Wikipedia

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 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.


March 31

March 31, 2011 (2011-03-31) (Thursday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

[Posted] Resignation of Mexico's attorney general

Article: Arturo Chávez (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Arturo Chávez resigns as Mexico's Attorney General amid the ongoing Mexican Drug War after 18 months in office. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Support per global coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if there is a sufficient update. None yet. I'd usually not support the resignation of a country's AG, but the Mexican drug war risks destabilizing the government, and has effects outside its borders.--Chaser (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support sufficiently newsworthy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Accession to departmentship of Mayotte

Article: Mayotte (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Mayotte officially became France's 101st department, as approved by 95% of the population in the 2009 referendum. (Post)
Article updated

This is highly significant from a legal and political point of view, to the international level, the accession of a territory to full departmentship, approved by referendum in 2009 by 95% of the population. There has been some confusion as to the precise date of accession, but the government officially confirmed the accession. ref (fr) Cenarium (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the territory doesn't matter much, this is the political and legal significance that matters. What was a territory has become a new department. It is as if a US territory were given statehood, which without a doubt would be posted. Cenarium (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...Except there are no states (in that sense of the word) in France.  狐 FOX  21:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'm making a comparison between US states and French departments, as they are the main administrative sub-entities of the respective nations (a region is more like an association of departments). Though there are critical differences from a domestic point of view, they are not as apparent from an international point of view. Cenarium (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I say there has been some confusion, but the accession has now been confirmed: [1] [2] [3]. Cenarium (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support France is still a fairly major country, and I think a territory changing status like this is probably significant enough to post. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mostly per nom's arguments. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Such a status change in a major regional (arguably world) power is relevant. I believe we also mentioned on the Front Page the political changes involving Caribbean islands of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Mayotte development is equally notable. The linked articles are all in a good state. Missionary (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good article, interesting topic. RxS (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Ivory Coast events bigger than other below

Article: 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Forces loyal to Alassane Ouattara begin to besiege Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire's former capital and largest city. (Post)
Article updated

Yesterday Yamossoukro, today Port Pedro. Cities falling to rebel hands. When will this be posted? --78.3.217.89 (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment SupportAbidjan may be under siege as well. This hasn't been too prominent in the news and the death count (462) isn't as high as Libya which is probably why. Sadly, it is probably also viewed as another Sub-Saharan African country in a political/military conflict. With the capital(BF) Abidjan under siege, it'd support it for ITN. The article needs some updating though. I added the {{ITN candidate}} template above.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to support.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The usual thing is 5 sentences and 3 sources. There is 5 sentences, but going back to 28 March, Support if updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the update is now sufficient. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've updated the article, and I see no reason not to post it now. So unless someone objects or an admin does so before, I'll post it soon. Cenarium (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Posted, note that I didn't add ", as violence continues", as a siege generally implies violence in and of itself, I also changed "rebels" to "forces" as it seems more appropriate and neutral here, though I'm open to hear arguments. Cenarium (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update needed They report about 1000 deaths as resulted from the clashes. Makes sense to insert in the blurb. GreyHood Talk 00:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian film actor jailed for 7 years

March 30

March 30, 2011 (2011-03-30) (Wednesday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

[Pulled] India vs Pakistan cricket match in the Cricket World cup

Article: 2011 Cricket World Cup knockout stage (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ India beat Pakistan in the semi-final of the 2011 Cricket World Cup amid the two countries agreeing to improve their relations (Post)
Article updated

I know its not the final, but this match has apparently been watched by a billion people and seems to be seriously notable in its own right. The Economist, BBC, New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald (all on the front pages). And if we link can it, Cricket World Cup is an FA. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Don't know much about cricket but have been seeing this everywhere throughout the day. Much seems to be being made of the meeting of prime ministers as well. --candle•wicke 03:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/wait the final will be decided in less than a week. Nergaal (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wait for final. SMasters (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was probably the biggest match of the tournament (bigger than the final as many called it). It was notable because of the many high VIPs who attended including Bollywood personalities (especially Aamir Khan) and the Prime Ministers of both countries. The excessive security measures in place and heavy police monitoring as well as millions of viewers (or a billion) highlighted the intensity of the game. I think it's a good idea to link the article India versus Pakistan cricket rivalry in the blurb if this gets a mention. Mar4d (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the supports above, this match transcended the idea of a normal sporting event. If needed the blurb can be changed to reflect the over all final, but this match stands by itself. RxS (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this reasoning: if China and India would meet in the FIFA World Cup, we wouldn't post it because it got watched by 2 billion people. It is still just a semi-final in a sport of relatively limited international notability, which got quite a few posts in the last year anyways. Nergaal (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That means that we will never mention baseball here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably ignorant of the South Korea-Japan-Taiwan baseball rivalry, eh? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very ignorant statement, Nergaal. Cricket matches are followed religiously in places as wide apart as Australia, India, South Africa, and England. Just because it isn't as wide-spread as soccer != limited international notability. Ed [talk] [majestic titan]
Oppose Wait for final. Prodego talk 04:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the opposers read up on the history of India and Pakistan, these two countries have been rivals since forever and both of them are massive cricket countries. A football match between India and China would be vastly less notable. Overall the final of the tournament is less significant than this match, I highly doubt that will make the front page of all of the publications I listed at the top.
And we all know how much the Americans love cricket, and it was one of the top stories on the New York Times. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now on the front page of Xinhua English edition as well (though more aboutthe talks held afterwards)- we all know how much the Chinese love cricket too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For all the furor the game produced, the article has not received what I would consider to be a significant update. A real update is needed before posting. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I assumed there would be more of an update since I started last night - unfortunately I don't have the time now :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would it be fair to assume that all of the attention, NYT and Xinhua included, is focused primarily on the fact that India and Pakistan and playing and not on the match per se? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so, so if the political angle can be worked in great. I'll take a look at writing a good article on it if one hasnt been written tonight. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The final is just a few days away. Wait for that. Spinning a political angle out of this doesn't make it ITN worthy. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking [Ready].
While I am the nominator the oppose !votes have failed to understand the significance of the event entirely. This is a globally important sports and political story between two countries who are strong rivals and have been since 1947. The article has now been updated to the required standard.
Sport and politics are both subjects that ITN does well and so after the progress we've seen over the past few weeks I'm appalled to see such a slide back towards pointless bickering over a clearly worthy story that has seen front page coverage around the world (if any more are needed it was the top story in the Guardian today). If we aren't going to get stories of obvious global importance like this right then MickMacNee is 100% correct when he stated that ITN is irreparably broken. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really people? Obvious support. Two virtual enemies came together during a cricket match watched by probably a billion viewers, while major newspapers around the world reported it on their front pages – even ones in the United States, where a large majority haven't even heard of cricket, much less understand it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportThis match led to reopening of talks between 2 nuclear powers which had been stalled since 2008 Mumbai attacks. cant think of any other sporting event which achieved anything remotely similar.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can somebody come up with a blurb that actually conveys the significance of this event? The current blurb makes no mention of the political implications, which are much more important than a few men running up and down a field followed by polite applause. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a go at making it a little better, you're quite right that my original blurb was rubbish. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's the source for "the two countries agree to resolve their differences"? --Mkativerata (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've made that less POV to "improve their relations" and then The Economist is a good source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not about POV, it's about accuracy. The Economist doesn't support the blurb either: it says nothing about any relationship between the cricket match and any agreement to improve ties. The final two paragraphs of the article make it clear that there are already "broad efforts" to improve ties, but nothing substantial and nothing triggered by, or agreed as a result of, the cricket match. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Technically they may have agreed some of the stuff a day either. So what? Its all really one event, and if you go and read the sources that have been provided here its quite clear that the events have been reported together by every other reliable source on the planet - theres no reason for us to not do so as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • What did they agree to do a day earlier? As far as I can tell agreement was made on specific matters such as a terrorist hotline,[5] but I can't find any support (yet) for the blurb's grandiose statement that the two countries "agreed to improve their relations". Such is the danger of, as you say, trying to "work in" a "political angle". --Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually go and read the sources provided it is quite clear that the two countries have been improving their relations and are allowing things like agreeing to allow their investigators to go to each others countries to investigate the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Possibly some background reading on the relations between India and Pakistan wouldn't go amiss either, if you still have questions after that we can discuss it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they have. But pinning or relating anything to the World Cup match is pure original research, as sources such as the Economist show. Please don't ask me to "go and read the sources provided". I've read the source you've provided. You're proposing the blurb. It's incumbent on you to demonstrate its accuracy. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb changed to "India beat Pakistan in the semi-final of the 2011 Cricket World Cup amid the two countries agreeing to improve their relations". I hope that is satisfactory. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have they ever "agreed to improve their relations" or have they merely entered specific and limited measures which may have the effect of improving relations? Agreement and effect are two different things, especially in diplomatic circles. An agreement to improve relations between India and Pakistan would be very significant. We need a source to back it up. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 2) Posted I think the political implications go without saying; instead, I just mentioned that both countries' prime ministers were in attendance. I'm similarly uncomfortable with making the match sound like more than what it really was. Regarding consensus, here, it's not overwhelming, but I feel this nomination was primarily harmed by the fact that the World Cup final is very soon. I'm fine with replacing this blurb with the World Cup final blurb should this one still be on ITN on April 2. -- tariqabjotu 19:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice blurb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We just had an item where David Levy's comment formed consensus over opposes. and now we have another. so before you go all ballistic please make sure you know the meaning of consensus. -- Ashish-g55 22:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post Posting Oppose What's next? Will Americans begin posting the AFC Wildcard during the playoffs? The India-Pakistan Cricket rivalry is just like all other sports rivalries. And the reason why so many people watched it are because there's so many people in India. Remove it and wait for the final, this is ridiculous and it opens the door for fans to start posting all sorts of playoffs for all sorts of sports. FreddyPickle (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the AFC wildcard playoffs make the top story of news organisations as different as Xinhua's global edition, the Guardian and the Economist and make the front page of the New York Times, BBC and the Sydney Morning Herald (and I'm sure there are many more) online, I'll be more than happy to support posting that as well - until that point the events aren't remotely comparable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

post posting support - seriously just type cricket in google and right away you can tell the importance of this match. it is very rare to see such a high amount of media coverage by entire world media for a semi final game. -- Ashish-g55 22:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me repeat: this is dumb. I am sure that when Iran will meet USA in the World Cup (like they did in 2006) people will surely not want to post it. But something equivalent happening in a lesser sport, gets posted anyways, even WITHOUT consensus. Good job ITN! Nergaal (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-post support. Anyone who has seen this on the news knows that this match was very important, not only for followers of the sport, but for diplomatic relations between Pakistan and India. Seeing the two heads of state shake hands, after the many incidents between both over the years, alone makes this notable enough for inclusion. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting strong support. I had wanted to help update this article early but didn't have time. This is clearly notable. As above, you have the heads of state of two nuclear powers and bitter enemies meeting. Huge audience and interest in global media. There's clearly grounds for posting this in advance of the final.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I meant that. What I meant to say is the two Head Honchos of India and Pakistan met. The Big Cheese. Hope that clarifies things ;-) --Johnsemlak (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled by Prodego: rationale. -- tariqabjotu 06:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd love to hear a good explanation for this, because I can't find any way to read this discussion as a consensus to pull it down- the leaning towards posting it only got stronger after the posting, which is a real rarity at ITN. Courcelles
  • Post post pull support for re-postingwtf? Seriously people. A sporting event between two countries that really don't like each other causes them to agree to resolve their differences and agree to work together to investigate a large terrorist attack likely perpetrated by extremists of one nation against innocents in the other. Oh, and 1/6, 1/7 of the world's population watched it? A billion people? I don't know what cricket is besides what our article says (and even after reading it I still don't get it) but I know something significant when I see it. N419BH 06:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taken to ANI. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa resigns

Support. Notable new development. ~AH1(TCU) 01:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I suppose we can't post every resignation or development but he seems senior enough and has fled the country and gone to Britain now too. --candle•wicke 03:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any news currently happening in Libya is an important development. Mar4d (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not only has he resigned, he's claimed political asylum in UK. Given his high rank in Libya, this is notable. Mjroots (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US funding Libyan rebels for weeks now

[7] Several US government sources confirm that Obama signed a secret order to covertly support rebels. Passionless -Talk 21:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decades-old Burmese junta 'dissolved', new president

See here: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] ~AH1(TCU) 11:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/In The News

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.

We are very far from being ready for April fools day (this Friday), so I would appreciate it if people follow the link and make more suggetions for what to post for April fools. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 06:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this happened last October 2010, but you won't have to twist anything or use misleading language for this one, plus it's timely :P
Plus we can also use the Bandy World Cup saying "Team A defeats Team B to win the World Cup" as the other sporting event. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This kinda stopped being funny about six months ago.  狐 FOX  12:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should just give up and make a Friday joke. --PlasmaTwa2 18:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Yesterday was Thursday". Perfect news headline. --Dorsal Axe 19:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just do It's Friday, Friday.... Nergaal (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
YES. We do have to incorporate "FUN FUN FUN" somewhere. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could incorporate something from this. Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GOTTA BE A FOOL. GOTTA GET A BOWL, GOTTA GET CEREAL! Diego Grez (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about something with the MESSENGER below? A messenger peeps on Mercury. (Too bad it wasn't Uranus). Grsz 11 19:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Hopefully we will remain unready and the antipathy will spread to other elements of Main Page. Kevin McE (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what the heck this is all about - I thought we made a traditional effort to come up with something factual and humorous to all. I see nothing above which gets close to this. Can we start again please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about something that has to do with the MENA protests like: Egyptian and Tunisian ask Hosni Mubarak and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to rule them against and revolutions was just a joke that went too far?

But we have to keep it true, I like the idea of using Messnger as posted below, and I think we could get away with posting the Friday blurb as long as it is the only joke one and the rest are actual news pieces so that ITN is still useful. Passionless -Talk 20:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my opposition to including this section in the April foolery, I must begrudgingly admit that even I find the "Friday" idea amusing. I suggest the following wording:
Technically, that will be true! —David Levy 21:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about something on the cobra that escaped from the Bronx Zoo? He has over 150,000 followers on Twitter. -- tariqabjotu 21:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those sound good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bronx Zoo#2011 Egyptian cobra escape --Kslotte (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Com, the ment got deleted for Fish. Can we post the English ferret story? And how about somehow linking the cobra escape to the protests, in chronological though not necessarily causative statement? ~AH1(TCU) 21:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think both the cobra and ferret would be good, but I'm not sure where we would link the ferret story to. Passionless -Talk 22:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a news item on CNN about Jimmy Carter visiting Cuba. Maybe if there is an update we can put something like "Former US President Jimmy Carter defects to Cuba." --PlasmaTwa2 23:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Justin Beiber heads to rehab. [16][17] Passionless -Talk 23:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the Justin Beiber and Jimmy Carter suggestions aren't true. -- tariqabjotu 23:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Misdirection is one thing, but those are flat-out lies. The idea is to present truthful information in a clever/humorous manner, not to invent fictitious claims. —David Levy 00:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas

How about "This year, Christmas will be on Friday the 13th"?195.57.146.182 (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Christmas article, the correct dates are December 25, January 6, January 7 and January 19. So your suggested item appears to be false. —David Levy 02:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fred

