm late to this discussion. This is confusing. We've got multiple discussions going on here. It's hard to keep track of what is actually being debated. It's unclear what some !votes are actually supporting/opposing. It's pretty clear as a community we have no idea what to do right now. FWIW, I'd say at this point let's not change anything.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very fail point, I was trying to read through this discussion in an attempt to judge consensus for my own personal satisfaction and it was impossible - and I'd missed the fact that the discussion is happening in two places at once.
I do have to say that I don't think any of the jokes on the front page are actually funny (which is different from my view of April fools stuff in the past - featured redirects is still funny IMO). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good compromise

For what it's worth, I think the current setting is a good compromise (and supported by consensus). Cenarium (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some late suggestions
I have a few examples of what we could post, then yank off later tomorrow.

~AH1(TCU) 20:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-03-14. Retrieved 2011-04-25.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_St._Louis_tornado
  3. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/world/asia/04china.html?src=twrhp
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/April_2011&oldid=1146452750"