Continuing the long-running violence and more recent animal death themes... Fred is captured in Cape Town after "misguided efforts" to befriend him. (insert "and euthanised" if this has happened or happens by Friday) --candle•wicke 03:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Fred is dead. --candle•wicke 03:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well now that is just morbid. --PlasmaTwa2 13:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Four hours to go...
There's a collection of possible items at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/In The News. Some still need a bit of attention but I think we have enough of them as the TFA will be rather short. Good luck! --Tone 21:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the lot We shouldn't take real and serious news down to post silliness. One part of the MP should remain sober and usable in the jokes. Courcelles 22:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've just taken a look at the template, and there have been four stories posted in the last 24 hours, the Libyan foreign minister defecting, India vs Pakistan at cricket, the death of José Alencar and the Syrian cabinet resigning. Plus there is the Ivory Coast story which looks ready to be posted. But to take off the 4 (and maybe 5 by the time we get to midnight) stories that have only been up for less than 24 hours for some trivial stories seems like a shame, I suggest possibly posting 1-2 of the best to replace some of the older stories on the template, or leaving ITN with just serious stuff. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I kinda agree, maybe half and half would be best, but on another note could we please add the sound clip located at the respective article to the blurb It's Friday, Friday..., so that people can play the song from the main page. Passionless -Talk 22:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I concur with Courcelles. There's much more "wiggle room" for the left-hand side of the MP, but ITN has a serious purpose and to remove useful blurbs about ongoing events in order to get a cheap laugh defeats its purpose. Let's prove that we can have a laugh (by having an amusing TFA and DYK hooks) but not at the expense of the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Passionless, I think that could be a good compromise. The Libyan foreign minister and the Syrian cabinet were posted nearly 18 hours ago so if we keep the new three stories we've now posted in the past few hours (the cricket, José Alencar and the Ivory Coast) I think I'm OK with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could keep the Libyan event too and still have room for enough fun blurbs. Passionless -Talk 23:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the current serious blurbs we leave up, can we modify them? ITN's going to be modified really quickly by the rest of WP, as it normally approves of the April Fool's jokes, so I think it's either modify them or have an administrator come in and unilaterally change them to fit in with the rest of the main page. Having one serious section among the jokes will look absolutely stupid and will make a laughingstock of ITN. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Serious newspapers usually have one silly story for April Fools and the rest of the news is serious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that we could add the MESSENGER item to the normal items. Apart from that, I strongly oppose the idea of mixing humorous and non-humorous items, which would appear to mock/trivialize serious events. If we must include April foolishness (which I also oppose), let's go all in. —David Levy 23:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)We aren't a newspaper, we're Wikipedia. We have a tradition where our Main page is remade into a bunch of big jokes that are also completely true. Let me repeat: even if it is initially blocked here, the greater Wikipedia body will force a change. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We excluded ITN from the tradition until 2009. —David Levy 23:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per the above comments and those that I've made at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page#A bit less radical this time? and Wikipedia talk:In the news#April Fools' Day. Some of the suggested items are better than those from 2009 and 2010, but I still dislike the idea of lowering our inclusion standards and removing/excluding content that genuinely belongs. The endeavor's basic idea is to playfully deliver material that legitimately could have appeared on any day, and the ITN section simply isn't compatible with that concept. —David Levy 23:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to include MESSENGER as well, the only reason I oppose !vote'd it when it was suggested below was that it had already been posted pretty recently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linked this discussion from Talk:Main Page#April_Fools.27_Day. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict × 4) I don't have a serious problem with mixing serious with less-serious stories -- it looked like that was going to happen anyhow -- but we have to tread carefully. Having "Yesterday was Thursday; today, it is Friday" (isn't "Friday" so last week by now, though?) next to a blurb about the former Brazilian vice president dying might come across as tasteless. One might even argue that leaving the section as completely normal, while every other section on the Main Page goes April Fools' Day would look similarly bad. I don't particularly care though; I rarely chime in on nominations of any sort here. -- tariqabjotu 23:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, the only acceptable options are excluding the section from the April foolishness (with the possible exception of the MESSENGER item, which is relatively sober and meets our usual content standards) or fully embracing the idea (and leaving no normal items in place). I strongly prefer the former option, but the latter is preferable to a distasteful combination of serious and non-serious items. —David Levy 23:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to ask administrators to avoid posting anything before it is ensured that consensus exists for each and all items to be added. It is not acceptable to alter the ITN if those additions are not supported by consensus. There seems to be consensus for April Fool modifications on the other parts of the MP, but not for ITN, at this time; in the last two years no consensus seemed to really exist, and before we didn't do it. Cenarium (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)There is still the Portal:Current events which gets 40-50k views per day that will still be serious, so maybe we could just go all in april fools, but post a blurb at the bottom saying, "For serious news go to the current event portal". Passionless -Talk 23:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, that translates to "For the type of content that would appear if we weren't lowering our standards for the sake of a joke, look elsewhere." —David Levy 23:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if you admit the joke at the same time as making it, doesn't that make it not funny. The only one that's funny in my view is the ferret story - but that's only funny as it makes me look slightly foolish for saying that the BBC most emailed list mattered - so probably even that would be a massive inside joke. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)That is correct, we are turning the MP into a slight joke, while the rest of the encyclopedia remains as reliable as ever. Passionless -Talk 23:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But the idea always was to strictly use content meeting our usual inclusion standards. The MESSENGER item is the only one that qualifies. —David Levy 23:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess admitting the joke does make it less funny, so nix that suggestion, but anyways the Portal:Current events will still be there no matter what happens. Passionless -Talk 23:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (This is a poorly formatted discussion) At this point, I'd suggest having recent blurbs plus the Spiderman story (if the article is updated) and the MESSENGER story. (The same, I feel, goes with the cobra story, but I suggested it.) Neither of them are so silly that they would diminish the others. Further, they're not the extremely misleading almost-lies that have been in ITN on April Fools' Day before. -- tariqabjotu 23:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest simply placing the MESSENGER item at the top (and leaving it there for the day), accompanied by a suitable image. The Spider-Man item, while less silly than some of the other suggestions, doesn't pertain to an event meeting the section's inclusion standards. —David Levy 23:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd oppose any major changes to main page, as usual. If Wikinews really is defunct to Wikipedia, the last thing you want to do is make your ITN look silly. BarkingFish 23:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit late, but since everyone who doesn't like the idea is bolding their "votes", I strongly support posting an April Fools ITN - if sufficient entries are found for it. But it looks like there are. 4-5 entries might be a bit short but that's no tragedy. (I also agree that serious & non-serious shouldn't be mixed.) 72.14.228.129 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well some of us are ready...Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/In The News#Template, but actually maybe it does looks better that only 4 out of 5 sections on the main page are taking part. It would be silly to unite together. Passionless -Talk 00:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think there's a rough consensus for compromise. Spider-Man is not a decent article, so I'm going to add Friday at the bottom because it's practically at GA-level, and the Messenger blurb at the top, as most people seem to support its inclusion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even see "a rough consensus for compromise." If there is one, it certainly doesn't extend beyond the MESSENGER item. And incidentally, you altered the Friday lyric, thereby spoiling the joke. —David Levy 00:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, would it be possible to "April Fool's" the serious blurbs? I'm not going to do it without consensus, but it's an interesting thought. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's utterly unacceptable. We mustn't make light of serious events. —David Levy 00:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a point there, thanks. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been reverted. The supports at the top of the page (albeit not bolded, it only became a !vote after) and on the April Fool's subpage count for nothing? Interesting. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They were discussions about which of the items to add, there were no arguments on whether to do the thing or not. Cenarium (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. 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. —David Levy 00:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)I don't see how there is no consensus for the Messenger item. Just because there aren't bolded supports does not mean there is no support at the top of this section and on the April Fool's subsection. I counted about 10/5 supports/opposes above... (sorry for the count, but there isn't really a better way to make a quick comparison). @Cenarium, if they are discussing what to do, I certainly think we can assume they support adding an April Fool's blurb... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, I don't have a bolded support anywhere but it certainly should be clear that that's how I feel. I think people are taking this a little too seriously, it's just a day and no one will be fooled into thinking ITN is always like this. RxS (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised that it's a pro-posting admin (Ed) who's doing the !vote-counting to try to post... Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither am I, but then who else would? One who opposes? One who is uninvolved? There are usually too few around for that and most of them have probably left some sort of comment here. --candle•wicke 01:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I'm making an argument here, not sure what your point is. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot assess for consensus determination purposes a vote of support if it doesn't give any argument. The current balance of the MP doesn't allow both the Syria blurb and Messenger blurb to be in. So unless an item is added to DYK or removed from OTD to compensate, we have to choose. Maybe there's a case for Messenger if we can compensate, but otherwise I think Syria remains too important to be removed now. If added I'd rather see Messenger at the bottom though, it's older. Cenarium (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I would contend to Ed that bland supports with the reasoning that "we've always done April Fools" or "it's April Fools, lighten up" are far outweighed in consensus-making and consensus-judging by well-reasoned opposes. This is a case where simply vote-counting is most unacceptable. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the counter-point is "ITN is supposed to be serious" isn't the strongest rationale either, especially when these is precedent and the rest of the main page is on board. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the main page is utilizing content meeting our normal inclusion standards. Apart from the MESSENGER item, none of these do.
And there is more "precedent" for excluding ITN from the endeavor (which we did until 2009). —David Levy 02:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose April Fools' ITN. We've got lots of important serious stuff going on for ITN and with ITN right now. With our move to ITN 3.0, we shouldn't disrupt the good progress we've made by falling into a childish state, even if for just 36 hours. And with all the major stories that are in the news, you don't see the BBC or CNN changing their top headlines wholesale just to accommodate April Fools' day. I am steadfastly opposed to any change to ITN for this day. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, ITN3 has taken a few giant steps backward in the last week or so. In any case, 36 hours won't make any difference. And, of course, we're not a news service (BBC, CNN etc)...RxS (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do explain your first claim. And does it matter that we're not? I'm more than happy to be part of the one section of the MP that maintains a level of decorum and respect for its purpose. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look a this whole page, full of bickering and sniveling. It's a wonder we ever get anything posted, we had a gap of nearly 2 days between posts a couple days ago. I wouldn't call that respect for the purpose. RxS (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[[I've made a comment on ITN3.0 from this which I hope everyone can live with. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to apologise to everyone in advance for bring up the whole concern to light but the original query was in regards to how we should word it if the Japan situation had got worse and I have feelings for the victims of the disaster: however, I didn't expect the Libyan and Ivory Coast events to come to prominence on April Fool's Day. All I can say now that it is a bit too critical to goof off if we suddenly find ourselves with a massive event like Egypt. --Marianian(talk) 01:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be a new massive event like Egypt (unless one suddenly develops). But what exactly is a massive event? Each person is affected differently by different events. The ITN section isn't setting out to ridicule serious events. The OTD section actually seems to be ridiculing the Iranian Revolution at the moment. The change would be for one day, would match the rest of the Main Page and then each of the original events would be restored. Two of the four ITNs currently on the Main Page (Syria and Libya) are even covered by the Middle East and North Africa protests link. --candle•wicke 02:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should drop the whole thing, we don't need any more arguing on this page. RxS (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense. Arguments are the thing needed most on this page. How do we continue if there are no arguments? How would ITNs be chosen? How would consensus be reached? --candle•wicke 04:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why hasn't ITN been updated for April Fools? Every other section of the Main Page is full of fun and amusing content, and it looks really weird without ITN taking part. I haven't seen a single good reason why we shouldn't have a bit of fun for one day of the year. Modest Genius talk 04:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you see a couple admins opposed it, therefore we have to be all serius and lame. NOW GET BACK TO WORK SUGGESTING SERIUS BLURBZ, WHAT DO YOU THINK WE PAY YOU FOR!?! Passionless -Talk 04:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the discussion? —David Levy 04:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions. Which leads me to wonder if there are there any other discussions apart from the two on this page? It's almost like the amount of discussions is... the joke? :) --candle•wicke 04:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 29

March 29, 2011 (2011-03-29) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

[Superseded] Ivory Coast offensive

Article: 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Anti-Laurent Gbagbo rebels launch an offensive in Côte d'Ivoire to seal its border with Liberia. (Post)

Might be no-return point for the country.--78.3.223.193 (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems a significant step, and we haven't posted anything from the Ivory Coast since the election. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Syrian cabinet resigns

Article: 2011 Syrian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Syrian prime minister Muhammad Naji al-Otari and his cabinet resign amid anti-government protests. (Post)
Article updated

Notable development in Syria. (Al Jazeera) --bender235 (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per ITNR. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Not ITN/R, but an announcement by al-Otari is supposed to go on shortly. Wait for that as it may have more or equal significance. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fuse keeps burning away, this is a pretty big deal and for the most part the articles are good. RxS (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per RxS. A significant international event. Nsk92 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Historic new development. ~AH1(TCU) 22:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major news in a country that has rarely saw its government change -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support government resigns, an important event. Passionless -Talk 04:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to the section that's been updated? I can't see it, but that article is huge. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29th March ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That smacks of POV ("lion's share", "authoritarian regime") and sound like it's been copied and pasted from a news site. It also doesn't coherently say that the cabinet resigned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not news any more than the multiple - almost daily changes made in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain etc.; same puppetmaster is still pulling the strings, just the names and faces may have changed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the offending text was fixed, so I posted this. RxS (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Pulled] MESSENGER takes first ever orbital photo of Mercury

Article: MESSENGER (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The MESSENGER spacecraft takes the first ever orbital photo of the planet Mercury. (Post)

A significant scientific event that has received substantial coverage in the newsmedia (e.g. [18], [19], [20], [21], etc). ITN does not get too many science stories, so it'd be nice to have this one covered. Nsk92 (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know there was a MESSENGER story on ITN less than two weeks ago? -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The messenger that we've sent to Mercury sends greetings home. To be posted on April 1st. --Tone 11:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alt1 NASA decodes messages originating from (the vicinity of)(the direction of) Mercury. Passionless -Talk 19:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one :). Is both fresh, funny, and arguably correct. Use "the vicinity of". Thue | talk 22:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt1 for April 1 only. Nergaal (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of José Alencar

Article: José Alencar (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ José Alencar, the former Vice President of Brazil and leading textile manufacturing entrepreneur, dies at the age of 79. (Post)
Article updated
 

José Alencar was a significant figure in Brazil. As a businessman, he turned a backyard business, Coteminas, into a leading textile manufacturer, in association with Springs Industries, and a "Global Challenger" emerging company ([22]). In politics, his nomination on the same ticket as union leader Lula da Silva is viewed as the game-changer that allowed the latter to finally become president in his fourth attempt, reconciling workers and capitalists. The nation commiserated with his protracted, 13-year battle against cancer. Alencar's death swept the country's headlines and was also reported by the most important English-language publishers (FOX News BBC Wall Street Journal CNN) Missionary (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Missionary (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support He was vice president of Brazil for 7 years until just three months ago. Passionless -Talk 04:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Clearly he's notable enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not a head of state or head of government. Significant, but not significant enough for ITN, in my opinion. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is he's also an entrepreneur. I think he meets #2 of the death criteria. Just posting presidents and nobel prize winners isn't covering deaths broadly across all topics, which is the primary reason I haven't dropped the stick below. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I frankly couldn't give a stuff about the death criteria, which is hidden in an obscure page and is not policy (or apparently even a guideline). We have a sticky for recent deaths for deaths of notable people so I'll continue to apply my own views on what should go on the main page. I'd also caution against lawyering the criteria. It says they are criteria that the death "must meet"; it doesn't say that if the criteria are met, the death will be posted. It's explicitly subject to consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, article is a bit short, assuming that he aren't that known. --Kslotte (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mkativerata said: "Not a head of state or head of government. Significant, but not significant enough for ITN, in my opinion". OK. We have recently had the deaths of Geraldine Ferraro and Knut up there, so it clearly doesn't take a head of state (which José de Alencar was, temporarily, for over 500 days) to reach consensus; Kslotte said: "article is a bit short, assuming that he aren't that known". Article is currently bigger than Jaʿār munitions factory explosion and Eduardo Souto de Moura, which have been promoted, so I don't think its size is a major impediment. However, I will include more information. Missionary (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Long-time vice-president and successful entrepreneur. Mostly because of his vice-presidency, of course, which was cut short because of his health. The update is fine. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how his notability is questionable, long time VP of a major nation, and deaths don't need to be unexpected as seen by Geraldine Ferraro and Leslie Nielsen. Passionless -Talk 04:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both good points, Brazil is the 5th most populous country in the world. And this whole unexpected death thing isn't supported by practice here. RxS (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional oppose based on the state of the article. The subject matter would be appropriate for ITN, in my opinion, but the article is barely above stub level, and does not showcase anything I would wish to be on the main page of Wikipedia. If someone could do some massive expansion on it real quick, and make it a decent article, I could support including it. But right now, this article isn't something we should be proud to put on the main page. --Jayron32 04:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry for the delay everyone, I pledged to improve the article and was almost finished writing an introduction when power went off in my block, and didn't come back before I ahd to leave. Luckily Firefox recovered the content because I always save my open tabs. Now that the intro paragraphs are improved, I'll try to furnish more content on his political career. Missionary (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC) 06:23 update: Just expanded the article some more. Note that this is still a relevant ongoing event, since Brazil is in the "state of mourning".[reply]
  • Changing vote to support. The article isn't great, but it has improved somewhat since I last saw it, and as long as we continue to improve it, it seems OK to put it up. --Jayron32 13:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 19:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 28

March 28, 2011 (2011-03-28) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Sport

Death of Paul Baran

Article: Paul Baran (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Paul Baran the inventor of packet switching dies. (Post)
Article updated

The Polish-born U.S. scientist who invented packet switching and predicted in 1966 "by the year 2000 that people would be using online networks for shopping and news" - BBC. "The chances are you've never heard of him, but without his pioneering work in the 1960s, you wouldn't be reading this web page, because there wouldn't be a web for you to read it on" - TIME. --candle•wicke 06:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was regretting my support for the superglue guy and opposing as we seem to be posting a lot of deaths, however packet switching is a very key internet technologies beyond the invention of the web. I think beyond the world wide web it is the key internet technology as it lets you send information from one computer to another in a distributed way, and without having to control the whole cable between you for the whole time as you did with analogue telephones. This also makes telephone calls much cheaper as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Just like Harry Coover below, he may have changed the world but he is not famous, though my own thought does make me question if ITN is biased towards famous people's deaths and if this is acceptable or not...if nobodies like Paris Hilton or Donald Trump died would they be posted over Paul Baran? Passionless -Talk 07:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a seriously important invention, much more so than superglue, without it you wouldn't have the internet, or SMS, or cheap mobile/land line calls. There wouldn't be a billion mobiles a year sold without packet switching as the call costs would be too high. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A one-time opportunity to highlight an extremely important achievement. μηδείς (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a subject that sees much light here, it's the internet's version of inventing the wheel. RxS (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've updated the article. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The proposer's quote says it all: "The chances are you've never heard of him". It is possible, not even unusual, that an idea is more important, and more famed, than its inventor/developer. Gratitude is not the same as newsworthiness. Kevin McE (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not having heard of someone isn't a reason to exclude an item. RxS (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no list of acceptable reasons to oppose. However, having a very low public profile scarcely disposes the announcement of one's death to demand a high profile in the news. It was not my comment as to whether I had heard of him: I was quoting the OP's assumption that very few people would have. Kevin McE (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's rare I oppose an item, but I feel so strongly about this one that aside from just refusing to put it up, I'm going to oppose this as well. Baran is as non-famous as Coover. I'm sure the only reason this is getting support is because his invention is more technological. His death is simply not notable enough. "Recent deaths" is where this belongs. -- tariqabjotu 18:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that its vastly more significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but this isn't a proposal to post the invention of packet-switching; it's about posting the death of the inventor of packet-switching. The former is very notable; the latter is not. -- tariqabjotu 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While this guy may not be a celebrity, his invention is hugely significant. His invention is absolutely essential for the internet and the mobile phone to exist. Its certainly key in the internet and its key for the mobile phone and the cheap and easy way it allows people to communicate. Both the mobile phone and the internet are in the top 10 most important technologies of the 20th century, and both of them have had an absolutely enormous impact on the way people live - they are as big as the car. I honestly cannot think of many people whose discovery is key in two different and extremely important inventions. I was reading an article that more than twice as many people in South East Asia and the Middle East will have smartphones by 2015 than will have electricity - that may be a bold claim, but it shows how important this technology is.
Compared to the inventor of superglue Baran is vastly more important, although superglue is pretty cool, it isn't the biggest invention in the category (the biro and sellotape are more important) and it isn't used by anywhere near as many people on a daily basis. Its also been really rather easy to find obituaries from multiple sources including the BBC, Wired, the New York Times and the LA Times with enough content to write a good section on his death.
The claim that he's only getting attention because its "technological" is completely nonsensical, other than space we only post technology stories extremely rarely, and I cannot think of the last time we posted one.
You could argue that he needs to be a celebrity to be posted, but actually the number of celebrities in the technology space is extremely low: Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Jonothan Ives, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg and Jerry Yang is a pretty much complete list, only posting their deaths would be a great dis-service to an extremely important and transformative industry that has hugely changed the lives of most of the world's population. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, as I said, no. -- tariqabjotu 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're just following an arbitrary ticklist, rather that looking at the impact the individual in question actually had. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said in the comment preceding your manifesto that I understand the invention is very significant. It's the person and his death that are not (at least to the degree that it's suitable for ITN). You have done nothing to even attempt to refute that, and considering notability is a matter of opinion anyway, I doubt you'd be able to succeed at doing so. So, as I said, no. -- tariqabjotu 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Baran was extremely important in the context of technological development, and I don't agree that they have to be celebrities for us to post. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with tariqabjotu. This is not a significant death. This is recent deaths material, for which we have a sticky. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets go through the death criteria:
    • 1) The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power, and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region.
    • 2) The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such.
    • 3) The death has a major international impact that affects current events. The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets the third criterion.
      • From that its pretty obvious that 1b) is met, and I don't really see how you can argue that 2) isn't met as well - the world's press has covered his death, and its quite clear that his contributions to technology make him a very important figure in his area of expertise. Additionally as Wired pointed out back in 2001 he has won a string of prestigious awards. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no criterion 1b: that is an and, not an or, after the word power. And in terms of criterion 2, looking at his list of awards (2009 UCLA Engineering Alumnus of the Year, National Medal of Technology and Innovation, Bower Award and Prize for Achievement in Science, IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal) they do not suggest that his peers particularly placed him at the top of the tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 March 2011
Personally, I'm getting a little bored with Eraserhead1's apparent ownership of this page. Eraserhead, if someone disagrees with you, they disagree with you. Just let it go. 87.113.230.62 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the National Medal of Technology is the US' highest award for scientists. As for the IP, commenting frequently is nowhere close to owning the page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting frequently in this case as I strongly feel that the other side of the discussion is incorrect, if they have a strong case I have no issue with them making it as well.
With regards to prizes what prizes could he win that would be more notable? I don't see how he could possibly win a nobel prize as he's not in the right area. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, taking into consideration his awards and honors. --Kslotte (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Yemen explosion

Article: 2011 Ja`ar munitions factory explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An ammunitions factory explosion in Yemen kills 121 people (Post)
Article updated
  • An ammunitions factory explosion in Southern Yemen caused by a lit cigarette kills at least 121 people. [23] [24]

~AH1(TCU) 18:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

121? Likely support if an adequate article is created. Nergaal (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Nergaal --Shrike (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article created. See 2011 Ja`ar munitions factory explosion. ~AH1(TCU) 01:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support 121 dead is notable enough for ITN, marking [Ready] as the article looks good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to the high death toll. --candle•wicke 07:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Eduardo Souto de Moura Wins 2011 Pritzker Architecture Prize

Article: Eduardo Souto de Moura (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Eduardo Souto de Moura is awarded the 2011 Pritzker Architecture Prize. (Post)
Article updated

Portuguese architect Eduardo Souto de Moura, who has designed soccer stadiums, museums and office towers in his home country and abroad, is the winner of the 2011 Pritzker Architecture Prize, the highest honor for architects (widely regarded as the equivalent to the "Nobel Prize" in Architecture). Ref. 1 (Bloomberg) Ref. 2 (New York Times). Zdtrlik (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per ITNR, but the article needs improvement first. Passionless -Talk 18:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support and will try to make some changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support looking through Pritzker Architecture Prize a lot of interesting building have won the prize, including the obvious greats like the Sydney Opera House. It does appear to be the nobel prize of architecture. Additionally Pritzker Architecture prize is an FA, and while it won't be the bold link I how we can like it from the main page. The article does need improvement however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minor, but significant correction - Pritzker Prize is a featured list, not article, but hopefully will be updated, along with the winner's article, shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, de Moura's page has been updated, I think also that Pritzker Prize is ready to roll too. So let's post. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking [Ready]. Of note I would rather put Pritzker Architecture Prize in the blurb as I hadn't heard of the prize before today. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amended blurb, hopefully to suit all-comers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even better :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the official name has changed recently! Blurb re-up-dated, page moved... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North pole ozone hole

Article
Ozone depletion

An ozone hole at the north pole [25]. Predicted to cover parts of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe on 30-31 March [26]. Nergaal (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support ozone holes are a big deal and usually they've been in the south so far. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significant environmental and meteorlogical news story. ~AH1(TCU) 18:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important story--Shrike (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is at present hypothetical – the cited National Geographic article itself says "It's too early to call, but stay tuned." The second cited article says "the thinning parts of the ozone layer could turn into an "ozone hole." In other words, an ozone hole might develop, but the evidence is not there at present. 87.113.230.62 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Any "prediction" should never be rushed. If this happens, there will be repercussions, and a proper conclusion can be made. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see just a prediction now. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 23:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Add when it is more than a prediction. --bender235 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - for now it is only a prediction, which is not yet widely accepted. Nsk92 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UN hands over control of East Timor security

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

This might be worth a look. The UN has handed over control of security to the National Police of East Timor (PNTL) (the United Nations Integrated Mission in East Timor, UNMIT, was previously in charge since the 2006 East Timorese crisis). UNMIT will remain active in a support and training role until 2012 (UN, BBC). Article to focus on would be either the UNMIT or PNTL ones which are in need of an update - Dumelow (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a significant drawdown of troops or something? Otherwise, it sounds like it's more of a formality than anything else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That BBC story is short and the UN press release makes it sound like this has long been scheduled. I don't see the international interest.--Chaser (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if Kosovo was instead of East Timor, everybody would have voted already. Nergaal (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because in that case there was more international coverage reflecting greater international interest. There's barely anything on this [28].--Chaser (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As David Levy always -- or at least, always seems to be the one -- points out, "international interest" is not and has never been a criterion for posting. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because US was the one who decided to make Kosovo independent, does not make Kosovo any more notable than East Timor or any other small state formed as a result of ethnic clashes. Nergaal (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a UN mission ending after this sort of length of time in any country really is worthy enough to post - as its essentially the end of an extended state of emergency, thus Support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Pulled] Harry Coover Inventor of Super Glue Dies

Article: Harry Coover (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
 

Harry Coover inventor of Super Glue dies at age 94. Its hard to imagine a world with out a basic product like super glue. Coover's Article and National Medal of Technology and Innovation are in pretty good shape and Super Glue is being tidied now but also is in reasonable shape. I got White House PD image I am uploading shortly we use with it. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 03:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... I for one can't recall ever using super glue myself. But that's just me. :) Grandmasterka 04:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is probably worthy of posting, in terms of stationary I'd say Sellotape, Tip Ex and the Biro were more important, but superglue does stick anything, and you don't have to mix it together with other things - its a vastly better glue than any other I've ever used - even now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Pretty popular and of course effective glue. I use it myself at least once a month for one thing or another. I am sure we have all used one brand of it at one time.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose there are 1000s of simple items which the world wouldnt be able to live without... all invented by someone. also death at 94 should be expected. we really should not post death of every famous person. -- Ashish-g55 11:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think age at the time of death has any relevence at all to the notablity of an individual. --Dorsal Axe 15:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes it does! an early unexpected death definitely increases notability for ITN. its a very relevant thing if a famous person dies at 94 when humans tend to die anyways vs. dying of a car accident in their 40s. -- Ashish-g55 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far from important enough for ITN; recent deaths is much more suitable for him. Passionless -Talk 18:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 27

March 27, 2011 (2011-03-27) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

Tsumami Warning Issued after 6.5 Earthquake

I dont know If this is a false alarm or another serious incident yet. Lets watch and Prepare to post if this hits CBC The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 23:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It Seems 0.5 Meter wave has occurred it seems to be a non-event The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 23:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't rely on CBC for anything related to earthquakes for another month... they've been over-reporting earthquakes ever since the 9.0 earthquake, most of which were not out of the ordinary whatsoever. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 UCI Track Cycling World Championships

World Championship in a whole family of Olympic sports: 41 nations competing, competitors from 5 continents have won gold medals. Kevin McE (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Exactly like the boat race. Its annual not notable event.--Shrike (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please go and read what ITN is. We post a great many annual events. That's why we have WP:ITN/R for a start. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I got it thanks.Anyhow it stated that only Tour de France is notable enough so I still think its unimportant--Shrike (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Tour de France is about as similar to this as football is to rugby. Kevin McE (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which football? American? Canadian? Gaelic? Australian? HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so are you saying football and rugby are dissimilar or football and rugby are similar? -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know it hasn't concluded but hte article currently has two sentences and one reference, so it certainly isn't ready yet. The 2010 event doesn't have a better article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A lot bigger than the boat race, which is obviously restricted to fewer than 20 people from only two institutions. This involves 41 nations and is open to all countries. Big event. HiLo48 (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I definitely mean a lot bigger, probably in every way except the claimed number of countries to which it is broadcast. Such claims are usually pretty pointless, and clearly don't indicate interested audience. HiLo48 (talk)
Okay, well in any case, oppose as a poor article, a minor sports championship (which even Great Britain do well in but gets just a passing mention in sports reports). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can the World Championship of an Olympic sport, in fact, several olympic events) be a "minor" championship: Close parallels to the alpine skiing last weekend, which was posted. Kevin McE (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No-one said ITN was consistent. I imagine this will get bum-rushed because of "regional bias" in any case. My main gripe is with the quality of the article we'd be linking. It's rubbish. It is a minor sport (arguing Olympics is odd, see beach volleyball, Greco-Roman wrestling, trampolining) in the big scheme of things, but the article is weak... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great Britain does well in the boat race. HiLo48 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of the participants are from outside of GB. That's part of the global appeal. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the article is just a list of medalists. --Tone 16:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if and only if the article is updated to include more prose, the point about alpine skiing is legitimate and a large number of countries participated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 26

March 26, 2011 (2011-03-26) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

2011 Estonian cyclists abduction

Article: 2011 Estonian cyclists abduction (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The search continues for seven Estonian cyclists abducted in Lebanon on 23 March.[29] (Post)

—Biosketch (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this can be considered when they are found. --Tone 16:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would changing the blurb to something like "Lebanon intensifies search for seven Estonian cyclists abducted on 23 March" perhaps make the story more current? Then, conceivably, it wouldn't be about the abduction itself, which admittedly is not new news, but about the intensified search efforts, which are newer. E.g. this article from 26 March: Lebanese troops intensify search for Estonian cyclists kidnapped in Bekaa Valley.—Biosketch (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think later news articles are enough. Sorry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll know for next time. Thanks for the reply.—Biosketch (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boat Race

The 157th Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race is taking place right now. [30] - JuneGloom Talk 17:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford have won the race. - JuneGloom Talk 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose is this really notable enough for the front page? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is broadcast to 200 countries and 292 million households. Perhaps not as notable as a US politician dying after suffering from cancer for many years, but significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Switching to neutral as I'm ambivalent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha  狐 FOX  17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, really just the BBC that care about this...  狐 FOX  17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of funny considering we have a "Canada" item on the main page which, clearly, only Canada cares about! To be fair, the race is broadcast to hundreds of millions, but it is a niche event, albeit of minor worldwide interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Geraldine Ferraro

Article: Geraldine Ferraro (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Geraldine Ferraro the first female major party US vice presidential candidate dies (Post)
Article updated

Well known US politician. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest there is always someone who did it first in some specific way. Thats a lot of deaths on ITN. but i will stay neutral as i dont want some anti-american misconception to start. -- Ashish-g55 20:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is the lead story of the New York Times' US edition. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article has been updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Never held high elective office; has been out of public life for some time; death has little to no impact on current events; worldwide media coverage is not overwhelming. If wikipedia had existed for the last 30 years, she would never have done anything to make it onto ITN, which suggests that she shouldn't in her death. The fact that the article is a GA helps but in my view that shouldn't overcome the need to avoid an ITN post every single time a famous person dies. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This story is certainly more important than baby polar bears or the banning of cricketers though. NW (Talk) 21:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Polar bear, perhaps, cricket, I doubt it. Cricket affects hundreds of millions of people. The death of a US politician who never made the office she was suddenly nominated for 30 years ago doesn't, and isn't ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • kinda getting tired of people comparing deaths to polar bear for inclusion. we dont post animal deaths everyday and the topic at the time of posting had consensus. just because that got posted we can not post every death afterwards since clearly the next one is more important. -- Ashish-g55 21:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, because there must be thousands of these first woman/ethnic minority/insert discriminated-against group of your choice to be nominated for something important and if we posted all their deaths, we'd have nothing else on ITN. If she had actually been the first female VP, I'd probably support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have an interesting recent parallel, in another failed vice-presidential candidate who died this year, Sargent Shriver. His death was posted, but more on the basis of the foundation of the Peace Corps: indeed, his candidature was not mentioned in ITN/C. Lloyd Bentsen and Thomas Eagleton have also died during the lifespan of the ITN feature, and these deaths were not even proposed. ITN has no policy of positive discrimination: Ferraro should not be posted simply because she had more X chromosomes than other unsuccessful candidates. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I'm sure that Thomas Eagleton's death was mentioned on the first page of March 5's New York Times. If Ferraro isn't on A1 of either The Times or the WaPo, I'll eat my figurative hat. NW (Talk) 23:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support major figure in U.S. politics, important for trailblazing status in the face of the wide expanse of history of gender discrimination. It isn't merely the number of X-chromosomes she has, its that the presense of the extra X-chromosome was considered highly significant by the thousands of years when women were considered inferior to men. Men made the extra X-chromosome significant by using it as a means to discriminate against women for all that time. --Jayron32 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per The Rambling Man. The deaths of U.S. political figures are not lacking in their presence in the ITN section. Are candidates for vice positions now to be included as well? I would understand if it was Bill Clinton or George W. Bush or Barack Obama or any of the other presidents of that country if they're still alive (or even Hillary Rodham Clinton if there must be a woman) but this person doesn't seem to be as significant despite the sadness that has no doubt been caused by her death. --candle•wicke 01:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ferraro's candidacy was a major event in terms of women in public life in America. To this day, she remains the only woman on a major-party presidential ticket. And it's a quality article, which is the whole point of ITN. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. She may have been important in the context of U.S. political history, but she made not much impression on the global public. __meco (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    International interest no longer is an inclusion criterion. Global interest never was. —David Levy 03:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support at least as significant as Knut the Polar Bear. WhiteKongMan (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The section is not a news ticker. Its purpose is not to report the biggest news stories; it's to link to high-quality articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent/current events of significant interest to the encyclopedia's readers. In this instance, a good article has been updated to include statements by prominent politicians from both major U.S. parties (Barack Obama, Walter Mondale, George H. W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and the pair of Bill and Hillary Clinton).
    Geraldine Ferraro's candidacy failed, but it will forever remain a landmark in American politics (and one for which we offer a highly informative article, of potential interest to Americans and those who avail themselves of non-domestic political history).
    I happen to be American, but I can honestly state that I would support the inclusion of an item about the death of any politician responsible for a comparable milestone in his/her country (i.e. the first woman or minority nominated as a major party's candidate for an equivalent office), provided that the requisite article update occurred.
    As an encyclopedia, we cover subjects that aren't familiar to everyone. Geraldine Ferraro might not be a household name around the world, but she clearly accomplished something very important and made a lasting impact. It's unfortunate that this nomination is being shot down because it fails an arbitrary checklist that we appeared to be moving beyond. —David Levy 03:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if I hadn't made it clear already (David Levy says it well). NW (Talk) 04:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose I should supply a rationale, given the number of opposers. The number of support/opposes is close, but David Levy gives one of the strongest supports I have seen in a long while, one that combats most of the opposers. This, in my view, swung consensus enough to post. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This isn't Today's featured article, this is ITN where the most important items in the news are posted. This woman was a candidate for a significant position, so what, thousands of people who were candidates for high governmental positions die around the world every year. That article was posted due to american and liberal biases, no one outside of America cares, and I doubt that much of the American population really cares either. Passionless -Talk 05:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my above note. In particular, I address the mistaken impression that the section is "where the most important items in the news are posted" and explain the item's value to the encyclopedia's readers. I also express my perpetual support for comparable items pertaining to the deaths of politicians from other countries (which also extends to all social and political ideologies), so your accusation of "American and liberal biases" is disheartening.
    I supported the oft-mentioned item about the death of Knut (a zoo animal from a continent on which I've never set foot). But I don't cite that as an example of a lesser item; I cite it as an example of our recent progress toward fulfilling the section's intended purpose. Instead of trying to be Wikinews II, let's continue on the right track. —David Levy 05:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read your post first, but I still agree with HJ Mitchell's above comment that ther "must be thousands of these first woman/ethnic minority/insert discriminated-against group of your choice to be nominated for something important and if we posted all their deaths, we'd have nothing else on ITN." And as for Knut, well he already ahd international attention before his death and I believed he was the most famous animal of his time, up there with Laika, or Koko (gorilla). Anyways I just fear ITN will be taken over by this article because of the number of similar people in various nations, also I do believe that people use Wikipedia's coverage of current events a lot, even though it is suppose to be wikinews' job to update people on the news. Really if you wanted to know about the earthquake/nuclear problems in Japan, wikipedia was the best source during the events and ITN is there to link to our coverage of big news stories. Passionless -Talk 05:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I respect HJ Mitchell a great deal, but the quoted statement is an exaggeration. The number of politicians to accomplish a comparable achievement is inherently small, the number to die in given time frame is far smaller, and the number of such deaths resulting in substantial English Wikipedia article updates is smaller still. (This raises the matter of systemic bias, a genuine problem that cannot be solved by excluding the available material.)
    2. As noted above, "international attention" isn't an inclusion criterion. Knut was known to many people, but the fact that they happened to be spread out (instead of concentrated in a particular country) didn't increase the item's value to our readers.
    3. There is no dispute that many people rely upon Wikipedia's coverage of current/recent events. But no, the section is not "there to link to our coverage of big news stories." It's there to link to high-quality articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent/current events of significant interest to our readers. Some of these articles will pertain to "the most important items in the news," but this isn't the section's purpose (because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news website). —David Levy 06:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Let's think about this. HJ's thought is a mischaracterization. Ferraro didn't represent one of the plethora of ethnic minorities in a minor third-world country, she was the first woman (that other ~50% of the world's population) to be a major candidate in a country that provides 50% of our readers and has been the world's strongest for the last 60 to 65 years. Also, if you want "big news" stories, check out the front page of the New York Times tomorrow – an article on this will certainly be there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Huh, guess I just disagree with what the purpose of ITN is, though I'm still quite new to ITN, so I still have more to learn about it. Passionless -Talk 06:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think recent 'firsts' in politics recently have numbed us as to the significance of Ferraro. I can't speak for other countries, but inclusionary politics has become quite the norm in the US over the years and as a result we're getting loads of 'first Republican Native American governor, first openly gay mayor of..., first Latino SC justice, and of course, the first black US president. Some of these 'firsts' are more significant than others. But Ferraro's nomination came at a time when all of this was much less common, and US politics was much more dominated by white males. And her nomination did have a lasting impact, as th reactions in the article indicate, of providing opportunities for women politicians in the US later on.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belated oppose. I am in agreement with many users who posted opposing views above, and am shocked at the fact that this has been posted despite such a large amount of opposition. For that reason alone it should be taken off. Colipon+(Talk) 20:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly as someone fairly neutral in this particular discussion (as I've switched sides from support to oppose) David Levy's argument is better than the opposes. The opposes are persuasive too, but they are less persuasive and he refutes a lot of the arguments made by the opposers. Wikipedia is not decided on a vote, but is decided on consensus.
    And actually as most people don't wish to lose face (or they may simply not read the discussion again after leaving their two cents) people generally don't change their minds explicitly after they've laid out a concrete position. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This was posted without consensus, by a US editor based on the opinion of US editors. Systemic bias is clear. Please remember that we are English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't make anti-American "systematic bias' comments, its not even remotely true and its totally counter-productive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no consensus, can you show me it? I see exactly what I said. Sorry if it's painful to accept that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Levy attacked the ITN criteria as a 'random checklist' yet he goes on to attempt establishing Ferraro's notability with his own criteria. To me, his strongest point was to say that posting Ferraro is about the article and not necessarily the subject; i.e., since the article is worth showcasing, so long as we have some kind of nominal notability, we should post it. But the crux of the issue is this: does article quality always trump notability? This issue comes up repetitively on ITN and we do not have a consistent policy to deal with it. Do we, for instance, post all articles of sufficient quality and that have been of recent news interest? If Charlie Sheen was a Good Article or Featured Article, do we post his dismissal from Two and a Half Men? Because it seems the consensus in that situation was a no basically because Wikipedia has tried to avoid overtly 'popular culture' items. I'm not sure what makes the Geraldine Ferraro case any different based on that comparison alone. Colipon+(Talk) 21:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The two (quality and notability) go hand in hand but the point recently is to ease off on the unnecessarily high notability standards while making sure the article standards don't slip resulting in more postings. We don't post all all articles of sufficient quality but not because of any policy. I'd like to see people start proposing more topics rather than complain about postings they don't agree with. If you don't agree with a certain post, jump in a nominate a couple. RxS (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Given we have made a lot of progress (as I've spelt out here in a lot of detail) I don't think comparing to what we did before is necessarily reasonable. And actually while we may not have posted popular culture items, we also didn't post business stories, or many science/infrastructure stories and the overall total inconsistency was one of the primary issues MickMacNee bought up about ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I struck my hissy fit, but what's missing here is consistency I'm afraid. I don't know how it can be achieved but why (and how) this article was posted, is clearly a mystery to several contributors. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if quality of article is a driving factor, should I nominate "Girl wins Oxfordshire World Pooh Sticks Championships" as our Poohsticks article is currently a GA...?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was easing off the unnecessarily high notability standards, not dropping them completely. RxS (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Unlike this story that story hasn't made the equivalent to the front page of the New York Times. It has merely been covered as part of the BBC's local coverage for Oxfordshire - and looking at the list of winners most of them appear to come from Oxfordshire so you can't even claim national importance for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not "attack" the inclusion criteria, nor did I use the quoted phrase "random checklist." I used the phrase "arbitrary checklist" to refer to the unofficial standards that some editors impose (e.g. a successful candidacy, unexpected circumstances, international fame).
    Geraldine Ferraro "was a very important figure in [her] field of expertise" (an actual criterion), despite failing a checklist that might appear to suggest otherwise. I realize that persons from outside the United States might not appreciate her impact, which is why I attempted to convey it. I have not suggested that an article's high quality can compensate for its subject's insignificance. But a subject can be highly significant without this being obvious to everyone around the world.
    In the past, I've supported the inclusion of items about subjects from other countries whose significance was unknown/unclear to me. I've done so based on similar explanations from Wikipedians residing in those countries, whose assessments I respect and trust. And I've plainly stated above that I'll support the inclusion of items pertaining to the deaths of politicians with comparable achievements in other countries (provided that the requisite article updates occur). So I resent the accusations of American bias, which invariably arise in these cases. I'm more than willing to accept the fact that someone or something can be noteworthy despite not affecting me personally, and I only ask for the same in return. Comparisons between Geraldine Ferraro's death and Charlie Sheen's scandal truly stun me. —David Levy 21:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This item did not have clear consensus (as seen above). whether in favor of posting or not i will not debate. but i think the posting was way too quick. when the consensus is not clear next time if the admin can atleast give a little bit warning that it will be posted then that would be great. All you have to do is go "posting soon"... and if opposition wants to argue more then they have a chance. nothing (in most cases) can be done once item is posted and this one needed a bit more of a warning IMO. -- Ashish-g55 21:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN may not be a news ticker, but we do need to post stuff in a timely manner as otherwise we aren't covering events that are in the news currently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is based on the strength of an argument, not a simple vote. WhiteKongMan (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes... whats you point? i did not say count them like votes to form consensus. i said consensus wasnt clear and a warning before abruptly posting may have been better. -- Ashish-g55 01:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that the arguments for are stronger than the arguments against, and thus a consensus to post can be derived despite visible opposition. Determining consensus is an art, not a science, I guess. Perhaps it was an a abrupt decision to post but I must agree that David Levy's argument was thoroughly persuasive.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] TUC Anti-cuts protests in London

Article: 2011 anti-cuts protest in London (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A protest in London against government spending cuts draws 250,000 people, making it the largest protest in Britain since protests against the Iraq War. (Post)
Article updated

Protests over UK governmental cuts are taking place today in London - up to 400 thousand people are attending Telegraph, MSNBC. Reuters/MSNBC are saying up to 250 000 people are attending so I've gone for that in the blurb. There doesn't yet appear to be an article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment article has appeared but categorised as a "riot" and "anarchism", which I'm not sure about at all. Yes, it's a significant number of people, including a "speech" from the leader of the opposition Ed Milliband, but neutral at the moment until the article is improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So how is this protest not significant? Its the biggest UK protest since the Iraq war protests. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see it's just been changed to TUC Anti-cuts protests in London. How is that better? What's a TUC? What cuts? By whom? Boy, we really need better, more globally oriented headline writers here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As backed up in the article the Metropolitan Police, BBC and New York Times have both publicly stated the 250k figure, and the Guardian and Telegraph have both stated the higher 400k figure in their reports. Therefore marking [Ready] due to supports above and the fact that "too local" is a very weak argument given the worldwide high-profile coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, despite it having two opposes and just three supports (including the nominator), it's now "ready" for main page? Wow. And I worried about Featured lists on the mainpage without a week of updates... And I'm also not comfortable with a nominator proposing that his own nomination is "ready" for main page, that should be down to someone else.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of the three opposes one is clearly very weak saying ITN is not PITN, and the other two claim it is "too local" which given the worldwide media coverage and high turnout mean they are both very weak arguments. I do accept that as nominator it was inappropriate to mark as [Ready] so I apologise for that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: the scale of this protest surely warrants its inclusion.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Query: Did we post the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear? Because that had basically the same number of people in the end: 215k. NW (Talk) 23:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We didn't and it wasn't nominated, but I wish we had posted it. We are currently posting a lot more stuff than we were when the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear was on the front pages. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article has come a long way, the turnout seems to be very high (well over 6 figures). RxS (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked this ready for posting. I think there's a consensus to post, especially since we do have global coverage nullifying the "too local" claims and have multiple RS backing up the supposed size of the protests, which was the other concern. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belated support per Eraserhead1's use of multiple international front page sources and the biggest such event in that country since the Iraq War plus HJ Mitchell's point about the six-figure numbers which seem to be used by at least two different sources (The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph). --candle•wicke 01:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support London is a major world hub, and although these numbers aren't overwhelming, I think we could afford this event a spot as part of the continuing protests against the austerity measures in the UK. The article also is in a decent state and worthy of highlighting. __meco (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we did post the wisconsin ones after all. WhiteKongMan (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed a new blurb at the top; as follows: A protestin London against government spending cuts draws 250,000 people, making it the largest protest in the United Kingdom since protests against the Iraq War. This not only simply states the attendance but the significance of the attendance. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 09:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a minor change to the blurb to use 'Britain' rather that 'the United Kingdom' as otherwise its getting a little long. I see you've found the ANI thread as well - I prefer your blurb FWIW. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Pre-Clovis peoples

Article: Clovis culture (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A team of anthropologists have confirmed settlement of the Americas 3500 years earlier than previously thought. (Post)

This is one of those discoveries that causes Textbooks to be written boys and girls. Team of Paleo-Anthropologists has confirmed settlement of the Americas 3500 years ealier than previously thought. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 02:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Could probably do with more support just to make sure, but a blurb would be nice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted, in light of the lack of opposition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This is inappropriate because evidence for Pre-Clovis peoples in the Americas has been around for decades (some of it was later discredited). The idea that there was a Pre-Clovis culture(s) is not new, the evidence for it is not accepted by everyone in the field, and only the accumulation of a lot of evidence followed by a lot of discussion and debate will lead to general acceptance that the evidence is valid. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

March 25, 2011 (2011-03-25) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Sport

[Posted] 2011 Syrian protests

Article: 2011 Syrian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Security forces open fire on protesters in Syria, killing at least 24. (Post)

This was the largest demonstration in Syria so far. We might want to omit the number killed, since most articles don't give a number; the 24 killed claim comes from [32]. Thue | talk 18:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 41st Canadian federal election

Article: 41st Canadian federal election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Conservative minority government of Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper falls to a vote of non-confidence by the opposition, forcing an election. (Post)
  • Comment'. What's the deal with 'major' elections now? I know we post the results of any election that occurs anywhere, but for major countries (which I can agree, Canada is) what are we doing? Posting the announcements, official result and then permanent outcome? Bearing in mind it's normally months between the first two for any state, and for the many which employ some form of de-facto permanent coalition because no party can ever 'win', it can be a month for the second period too. So, what is it now? First and last, last only, or all three? Anyway, I'm sure it doesn't matter either way, I haven't 'voted' so I'm assuming this comment will be completely ignored. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could put forward a non-confidence motion, on this 'major elections' trend. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious support this will be the fourth election since 2000 if I recall correctly. I have a suggestion, however: it is likely today that Harper's government will be found in contempt of Parliament. I believe we shoudl mention that in the blurb as it will be the first time in the history of the Commonwealth that this will happen. --PlasmaTwa2 16:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posting now and wait for results per established precedent. Obvious ITNR post once the election takes place, there's nothing that screams out at me as needing to post now. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 16:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this federal election is being forced by a historical non-confidence motion. Never before, has a Canadian government been defeated on a contempt for parliament non-confidence vote. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Canadian government failed no-confidence motion and found in contempt by parliament. Passionless -Talk 19:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose current wording, an election is not official until a writ of election is issued by the Governor General. I would suggest the following:
Support per the portugal posting, but without the election as the main link (or mention at all). Again we didnt do that for Portugal. list stephen harper as the main article.Lihaas (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should make the news the fact the Canadian government was found in contempt? --PlasmaTwa2 18:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i digress, the fall of the government is more important than the reason/. those internatial politics are better for the page itself. Its also then a damn long blurb ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update the vote of no confidence just passed. All that remains is now Harper must go to GG Johnson and ask for him to call an election. We should wait for that. --PlasmaTwa2 18:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Next couple of days you think? if so we can even wait.Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not post now without election bit, than update it once the election is called? Passionless -Talk 23:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
definate oppose for inclusion of election page Both per precedence with Portugal and per the page itself which mentions nothing of any date fixed, nor is it a 2011 election yet. see this Talk:41st_Canadian_federal_election#Moving_to_.222011_Canadian_federal_election.22.
With another blurb i would change to "obvious support"
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government falls after it failed a vote of non-confidence.Lihaas (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting, without mentioning the election, as suggested above. --Tone 11:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The contempt motion is the first to defeat a government in the entire Commonwealth of Nations. The election is set for May 2. ~AH1(TCU) 14:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above by Tariqabjotu, that article has barely been updated beyond what's stated in the blurb. As the election is now officially scheduled, I'm editing the item accordingly. —David Levy 14:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 24

March 24, 2011 (2011-03-24) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Google Books

Article: Google Books (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A US judge blocks an agreement between Google and publishers about efforts to digitize books online at Google Books. (Post)
  • A US judge blocks an agreement between Google and publishers about efforts to digitize books online at Google Books. (BBC)

--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nah thought about it and all they have blocked is google's 125 million offer. google will offer something else if this doesnt work out. there is no way they will just let their 15 million scanned books go to waste. -- Ashish-g55 00:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support an interesting technology/legal story and we don't post many of them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any more comments? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is the impact of this? Does this mean Google cannot add any new books to Google Books, or does it have to close down? SpencerT♦C 04:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important development item within its segment of technological / cybernetic news topics. __meco (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Gneiting

Becomes the heaviest man to finish a marathon at over 400 lb. [33][34]. Nergaal (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose-I don't think world records are ITN material, unless they are really important such as new world's fastest computer. Passionless -Talk 23:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just another one of those "human interest" stories. The only world record we should be posting is the greatest distance travelled by a ferret on a train! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per HJ Mitchell. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Convince me that it's a record. I finished a marathon once. I wasn't weighed. HiLo48 (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] NATO takes over Libya no-fly zone

Article: 2011 military intervention in Libya (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ NATO takes over command of the no-fly zone in Libya. (Post)
Article updated

Major news. Its been updated with couple lines but obviously too early to have huge update. -- Ashish-g55 22:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Major news"? NATO (dominated by the US) takes over the command and control of the no-fly zone, previously commanded by....the US. I think I missed what the major news is? This is just one bit of news in this crisis, no more significant than the other things coming out daily. The beginning of the arms embargo and designation of the state oil company are ones I can think of that I heard about just today. If people want it on the Main Page again and this is the level of 'major news' to do that, then just do a sticky. These interminable repost discussions really are a waste of time. MickMacNee (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I kinda agree with MMN, where is the news here? The no-fly zone goes from being three NATO nations to NATO, so what? Maybe, post a sticky on the invasion of Libya? Passionless -Talk 01:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article and an unusual real military action by NATO. RxS (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --Tone 09:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2011 Burma earthquake

Article: 2011 Burma earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A magnitude 6.8 earthquake hits northeastern Myanmar, killing at least 60 people. (Post)
Article updated

Another drama. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the BBC puts it - ""The area where the quakes struck is sparsely populated and remote." The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I first attempted to remove this item as yet another incomplete nomination from this user - offering yet again a 1 line stub article with absolutely no indication either in the article or here why it would have a hope in hell of going on the Main Page, and infact not even an explanation at all why the nomination was even made - this this is totally contrary to the very clear instructions for this page. My removal has been reverted by Eraserhead for no other reason that someone had already given it a 1 word vote in support - which is also against the rules, and was completely irrelevant as it has absolutely no chance of being posted on the Main Page in the state it was when voted on, and still doesn't now. Either people are serious about these instructions, or they aren't. Carrying on like this is simply a complete and utter waste of time for everyone concerned, and is only going to lead to me proposing more formal action against this user and anyone else who encourages this behaviour, to stop it happening (or on the other hand, to amend the ITN/C instructions to reflect reality). As plenty of people have said time and again, this is the ITN suggestions page, not the editor assistance page, and nominating entries for ITN is supposed to be a complementary activity, it is not supposed to be your sole reason for being here, certainly not if half the time you are messing other people around getting them to do your work for them, such as finding the sources to back up (or rather discredit) your nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Significant earthquake affecting four countries, high potential for dozens of fatalities. ~AH1(TCU) 18:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as its currently #1 on the BBC's most shared stories list, and the quake's epicentre was only 70 miles from Chang Rai and was felt in Hanoi and Bangkok. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you kidding? "Most shared"? That usually includes nonsense like "Ferret gets bus from Edinburgh to London". Where's the actual evidence that this is significant? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite possibly, but like many countries the British aren't exactly known for their great interest in foreign affairs[citation needed] - that a story like this is top does show its significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting (and entirely speculative, unsourced and unfounded) observation. But you haven't proved anything with your original research and personal point of view. And, in case you hadn't noticed, earthquakes are "all the rage" right now, see NZ and Japan. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the citation needed you've inserted into my comment, look at the newspaper circulation figures for starters. The most popular newspapers are things like the Sun and the Daily Mail, which do an extremely poor job of covering foreign affairs. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • What? How on earth does circulation figures of redtop newspapers equate to British not being "known for their great interest in foreign affairs"? More original research and personal point of view I think. In any case, show me how this is more significant than the ferret on the bus train with your "most shared" argument. And then show me how it's ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)Wait, what? A Ferret took a bus! OMG, why isn't there an article about this!?! But seriously, I'm neutral about this so far, it seems to be on the edge of ITN worthy, once it becomes more clear how much damage was done and how many died than we can see if it is ITN worthy. Passionless -Talk 19:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per MickMackNee's perfect rationale, and Rambling Man. I just dislike to see this person creates 1-lines stubs and he comes here and says "Another drama." This is utterly unacceptable. --Diego Grez (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose till there are real reasons (destruction, deaths, missing people etc) to post it. -- Ashish-g55 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong comment. Err, did anyone even bother to read the blurb? Reports suggest 11 people killed, though many sources are still reporting one person killed. That report comes from Thailand, in Chiang Rai where the Mercalli scale shaking intensity was only IV, and more than four million people were exposed to shaking at least one level stronger. USGS PAGER data suggests an inferrable approximate death toll around 200, and a 25% chance of it being higher than 1,000. This is a significant earthquake, and in fact far more people were exposed to heavy shaking than what occurred during the 2011 Yunnan earthquake, which killed 25 and earned its rightly-deserved ITN spot. Please do not overlook an event just because it is an earthquake in a particular area of a poor country known for heroin/opium grow-ops (Golden Triangle). In fact, ITN is severely under-posted in Myanmar topics, and only covers major protests and flag changes. For example, we failed to post Cyclone Giri, the strongest storm of the 2010 N. Indian Ocean season, and which affected Myanmar (Burma) as its main target country, in addition to Bangladesh, killing 167 people. Now, Cyclone Jal which came later in the season was posted on ITN, and it claimed 116 lives in India, Sri Lanka and Malaysia. Back to today's strong earthquake: this tremor affected six countries. Pay no attention to how the nominator does the nomination or words it, but instead focus on what the story actually entails. I strongly believe this is worthy of posting. ~AH1(TCU) 22:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think your second reason is valid. makes no difference if english wiki readers take interest in burma or not. there is just not enough damage done by this earthquake thats all -- Ashish-g55 23:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, PAGER suggests a damage figure around $100 million USD. It is also incredibly short-sighted to suggest that ITN should not post stories on any areas where the English-speaking population is low—how about Libya? By the way, the article is no longer a stub. ~AH1(TCU) 23:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really stupid rationale. How comes you posted an ITN item of Japan, then? You are obviously biased. Diego Grez (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to refute the previous rationale, that Myanmar (Burma) is of low interest to the English Wikipedia. This is also probably the deadliest earthquake event in Myanmar since the 2004 tsunami. ~AH1(TCU) 00:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What further updates are you looking for? More news expected to trickle in within the next few hours. ~AH1(TCU) 23:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but at this point the article is no where near where it needs to be included here. If events warrant it and the article gets expanded I could change my tune. RxS (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 6.8 is not all that strong; and only 10 deaths reported. Yes, it's notable, but not so overwhelmingly so that it should be highlighted "in the news". I'd guess you'd be hard pressed to find anything above the fold on this in a major world newspaper and many won't be on page one at all. Hardly "news". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The magnitude is not very important in this case, since it was about half the strength of the 2010 Haiti earthquake and nearly the strength of the 2010 Yushu earthquake, and the much weaker Yunnan earthquake this month was also posted. ~AH1(TCU) 00:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The strength isn't that important, as not all strong earthquakes are devastating. What is important is the amonut of damage done and people killed(10). By this measurement this earthquake is no where near the 2010 Haitian quake(100,000+ died) or the Yushu earthquake(2,700 died). An example of a natural disaster of a similar magnitude of death and destruction in the developed world are tornados in the U.S.-which I don't believe we post. Passionless -Talk 01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update. 25 casualties, Burmese officials warn "there could be many more". ~AH1(TCU) 01:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update. 60 casualties - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are we going to wait until official casualties rise above 100? ~AH1(TCU) 22:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that all the opposes were made when there was only one casualty, and given that there haven't been any opposes since, and given that the article looks pretty good now, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. Although 6.8 isn't necessarily the strongest, we've put up earthquakes that caused fewer than 75 deaths before. Another concern mentioned in the discussion is article size and quality: both are now more than sufficient. SpencerT♦C 04:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Abel Prize for John Milnor

Article: John Milnor (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Article needs updating

American Mathematician John Milnor is awarded the 2011 Abel Prize for his pioneering contributions to Geometry, Topology and Algebra. (The Hindu) SPat talk 05:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per ITNR, though the article needs to be updated. Passionless -Talk 05:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is how much update there can be in the article. Provided that the article is relatively short, two-sentence probably makes sense. Ready to post when there is one more sentence ;-) --Tone 09:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I see the second sentence, posting. --Tone 12:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think its notable at all.Could someone explain me the significance of this event?--Shrike (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Abel prize has been described as the Nobel for mathematics, and is included in ITN/R. Also, @Tone, added second line [35]. SPat talk 12:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can someone reference John_Milnor#Work? SpencerT♦C 21:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 23

March 23, 2011 (2011-03-23) (Wednesday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] Portuguese PM José Socrates resigns

Now in the news, apparently after the parliament rejected a budget. [36] --Diego Grez (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

damn! stole the nom from m e ;)
election called Portuguese general election, 2011, can be included in the blurb.Lihaas (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly notable, possibly ITNR? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. If this goes up, this will likely be the first of two elections called over a proposed budget. If this goes up ITN needs to be prepared to put up a blurb for the Canadian government on Friday. --PlasmaTwa2 00:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to support. Fall of government is notable in any case. --PlasmaTwa2 13:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Make sure to mention the connection to the Euro debt crisis. --bender235 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Jose is still the PM until the election right? And there is a president too, so I wonder how important what happened is. The upcoming election is of course ITN material though. Passionless -Talk 05:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given this is Portugal (one of the PIGS) this is likely to have ramifications throughout Europe. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly a headline with impact in the current world economic crisis context. Ramifications (economic support, etc.) will follow today during the EU meeting Zdtrlik (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thue | talk 18:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've updated the article and I will try and add some more later, but it should be enough, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Jerusalem bombing

- Seems to be a terrorist attack - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the victims and citizens of Jerusalem and Israel overall. Also first bombing since 2004.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One death confirmed so far by Israel. With 30 people injured it will rise even though I hope not.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the dozens of people killed in bombings in other contentious areas are less significant? I'm not following your logic. Grsz 11 15:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why compare apples and oranges. If we would follow your logic no articles would place on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not what I said at all, but I don't feel like getting in to your circular argument. Besides, it's not the first since 2004. Sources says first major bombing in Jerusalem (not Israel) in four years, which is an entirely different thing. Grsz 11 15:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually other sources claim first bombing attack on Israeli grounds since 2004. Rocket fire from Gaza into israel is an almost every day thing. But a bombing that are placed strategicly to injure and kill people have not occured since 2004.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wait no claimants yet if im not mistaken. see how this elevateds then post it.Lihaas (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose these attacks happen EVERY DAY, there is a violent incident in the I-P conflict literally everyday, to highlight one is ridiculous. A month ago today 1 Palestinian was killed and 11 other civilians were injured when Israeli artillary bombarded their homes...daily events. Passionless -Talk 17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OR we could look at yesterday where an Israeli attack on Gazans killed 8civilians including 3 children.UN condemns the attack
  • Oppose - Agree that if we start posting every attack with even a modest death toll, it will take over ITN. My question: would this go in as part of a Middle East sticky? Jusdafax 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
should be deleted then.Lihaas (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should not be deleted. The attack has been top news on all international news media.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself should be deleted for failing WP:EVENT-"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.". Passionless -Talk 18:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a personal opinion from you, more than a standard for handling these kind of articles.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the quote is actually from WP:EVENT, I didn't quote myself, and maybe you could read WP:NOTNEWS as well.
The applicable policy is WP:N/CA since this was a high profile criminal act and received considerable international media coverage.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need from any of you to make this more personal than it has to be. It is obvious that there are different opinions on the matter of this article. But it cant be denied that there are people that thinks that the article places on ITN Passionless.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz1 and Passionless, you have both previously been subject to a topic ban from articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you cannot either play nice here or ignore each other, then I am inclined to block you both and then get consensus that you be banned from discussions on those topics on this page. Whoever started this conflict (and I do not care), you are both exacerbating it. The choice is yours.--Chaser (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might sound hard and cold. But the death of palestinians by Israeli rockets etc etc.. happens almost weekly. While a bombing of this kind is rare (not since 2004) in Israel. That is why this stroy trumps the Palestinian story mentioned. Sad but very true.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose hardly a "massacre" with only one confirmed death when we dismissed the shooting of two US soldiers in Germany with comments such as "Two deaths isn't very significant. And no, nationality doesn't make a difference". Would like to think we had some level of consistency here at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative oppose As a one-off incident, it follows from TRM's logic that this isn't a strong candidate. The ramifications of it could make it very significant, so I think I and any other opposer should be prepared to review if things escalate from here, as they sadly have a habit of doing in that part of the world. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - tragic and such, but TRM's hit it dead on. Consistency is lacking at ITN, no need to fuel that.  狐 FOX  21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative oppose. Even in Israel this is not an earth-shattering event. The leading commentators on Israeli television are rejecting the idea that Israel will be drawn into a new large-scale Cast-Lead-type offensive against Palestinian terrorist infrastructure. Also, shortly after the 8-o'clock news ended on Channel 2, they continued with regular programming and broadcast the penultimate episode of Big Brother. This is not generating the kind of media outrage that the Itamar attack did a week and a half ago. Reports now are that the 60-year-old woman whose body was recovered from the blast wasn't Israeli. The headlines in tomorrow's newspapers will showcase the attack; but unless the IDF mobilizes troops along the Gazan perimeter or takes out some top Hamas/Islamic Jihad commanders, the impact of the attack is minor. This is my first time participating in a discussion here.—Biosketch (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If only one person got killed it was not from the lack of trying.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In this particular case, it might have been. Reports are that the explosives weighed two kilograms, much less than the 10 to 15 kilos Hamas is known to pack in its bombs. This is of course a tragedy for the woman that died and for the people recovering in the emergency rooms; still, in relative terms, it isn't that newsworthy. In fact, the rockets on Beer Sheva, despite their not having killed anyone, are a far more disturbing development. If Israel does launch a new offensive, it'll be because of the rockets from Gaza, not because of the bomb attack in the capital.—Biosketch (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It would be a shameful example of systemic bias if we were to post this story here.--WaltCip (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry Biz, but a terrorist attack in the middle east with only one dead? It may have been 4 years, but there are bigger stories out there.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sorry but I think its extremely important to act neutrally in these kind of conflicts, we didn't post an incident last week where a Palestinian was killed, I didn't feel that incident was notable enough to support, thus in this case, with fewer deaths, I don't think its fair to say this is worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1 death is a tragedy but unless the person (or bear, apparently) is notable otherwise, doesn't rise to the level of ITN; all those yakking opposing on neutrality grounds are misplaced; Palestinian bombs purposely targeting Israeli civilians occurs sufficiently frequently to be the "Dog bites man" where news is "Man bites dog". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Rare for this particular area, strong international reaction, but comparatively insignificant in terms of ongoing world events. ~AH1(TCU) 18:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Liz Taylor

Actress Liz Taylor has passed away [37]. I figure since we post polar bears we should probably post her. WhiteKongMan (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any news sources mentioning this. Probably another attempt to spread a celeb death hoax via Twitter. 13:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
[38], [39], [40]. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, Support in that case, assuming the article is updated. Big news. RxS (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Post it NOW. Abductive (reasoning) 13:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Post it NOW. __meco (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support. relevance undisputable.... also cnn has it and says it comes from her publicist. L.tak (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
obvious support... per above -- Ashish-g55 13:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Ok, the article is updated. Although there is just one sentence technically about her passing, the section is dedicated to her health problems in the last months so I consider this sufficient. Posting. --Tone 13:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's afford a picture to this. __meco (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Late support: Very ITN-worthy. SMasters (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East Sticky

At a previous discussion on the ITN talk page I had argued for the Japanese earthquake and tsunami sticker. Now that the events there appear to have receded in the news cycle and the events in the Middle East are picking up again, I would like to renominate the Middle East and North Africa protests as a sticky. This is particularly relevant, in my view, in light of the developments in Libya, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen, and made out of the rationale that all four stories deserve separate ITN posts and this would prove otherwise quite cumbersome. Colipon+(Talk) 02:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WE obviously have three events that could arguably vie for the sticky spot
  • Military action in Libya
  • Middle Easter Protests
  • Japanese Quake/Tsunami aftermath
Seeing as each is very viable sticky option... I think We should forgo the sticky and just keep the blurbs updated. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support changing the sticky per Colipon's nom - The North Africa/Middle East issues have jumped over Japan's, in my view, and unless there is dramatic change we should switch back. As a strong second choice I'd go with two stickies, which also makes sense. Jusdafax 03:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On a separate note, due to the recent prevalence of stickies, I will put forth a proposal in the next few days for ITN to adopt a 'permanent sticky banner' of the five or six most relevant news events of public interest. Essentially this banner would just include a bold link to the article which has been of recent public interest. This will allow much more space for the important news stories that we miss due to large 'controversial' discussions on this page - the Charlie Sheens and US Senator deaths that generate a lot of hits to articles but never get proper ITN coverage, and even the Tuvalu election might occupy a place as a unitary link rather than a 'blurb'. It will also allow for easier posting of 'deaths' and solve the debate of whether or not we should be posting the deaths of "important but not especially important" people on ITN. The purpose of this new addition would primarily be to showcase a wider range of Wikipedia articles and secondarily to solve the many 'undue weight' issues that we experience on ITN. I wanted to get a feel from other editors first on whether this would be a good idea, or whether it's been discussed before. Colipon+(Talk) 04:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Highly interesting, and I'm inclined to support this also, at first glance. Care would have to be taken not to clutter the ITN box too much, but I think it could be managed. Thanks, good suggestion... since it is a broader policy call, should it be moved to the talk page? Jusdafax 09:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support nominated it some days ago, but it was rejected at the time. we now have: libya, syria, yemen, bahrain (quiet now).Lihaas (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at this discussion. Cheers. Colipon+(Talk) 18:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 22

March 22, 2011 (2011-03-22) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • A US judge blocks an agreement between Google and publishers about efforts to digitize books online at Google Books. (BBC)

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Moriarty Tribunal report published

The Moriarty Tribunal, in investigating links between businessman Denis O'Brien and then government minister Michael Lowry, finds "beyond doubt" that Lowry assisted O'Brien in gaining a mobile phone license for Esat Digifone, saying Lowry's actions were "disgraceful and insidious". The tribunal has been happening since 1997 and has concluded that Lowry "engaged in a cynical and venal abuse of power, showed favour to prominent or wealthy individuals, and by his actions cast a shadow over this countrys public life". International coverage as well, including The Guardian, which describes it as "a sensational report, which is getting wall-to-wall coverage" and refers to O'Brien as "one of Ireland's best known businessmen". Not just known in Ireland though. He has a presence outside Ireland and even outside Europe, including the Caribbean, founder of Communicorp (which has radio stations all over Europe and the Middle East), aircraft firm Aergo (Chicago, Johannesburg, Nairobi and Santiago de Chile), Independent News & Media (which is involved in everywhere from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa to Hong Kong and Indonesia) and so much more... --candle•wicke 22:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went through the Google News results on this and found nothing outside Ireland besides the Guardian. It's not on the Telegraph's or Times' home pages. The context of the quote from the Guardian about wall-to-wall coverage suggests they were talking about Irish media. I'm not seeing international interest. What's the international importance?--Chaser (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is on the exact same level as the Impeachment of Merceditas Gutierrez politicians/business men of middle importance getting in trouble. I'm neutral to both blurbs, but if one is posted both should be posted. Passionless -Talk 01:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. As detailed below, this is only the second time the Filipino House has impeached someone. That story also got more international coverage. Finally, impeachments are rarer than what happened here.--Chaser (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Telegraph - "Denis O'Brien 'paid minister to help secure Irish phone licence': Mr O'Brien now owns Digicel, one of the largest mobile phone companies in the Caribbean". --candle•wicke 02:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The greatest corporate scandal in the history of the State". --candle•wicke 02:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support greatest corporate scandal in Ireland's history looks worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's getting more international interest. I'm not sure how much weight to give this "greatest corporate scandal" line. It's political rhetoric (from a political opponent?). On the other hand, I have no reason to doubt the truth of the statement. Anyway, this is clearly important, at least in Ireland.--Chaser (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Republic of Congo plane crash

At least 19 fatalities after a plane crash in a district of Pointe-Noire. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A plane crashed somewhere in the world, infact, in a part of the world known for unsafe airlines and plane crashes. Some people died, but not many in the grand scheme of aviation accidents. So what's new? What about this event is worthy of notice on the Main Page? What marks it out as significant in the grand scheme of things? What marks it out at all infact except as part of the never ending conveyor belt of aircrash articles created solely from news reports and aviation specialist sources of dubious reliability, and then abandoned. Even under the new critaria, ITN is for showcasing the best of our content as an encyclopoedia. These aircrash articles are not that. MickMacNee (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Planes do crash often, unless the people onboard are important, or if the fatalities are in the hundreds, than it isn't ITN worthy. Passionless -Talk 23:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Passionless. Baseball Watcher 00:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Generally, a higher number of deaths is required for an aircrash to make it to the main page. Article is being bashed into shape as info becomes available. In reply to MickMacNee, aircrash articles are just as capable of appearing on ITN as any other type of article. Some of them even get to GA or FA status. Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Eugen Simion is a huge fanatic of WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, articles. This is just another crash, and is not ITN worthy, as many say above me. Diego Grez (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Not posted] Tokyo Sky Tree topped out

Article: Tokyo Sky Tree (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)

At 634m, the Tokyo Sky Tree becomes the tallest free-standing tower on earth and the second tallest man-made structure in the world. Seems like a nice story, especially in light of the quake. [41] --TorsodogTalk 03:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems silly. The fact that it happened technically 3 days ago doesn't make it any less newsworthy or true. What's the difference if we informed readers 3 days ago or today? --TorsodogTalk 14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please view the source of the ITN list to see what I mean. We sort things based on when they happened. This happened later than everything else on that list. As to the update, the purpose of this section is to showcase Wikipedia's content that has been sufficiently updated to reflect what is "in the news".--Chaser (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the argument is that the article isn't updated enough, that can be easily changed. I don't agree that things need to be sorted by when they happened on the list though. It seems preferrable to inform readers of a newsworthy item than to not in order to stick to a sorting system out of whack because of a busy news weekend. --TorsodogTalk 15:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, not a big deal, we can still post this next spring at the public opening, I guess... --Tone 15:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like an easy WP:IAR. its not like we missed an event like death or sports final. the building is still tallest. -- Ashish-g55 22:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection if another admin wants to post it on that basis (though they'll need to check for a sufficient update). You might check with Tone.--Chaser (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 21

March 21, 2011 (2011-03-21) (Monday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

[Posted] Death of Nikolai Andrianov

Article: Nikolai Andrianov (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The most successful men's gymnast at the Olympics, Nikolai Andrianov, dies at the age of 58. (Post)
Article needs updating

The most successful men's gymnast at the Olympics, Nikolai Andrianov, dies at the age of 58.

More specifically: The article says "Between 1971 and 1980 he won many international gymnastics competitions, including the Olympic Games, world championships and European championships." This needs to be detailed with referenced prose, not just a table at the bottom. If you see Larissa Latynina#Gymnastics career, this is an okay example about what I mean. SpencerT♦C 02:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added three brief paragraphs of referenced prose about his Olympics career, including a bit about his record in most Olympic gymnastic golds in a single games. I couldn't find anything on other international competitions.--Chaser (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

Anybody like File:Operation Odyssey Dawn F-15E.jpg better? There are more pictures at Commons:Category:Operation Odyssey Dawn. Marcus Qwertyus 18:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The current picture shows an attack being launched better than that picture. SpencerT♦C 02:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khamis al-Gaddafi

It was reported by Al Manara Media that Khamis al-Gaddafi had died from his injuries sustained when Muhammad Mokhtar Osman allegedly crashed his plane into Bab al-Azizia. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"However, this had not been confirmed by any other independent media." Wait until it is verified. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Pulled] .xxx

Article: .xxx (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)

This should be a very atypical item for ITN [42]. Nergaal (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Can we have pornographic thumb to go with it? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)\[reply]
Note: The domain was approved on March 18. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a pretty big step forward for the Internet. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, not too often a new domain gets approved. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the placement; well done! Jusdafax 11:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really well done :D I had to remove it because the article has serious ref issues. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it does back, can we avoid euphemisms: interest in vintage jazz, mediaeval art, higher maths, obscure engineering, etc etc are far more adult preoccupations than is pornography. Call a spade a spade. Kevin McE (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly the "adult entertainment" cliche has always irked me as well.--WaltCip (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've updated the article with references. Nergaal (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Most of the support for this seems to be Wikipedians' subjective judgment about its importance to the internet. What is that? What of international importance will this change? International interest is the other way we evaluate these things. This story got a max of just over 200 news stories a day according to Google News; that pales in comparison to other stories in currently in the news. In fact, we were a day or two behind discussing this story--probably because it wasn't really getting the level of international coverage that would merit an ITN blurb. This is the kind of thing that interests the Wikipedia community because we're techie, but that does not mean that it meets our own criteria.--Chaser (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I too believe this is an event which only affects those who run adult websites, and is insignificant to their customers and of even less interest to those who do not visit said websites. Passionless -Talk 21:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
even less interest to those who do not visit said websites. lol you do know thats probably a very small minority ;) -- Ashish-g55 22:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chaser and Passionless and nobody thinking of the children, etc. --candle•wicke 22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Impeachment of Merceditas Gutierrez

Article: Impeachment of Merceditas Gutierrez (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The House of Representatives of the Philippines impeaches Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez for betrayal of public trust, becoming the second official to do so. (Post)
Article updated

Since we put up dead bears and skiing, why not this one. This is still pending, as this will be voted shortly.

–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some international coverage, these were mostly after she was indicted: Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, UAE. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks good and the impeachment sounds serious.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — not the head of state or government (President), so I'm neither here nor there. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update The House has just impeached the ombudsman. Pending references that should arrive shortly. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should we wait for the Senate to vote? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That could take a year. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Eraserhead. Nice to have something different. --candle•wicke 22:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As its been updated marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why hasn't this been posted yet? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because no one had noticed. Ask someone on ANI or IRC next time if we're slow to respond.--Chaser (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted - I dropped the last clause as superfluous and bad grammar (I read it as saying she was the second official to impeach herself). I also added "alleged", as what I'm reading indicates that impeachment is a charge, whereas the Senate's decision is analogous to a conviction. Until then, this is just an allegation, at least for the purpose of my defamation liability. The BBC reports [43] that conviction is far from assured.--Chaser (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was having a problem on how to denote that she was the second official to be impeached in the country's history ever -- which makes this historic and not just some "politicians/business men of middle importance getting in trouble." I amended the blurb several times to no avail. Good catch on "alleged," though. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Wollongong floods

Article: 2011 Wollongong floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Article needs updating
  • Comment-I don't see this in international papers, so I wonder how serious the floods are. If this is just a small flood or a flash flood, which occur often around the world, I don't think it is ITN material. Passionless -Talk 08:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's mass flooding due to a storm cell covering most parts of southern New South Wales, the floods only occurred recently. There is still heavy rain here in Sydney and the effects are being felt here as well (wild winds, random heavy downpours). —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:12pm • 09:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose localised issue. Revisit if it gains more coverage internationally, like the QLD floods did. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very localised, the storm cell caused the floods and severe thunderstorms throughout Wollongong, but heavy rain and strong winds are being felt throughout southern New South Wales. Perhaps wait ~18 hours for enough coverage to occur, since the floods only just started and could get worse. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:36pm • 10:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Constitutional Referendum Again

Article: Egyptian constitutional referendum, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Voters approve a constitutional referendum in Egypt as part of the overall reform that is taking place since the ousting of Mubarak (Post)
Support: clearly notable and itnr.
Following the revolution in Egypt, voters approve a constitutional referendum Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are results already out? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. and the poeple voted "YES" also. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a prose update already this should be put up. Isn't this on ITNR? A binding constitutional referendum? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the results are out, clearly this is a huge thing for Egypt. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What exactly happened? Was the referendum just a choice between two paths for how the government transition will occur, and that is what the amendments are all about? If so to call it a 'constitutional referendum' seems a bit misleading, as the real constitutional referendum will be occuring in Sept 2012. If I am right than something like this would be less misleading,
Egyptians vote on a path for the transition to a democratic state. Passionless -Talk 08:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They did change 9 articles in the constitution so calling a referendum is not misleading. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, referenda and elections are I think ITNR. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to post. The above blurb is not that good, I'd like a better one. This new constitution is just interim until the election, right? That should be mentioned. --Tone 10:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approve a what? They had a referendum to hold a referendum? Clearly only a blurb is missing. Can anyone who has knowledge about this make a better blurb? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, They did change 9 articles in the constitution. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In English, please. What does "change 9 article" mean? What were in those 9 articles that were changed? They extended terms of offices? Abolished offices? Did the people vote on this wholesale or did they have an option of approving an article singly? What? I'll take a look at the article to see how can I come up with a blurb. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at Egyptian constitutional referendum, 2011#Proposed_Amendments_Summary -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look tells me that loosened the criteria for presidential nominees, among others (presumably the amendments to the office of the president must have had larger coverage). The blurb should go like "Following the revolution in Egypt, voters approve amendments to the qualifications of the president, among others, in a constitutional referendum." –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, details. From guardian.co.uk: "Egyptians have strongly endorsed amendments to the country's constitution as aftershocks from the Arab spring revolts rumbled into the furthest reaches of the region. More than 77% of the estimated 14 million-plus people who voted supported changes that will provide a blueprint for parliamentary and presidential elections to be held within the next six months. Voting was mostly problem-free across the country, a significant result in a country that is emerging from more than three decades of dictatorship, when elections merely served to rubber-stamp ousted president Hosni Mubarak's rule, and voter turn out was low." Comment: The significance of the YES vote is that there will be a real election in Egypt in the next six months, in other words, the revolution is on course to not fall back into the hands of a military dictatorship (although, in fairness, those who voted NO were concerned that a too-soon election would be more easily taken advantage of by groups that already had connections, such as the National Democratic Party, which held power under Mubarak, and the Muslim Brotherhood, which was always the most well-organized opposition group in Egypt. NO voters wanted more time so that they could catch up to that level of organization and mobilization. Blurb suggestion: 5 weeks after the 2011 Egyptian revolution, voters amend the Constitution to allow for a more open parliamentary election which will happen within the next 6 months. Ocaasi (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current wording. The current wording is "Voters in Egypt approve a new constitution at a referendum". This is the exact opposite of what happened. Amr Moussa and Mohamed ElBaradei supported a "no" vote so that a new constitution could be written. The Egyptian people only modified the old constitution. Reporting this event in this fashion is totally disingenuous to those that actually wanted a new constitution. Jeff Carr (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AT&T seeks to buy T-Mobile

Article: AT&T (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ AT&T announces it seeks to buy T-Mobile USA for $39billion, giving AT&T a 43% market share in mobile phone service in the U.S.. (Post)
Article updated

I tried to get another large merger up on ITN a couple weeks ago, but it was declined because it was not to be finalized for another week, but by that time no news sources cared any longer. Business mergers always take a long time and there is rarely more than one peak in news coverage, the media is reporting on this NOW, and as such I think it should be put up NOW, not later when its gone out of the press. Oh, and of coruse this is a notable event $39billion dollar merger, creating a monster of a company-43% of all cell phone service is well ahead of any competitors size.

Sources:BBCWikinewsBloombergWall Street JournalReuters Passionless -Talk 03:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the two companies have reached a deal to merge, and are currently only waiting for government approval. Passionless -Talk 04:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is news that they announced their intentions. But this isn't Wikinews. We would almost certainly feature this if they were to buy T-Mobile, but not just announcing their intentions. Grsz 11 03:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Saying "I intend to buy this company" or "we're going to merge" is very different to actually merging. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'd agree with the reasoning behind this nomination and for putting it up now. This is a big story for a number of reasons, is highly likely to go through, and for me the concentration of power in that 43% market share is indeed ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 03:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This proposed merger may not pass antitrust review. Abductive (reasoning) 03:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it needs approval. I just thought of nominating this until I saw the strings attached to the announcement.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it fails antitrust we could post that when and if it happens. I feel we have a real lack of business news on ITN even though these deals affect a huge number of readers. Passionless -Talk 03:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, for what it is worth, in the current climate the merger is highly likely in my view. But as Passionless pointed out in the nom, at that point it is not much of a news story. Now is the time, as I see it. Jusdafax 03:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't post items based on the speculation of Wikipedians (or even experts). If it goes ahead, we'll post it, and I'm sure it will be in the media then, but right now it's just speculation and statements of intent rather than anything concrete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Major happenings can often have more than one blurb to point out major events within the happenings (Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Japan etc). I think it would be appropriate to post once now that this deal has been proposed and is now seeking approval, and another report later that says either "the deal was blocked" or "the deal was accepted" both would be significant events. Passionless -Talk 03:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support major business story that will affect the mobile phone industry in the US enormously, whether it passes or not. And business stories are woefully underposted on ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until it actually happens. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All we need is some more support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Given the huge cultural interest in smartphones nowadays this should easily be of 'wide interest'. --Johnsemlak (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am pretty sure deal still needs to be approved. 2 companies saying they've made a deal doesnt mean anything if it doesnt get approved. We already went through similar thing with TSX and LSE merger. -- Ashish-g55 01:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it didn't mean anything I doubt so many news organization would be reporting this. It is important that people know such an event is in the works before it is approved, as the public does have the ability to affect the approval, but they must be made aware while they still have a chance to voice their opinions, not after it is a done deal. Passionless -Talk 01:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

March 20, 2011 (2011-03-20) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime
  • Police are growing concerned for the safety of Sian O'Callaghan, a 22-year-old woman who went missing while walking home from a nightclub in the English city of Swindon in the early hours of Saturday 19 March. (BBC)

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] 2011 Syrian protests

Support. The article appears to have been updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As nominator.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clearly looks to meet the criteria. The update looks good too. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One or two more supports would be nice. There's no rush at this moment, with ITN currently being updated at break-neck speed. -- tariqabjotu 14:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a turning point in Syrian history. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Post-posting weak support. I take the point about the potential importance of these protests within Syria. News reports indicate that both the protests [44] and the government's concessions to popular pressure [45] are rare in Syria. That said, Al Jazeera's English homepage currently features only one story, about Syria freeing the child prisoners whose arrest prompted the current round of large protests. That story is in their second group of stories. Further, Syria is not in Al Jazeera's "spotlight" on a "region in turmoil" which contains stories from six other countries. The Economist's current selection of stories from the Middle East contains nothing about Syria. Still, I think the lackluster indications of international interest may just be the result of the situation in Libya dominating the news cycle.--Chaser (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East North Africa Protests Sticky proposal

We already have 2 blubs from the ongoing protests. think its time to bring back the sticky link.Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the two. Libya is now its own distinct issue, separate from the protests. Oppose and update with blurbs as necessary. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 12:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think a sticky link with Libya is useful. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutral as Libya is a separate issue now, more akin to civil war, possibly we could reconsider if the Syrian protests above are posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if daily updates can be guaranteed, can be done, and is recommended for that article. Otherwise, oppose. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well i can do it quite ritually for lebanon, bahrain and yemen. with the others, which are more popular, that others editors will handle.Lihaas (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are daily updates really the ITN standard? I mean, a normal ITN post only requires one update before posting, and then can sit on the main page for days without updates at all.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a sticky, and it'll be there for a long time. I used the "Timeline of the Olympics" articles as those were presumably updated daily, and were used as a model of the succeeding stickies. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noted before that I can't support adding a link to the main article about the protests. If a timeline article is created, thus making it more accessible to the recent news, I'll surely support this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I was getting at, a timeline but that might fall into WP:NOT#DIR territory... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have Timeline of the 2011 Libyan uprising and Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution, we can easily create such article merging all other relevant events that happened in the other countries in the region. During the Olympics las year, the tagged article was Chronological summary of the 2010 Winter Olympics, which also lists the events that happened chronologically.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while we have at least one item related to the MENA protests on ITN. If it's still an ongoing even but we don't have a blurb on a particular part of it, that would be the time to put the sticky back on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per HJ Mitchell and agree that when the current MENA blurb drops off that we reconsider. And if the protests etc. keep heating up, then the sticky should go back up regardless. As we have seen, things can change really fast in that area of the world. Jusdafax 03:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 19

March 19, 2011 (2011-03-19) (Saturday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters

International relations

Politics

Science

Sports

[Posted] 2011 Alpine Skiing World Cup concludes

The season officially ends, although few races in both competitions are canceled.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support this is probably going to be the only winter sports-related ITN item for the whole year. Nergaal (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while the page view stats (bots hitting the refresh button every 5 seconds or so notwithstanding) are higher than bandy's, this is currently too low for ITN standards. Compare Six Nations Championship's with around 5,000 every matchday. Still low, even for ITN, heck even ITNR standards. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you mentioned the shortcoming of the criterion, which makes it irrelevant. It also doesn't show how many people have viewed the article. According to this criterion we haven't established yet any standard figure to determine the significance of an item of inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least we're sure that this major sport gets less than a thousand viewers, repeat views and bots pressing F5 every 5 seconds excluded.
As for the minimum number of views, as stated, people won't even let this statistic be used in determining what is "major." Instead, we have to rely on our biases. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Year's biggest event in a whole family of Olympic sports. Since when has there been a viewership threshhold for ITN inclusion? If the purpose of the feature is to draw attention to articles, then surely it is those that have not had high readership before inclusion that can best benefit. Kevin McE (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a major sport. ITN ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alpine skiing is a major sport while rugby union isn't? Really? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 11:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are atleast one professional alpine skier in at least 50 nations. While Rugby and sutch sports only have about 10-15 truly professional nations, and in all honesty rugby/cricket are only of interest in nations that are old British colonies. Though extremely popular on those few countries I would still be of Oppose opinion for worldwide ITN for this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I've seen rugby in Kenya, of all places, in BBC News. Still have to see Kenyan alpine skiers, though. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's Philip Boit, a cross country skier who competed at three Olympics. Support otherwise. --Tone 12:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I dunno any alpine skier in the first place. At least in the Frank Lampard-level of popularity. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? If only Wikipedia had some way of drawing the attention of those similarly ignorant to some of the important personalities in the sport, World Cup event winners, for example. Maybe if there were space on the front page to highlight event at key times... Kevin McE (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If plenty of people are ignorant of a "major" sporting event, is that news? What's next? The star player of sepak takraw? Wait I already tried that to no avail. Well, sorta. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the introduction to WP:ITN? "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. ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia." A great encyclopaedia helps people address the gaps in their knowledge: it does not echo the priorities of newspapers. Kevin McE (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is alpine skiing a "current event of wide interest"? Is there even borderline interest in places such as India? Mexico? Nigeria? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should ask the Winter Games Federation of India, and the the Federación Mexicana de Deportes de Invierno. The FIS has 111 member nations. Please remind me how many member nations the NFL or NBA have. Kevin McE (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, this is like the argument the ten largest countries in the world play bandy because they all have bandy federations. What's next, the Philippines play cricket because the Philippines national cricket team exists? Let's ask the Indian, Mexican and Nigerian press. Oh wait. Absolutely zero interest (wait the last one came from Reuters India). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked a question, I answered it. I asked a question (albeit indirectly), you ignored it. 11 countries won medals: I can't quickly and easily find how many took part. You might not be interested: that does not mean the world isn't. Kevin McE (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly expect me that the world, which India, Nigeria and I forgot the other country are a part of, has a "wide interest" in this event with your answer, and your question that was irrelevant? What is this "world" you speak of? Perhaps you should be the one reading the introduction and digest that "wide interest" does not mean having national sport associations all over the place. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I give in. I really don't have a clue what that last posting was meant to mean. But I find competitors from six continents in just the first event listed on the results here: what definition of wide interest does that not encompass? Admittedly, no-one from Nigeria, but India and Mexico, which seem to be priorities to you, had representatives, as did Liberia, Ghana, Haiti... Kevin McE (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a big deal as you say, presumably the Liberian, Ghanaian and Haitian media should be all over this. Well, there's this mention from the Haitian media, as the Haitian competitor was also that country's skiing president(!) The report didn't even report the result, it reported something else (connected to the Japanese disaster). Disregarding the fact that his country's sole representative is their skiing president, I expected wall-to-wall, heck even more than one report on the matter. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I'm wondering why we never discussed this when we did our ITNR review. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 11:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice idea. I really think this should get included in ITNR as a major winter spot. I'll make a proposal there.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support skiing is a reasonably popular sport and one we don't usually post. Though the article will need more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more prose to the intro. Please someone check if this is a sufficient update and if yes, I am ready to post. --Tone 18:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unless we have similar information about ski jumping. 95.49.238.222 (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It's of 'wide interest' mostly in Europe. The article isn't great really. The lede section basically meets the minimum standard and the rest is some pretty awkward tables.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute that. It's nowhere at the BBC Sport homepage. If that's not Europe I dunno what is. Apparently, rugby league and horse racing have more interest than this. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly not all of Europe. It is mentioned on the main page of Der Spiegel. Maria Riesch gets about 6000 hits at Google news Google News .de, while Lindsey Vonn gets about 5000 on Google news.com. I'd say the interest is not particularly high profile but is certainly there. It's a niche sport.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I'm not presenting this info for or against this nomination. As I said I'm neutral.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Six Nations

Surprised no one has nominated this yet. This is an ITNR event. The main article could use an update first, though - Dumelow (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support once the article has been updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ITNR item. Nergaal (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for this notable sports event. --bender235 (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have never supported rugby and cricket, those kind of sports. only interesting for a few parts of the world. For example in scandinavia no country even has a professional level Rugby team.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going through this again. The inclusion of the sports currently on ITNR have been debated again and again and I refuse to watch it go on again for reasons even close to "it's not interesting to enough people". EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We recently had a discussion about ITNR and as you (BabbaQ) didn't propose to remove any items from it, I would suggest your opposition is baseless. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 02:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above there are atleast one professional alpine skier in at least 50 nations. While Rugby and sutch sports only have about 10-15 truly professional nations, and in all honesty rugby/cricket are only of interest in nations that are old British colonies. Though extremely popular on those few countries I would still be of Oppose opinion for worldwide ITN for this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sporting event with wide spread interest. An item doesn't to hold interest everywhere to be included. RxS (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR no need for support. Should be posted once an update is made, if it hasn't already been. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 02:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was thinking that at 23:00 (UTC) but there still hasn't been a prose update yet beyond a single sentence - now OK Europe has been asleep in the meantime, but we do need an update first. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Knut

Well-known polar bear died. [46] - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 18:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was going to oppose, but its an FA, there isn't enough update about his death yet though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just came off the Twitter-wires (as I like to call them) about two hours ago. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its getting international media coverage - Guardian, BBC, MSNBC Toronto Sun, Forbes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article should be sufficiently updated now. Suggest the blurb: Berlin Zoo's polar bear Knut dies at the age of 4.. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice change of pace and as others have pointed out the article is in great shape. RxS (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Likely the world's most famous polar bear in captivity. ~AH1(TCU) 19:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note I'd like to hear a few more comments before putting this up. It's a sad story, but it doesn't seem as important as some of the other (very recent) items on ITN atm. We have a longer TFA in 4 hours, so if the consensus holds, I'd suggest that's when we should post it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support unusual news, and hard to say no to something so knute. Nergaal (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Knut was something as unusual as a world famous polar bear. ITN for him.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe I'm unusual. I had never heard of Knut until now. I pay a lot of attention to world news, but not as it's presented by commercial TV operators. Those folks have a formula where every bulletin needs a (quite possibly meaningless) "cute" story, with nice pictures. Obviously this bear was it on some occasions. Wikipedia should not be following the same formula. HiLo48 (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support He was a beloved polar bear, probably as famous as Paddington and it's unusual news. - JuneGloom Talk 20:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I've heard of Paddington. Never heard of Knut. Did anyone first hear about Knut from a source other than television news or perhaps the tabloid press. It's simply NOT notable outside those realms. Please don't move Wikipedia in the tabloid direction. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you yourself wasnt aware of Knut before this mention you are hardly the right user to claim you know if Knut is notable or not. Leave that to the users who has followed the story from day 1 ok HiLo48.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed my point entirely, AND failed to answer my question. (Which might have actually got you thinking more about what I'm saying here.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not watch TV or read newspapers and I have heard of both Paddington and Knut (and don't forget Pooh bear), and I am neither German nor British. Also WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not the best argument, though it does have some value.Passionless -Talk 21:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This doesn't strike me as the type of news that ITN should cover. This is essentially trivial. And considering how difficult it is to get a person's death posted, posting an animal's death would be extremely strange. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given there have been a lot of calls for posting more content, maybe we should post more people's deaths. We could post a story up to every 6 hours without the turnover getting too high (that's what we're on today excluding this one) whereas the current long term rate is around once every 20 hours which gives us plenty of scope to add more deaths as appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is an FA, which should count in its favour. But putting it up next to Libya, Warren Christopher, etc. would be most undesirable. This is not a significant event at all. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Knut was internationally famous and beloved. His death was unexpected and is of interest to many people. The article is among our best and has been appropriately updated.
The section is not a news ticker, nor is it intended to include only the "biggest" news stories (e.g. disasters, military conflicts and deaths of politicians). We need more variety, and this is a solid item. —David Levy 21:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we "need more variety"? Is that part of the charter of In the news? HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need more variety because the section's intended purpose is to illustrate our comprehensive encyclopedia's dynamic nature, not to report the top news stories (as some users have been led to believe). —David Levy 21:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could say this on WT:ITN3.0 but I really like the new feel to ITNC where we aren't spending all our time opposing stuff we don't like. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main page looks quite unbalanced right now, if this is added I think it would be best to not remove another news item to correct the balance. And of course if this is not posted soon, the last event deleted should be re-added at the bottom. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 22:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at WP:ERRORS for the Yemen story to be re-added, I think adding this at 00:00 (UTC) - which is only 75 minutes away - is reasonable - there has been a lot of turnover today. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Is this even a serious nomination? By no means this is relevant news, not even in Germany. --bender235 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its a featured article, and its being covered by non-tabloid sources internationally. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, like Charlie Sheen and his drug problems. Is that next for ITN? Having Knut on this list is ridiculous. --bender235 (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For example I havent read anything about the death of Warren Christopher in my countries newspapers but very much so about Knut. So its only simple closeminded-ness to not grant Knut a place in ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfect example of people mistakenly believing that the section's purpose is to report "major" news. They see an animal's death as unimportant, so they ignore the widespread interest that it's generating and the quality of our article. —David Levy 00:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-post support. Good to have an FA on ITN, seems to be getting heaps of news attention...  狐 FOX  00:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'll back this up, in part because it is an FA and not a stub. Also, it's a big story in the news, and frankly we need a break from the unrelenting diet of hideous, ugly news of late. It's just my opinion, but I think this lighter story, though sad in itself, comes as welcome relief. Bravo, supporters! Jusdafax 00:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK, the tabloid fans have won this time round, but it's obviously time to ask - What IS In the news? Is it for serious news only, or do we follow the lead of commercial TV and tabloid pap? Yes, my biases are on display there, but do we have our sense of purpose well defined somewhere? Whatever it is, I'll go with the flow, but this discussion wasn't really about Knut. It was about In the news. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Belittling those with whom you disagree is not constructive. You're begging the question. —David Levy 01:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledged that my preferences were clearly on display. Yours have been too. Your failure to respond constructively now is also not constructive. I was hoping to get some sense from the discussion, rather than "Knut was cute". HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are still not the tabloids, we did not post the Charlie Sheen fiasco but we did post the little reported 5 year plan in the PRC, and we do post little reported elections of lesser known nations. Oh, and you also can't disagree that Knut was cute :p. Passionless -Talk 01:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're misrepresenting your opponents' arguments and calling us names. I don't care to debate someone engaging in such tactics. —David Levy 01:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David, I'm sorry you see it that way. I felt there was little response in the discussion to those of us arguing for a more serious approach to selection of items, apart from "I disagree". But anyway, the point I'm pressing is that it would be nice if there were clearer guidelines for selection of items. Maybe I'm ignorant and there are. Anybody? HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're still begging the question. It's reasonable for you to argue that this particular event is non-"serious," but that isn't what you're doing. Instead, you're assuming it as an obvious fact and framing this as a discussion regarding whether we should proceed with the non-serious approach that the "tabloid fans" advocate.
Knut was an internationally famous/beloved bear. His death was sudden and unexpected, and it has generated a great deal of interest and attention. We have a featured article about him, which has been appropriately updated.
Your objection seems to be based on the rationale that a zoo animal's death is inherently unimportant. And if the section's purpose were to report important news stories, that would be a valid argument. But it isn't. —David Levy 02:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-post support, it's refreshing to have a slightly different story up and it is being covered "in the news". A number of opposes here are plain WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and surely that's a plain WP:ILIKEIT. Do we have better guidelines? HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about you try participating around these parts more than you have and stop complaining whenever an item you don't like goes up, before suggesting changing our guidelines? Who seriously strolls into a bar for the first time then makes noise because they don't serve a Singapore Sling or [insert drink of choice], then says the bar has to change its menu? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually asking "What ARE the guidelines?" If they say that softer items like Knut are OK, then I'm fine with it. My observation was that most of the discussion above could have been avoided with more obvious guidelines. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're still begging the question. —David Levy 02:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you David Levy, but please take my advice and just let it go. HiLo48 will not give in even an inch. So lets move on, we got what we wanted. Knuts news got posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)its consensus based system. there are obviously no guidelines on how to rate a polar bear death. i see consensus above so just accept the fact that something that you opposed went up. happens all the time. -- Ashish-g55 02:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm not going to lose sleep over this. It's obviously an item of interest to a lot of people. (Even though I'd never heard of the poor bear.) But I'll admit to being a little surprised at that finding of consensus. Quite a few "opposes" above, and one "strong opposes", not all that well negated by effective argument. It's funny. I was going to let go, but for consensus to be so obvious to you intrigues me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it seems surprising, having not really participating in ITN but reading this page for the last several weeks, that there's an apparent disconnect from what WP:ITN says and what some people believe it to be. The way I read it, and thought it worked, is that we're helping to highlight articles of high quality with wide interest that recently have had major news-making events noted to them, as to bring more readers and potential editors to these articles to improve them further. Knut seems to qualify given the breadth of sources. Charlie Sheen's whole mess seems to qualify - though certainly only after the dust settled and not so much on every strange turn. This is by far not to diminish the higher value of the Japanese quake/tsunami, the Libyan no-fly zone, and other events that affect the world as a whole, and those should get priority when space is limited. But at the same time, if we only just wanted these stories, we might as well put an RSS feed from BBC or CNN on the front page. ITN seems designed to help improve WP and not just regurgitate what 100s of other sites say. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with what Masem said here. I have pointed out three case studies here, detailing how one article got improved to GA-class and one was already FA class. I'm hoping that someone will take up the challenge to get Warren Christopher to GA-class (or maybe at least to B-class). That is the sort of article improvement and showcasing of our best work that ITN should do in addition to highlighting our articles on the events making global headlines. Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There aren't many polar bears like Knut. "World-famous" and "shared a Vanity Fair cover with Leonardo DiCaprio" makes him quite unique. It's an FA and I can't think of any reason to oppose. --candle•wicke 02:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel any better (I doubt it will), I opposed both of them. (At least that's consistent.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know famous real-life ducks? I'd lobby so hard. Or maybe if they tear down Wildwing's statue and thw whole Anaheim riots that'll probably make it. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Which has a longer discussion? Knuts the polar bear or Ted Kennedy the Unitedstatesian senator? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This fails even the proposed ITN3.0 criteria pretty comprehensively. Is it massively in the news right now? No. Is is something that is likely to figure in the top 10 most in demand pages right now? No. Is it such an intriguing/educating/astounding current event that had you not seen the link to it from the Main Page you would have gone through life feeling uneducated? No. Is it an excellent example of how Wikipedia is the best dynamic information source in the world? No. The f-ing cute bear died 26 years too early (not that you'd know it from the ITN blurb), and while this is 'interesting', Wikipedia is as crap at telling us why as the rest of the mass media is, because the article simply repeats what the media says. Much like 99% of all other dynamically changing articles which relate to current events, but will/do/would/have failed one or other of the ever changing abritrary ITN criteria. Yes, the article also tells me why it's a famous bear. Even though I vaguely knew already thanks to the actual news media, who do a pretty good job already of telling me the news, even the news I don't want to know about. I did what the Main Page demanded of me, and read the article. And I was disheartened to learn that my hopes that the reason this bear has an article here was because it had some special powers were completely incorrect, and lo-and-behold, the actual reason it's a famous bear are the same reasons every other famous zoo animal gets famous. Being cute, being abandoned, and being an animal rights controversy. Big wow. I would rather go and read the item all about how rockets sometimes explode again (which was the space item that distracted me from this weeks rarity - an actual space item about something actually ground-breakingly new and encyclopoedic). Let's get real FFS. The sole reason for posting this up was the same reason it makes the regular news, it's a classic 'and finally' type piece of throwaway news trivia, pure candyfloss for the uneducated masses, and something we are supposedly WP:NOT. And to think that on slower weeks, this could actually stay on the Main Page for 5 days!. At least the regular news media has the decency to mention this sort of thing just once in a night. And btw, there's no logical argument to be had at not posting the inquest findings when known too, as they will get the same amount of media & reader interest as this presumably got/has to get a spot on the Main Page of the 8th most viewed site in the world. MickMacNee (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A point of ITN 3.0 is to work harder to keep things moving so nothing stays on too long. It's been working fairly well lately. I have to say that the uneducated masses comment is not very helpful and sort of brings WP:IDONTLIKEIT to mind. You may not be interested in it, but there are plenty of people that are. RxS (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How are you measuring 'plenty' exactly? Knowing that this had been posted, I looked up yesterday's BBC Radio 1 Guinness World Record attempt and compared it, and its got twice the Google News coverage. For half a second I considered posting that as a suggestion yesterday, then I came to my senses. Infact, it has far better extra claims to significance than this tbh. If people don't have any justification for this item other than 'people are interested in it' and 'we have to post stuff like this to keep it cycling fast', then that's pretty lame tbh. The criteria I referred to are the proposed 3.0 standards as far as I can see, and while they are still as arbitrary and contradictory as ever, they have some logic. I am quite able to look past my distaste for this item as being worthy of any notice at all, to apply them objectively to it. And it fails, miserably. If any other 'and finally' type items can meet those criteria before posting, then I'm all for it, or I at least won't oppose. And btw, on the whole 'of interest' angle, as of right now, even with the benefit of now having a Main Page slot, this item is being utterly killed in the 'most editted' page stakes. UFC 128 is currently top, with the Libyan no-fly zone 2nd. The highest this ever got was 8th, and that's most likely bsed on edits made well before ITN/C got around to posting it. On more recent data, with the item still having at least 24 hours left on the Main Page in the best ever scenario, it's already down to 18th using stats from the last 6 hours, and outside the top 30 on the last hour alone. It's yesterday's news already, and it's not even yesterday. Just like the Radio 1 item. Just like all 'and finally' items covered by WP:NOT. UFC on the other hand, without an ITN slot, is receiving updates about recent current events, that pretty obviously, many people are interested in, yet no Main Page slot. Why? On the ITN and even ITN3.0 criteria, it's pretty obvious. On the Knut the Bear criteria, not so obvious. Except of course the relative cuteness of insane half-dead caged MMA artists compared to the cute and cuddly image of a giant prematurely and suspiciously dead off-white half insane caged bear floating face down in it's own paddling pool. MickMacNee (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The number of edits to UFC 128 might be because the description of the average wikipedia editor is identical to that of the average UFC watcher- male, young, single, disagreeable. The low number of edit of Knut would of course be due to the fact it is an FA!, there is little room for improvement and the article has existed for years unlike the UFC 128 article or the Japanese earthquakes and such. Passionless -Talk 06:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those stats do also count reverts, but even going on simple page views, things aren't any better. Infact, given the fact he died in the afternoon, on 19 March figures, it barely registered with the general public on views, even though editting of the tragic news was well underway. It will after posting, but then that's like saying telemarketing is succesfull if you get people to pick up the phone. It's certainly going to outperform election articles anyway, that's for sure, but as for proving people really needed this info their daily lives, as a top 5 most-informative most-desirable most-demanded pick of every updated article we have, I doubt it. Like I said, the article told me jack all I didn't already unwillingly pick up from the media anyway, and I have not been left with a new found wonderment at people's ability to repeat news reports in our articles, nor any amazing knowledge about the bear generally (seriously, 'bear on magazine cover' is straight up DYK material if ever I saw it). It is after all a very healthy component of all daily edits made here. Expecting people to be amazed at this kind of thing defeats the point of ITN anyway. I did get a good laugh at the use of the baby pic as the main image though, hopefully there's no kids out there having nightmares about floating bear cubs tonight. MickMacNee (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the solution to this sort of situation (as well as the sometimes forced efforts at WP:TFA/R to get articles featured on an anniversary date) is to have about 2 lines within ITN dedicated solely to including GA-class and FA-class articles that have recently been, or are in, the news. This would have much lower criteria for extensive news coverage than the current 'news ticker' news-reporting style entries on ITN, and would actually showcase the best of Wikipedia's work (something ITN often fails to do). No blurbs, just links to the articles. Please see my initial ideas on this here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that would take away room from the ITN which already has a major shortage of room, as seen in the last few days new blurbs are coming at decent pace, but as no new room has been added that means that now the blurbs are disappearing way too fast. Important blurbs are being treated like Farrah Fawcett by Michael Jackson, instantly removed from the news just because many other also important events are happening. Passionless -Talk 07:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this is extremely irrelevant. To be honest, I don't even care that a bear died in some distant zoo. If I was a Berliner, perhaps I'd care, but this is not relevant international news. H2ppyme (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it isnt relevant internationally why has it been a news covered by world media then?--BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, you haven't read the thread have you? Commercial TV News deliberately includes "cute" stories with pictures to make viewers feel good at the end of the bulletin. It doesn't have to be real news. Just cute, and with pictures. Tabloid newspapers are the same. HiLo48 (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knut's cuteness undoubtedly played a major role in the attention that he received, but nothing about his death is cute or makes "viewers feel good." For better or worse, many people genuinely cared about this bear and have been shocked and saddened by his death.
If the item pertained to a famous piece of artwork's destruction, I doubt that we'd be having this discussion. You're seeing a zoo animal and unfairly dismissing this as an "aww, how cute" story, despite a clearly disparate context. —David Levy 17:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @HiLo48, Please stop beating a dead horse. You aren't going to like everything that gets posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Enforcement of Libyan no-fly zone

French military jets are now flying over Libya in reconnaissance mission to begin the enforcement of the no-fly zone. 1 2 Cenarium (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb: "French warplanes enforcing a no-fly zone fire on Libyan military forces attacking Benghazi." Comments? I'm not sure how to work the uprising article into this blurb.--Chaser (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to pipe French Air Force instead of Dassault Rafale as there are also Mirages taking part, and supporting aircrafts. Cenarium (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Done in sample blurb. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb suggestion:
Feel free to shorten and refractor if too long. ~AH1(TCU) 19:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the blurb slightly to take into account the US and UK involvement. Please feel free to tweak further - Dumelow (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please include the following information: 48 casualties in Libya from Allied airstrikes. ~AH1(TCU) 19:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Clinton's SecState Warren Christopher

Warren Christopher, the first U.S. Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, has died. He was quite an important figure in the Balkan conflict, as was Richard Holbrooke whose death we posted. BBC Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 11:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support though the article needs an update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Christopher also had a role in negotiating an end to the Iranian hostage crisis. Blurb?--Chaser (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. As Eraserhead1 noted, the article must be updated beyond merely stating that Christopher "died on March 18, 2011, from complications of kidney and bladder cancer." It should contain information about the death's impact (e.g. statements by prominent politicians). —David Levy 15:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to edit the article at the moment, but here are some sources:
Statement by Barack Obama
Statement by Hillary Rodham Clinton
Statement by Jimmy Carter
(I see that a comment from Carter's memoirs has been added to the article, but this obviously is more current.)
—David Levy 15:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great :). All of them are now in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the blurb I suggest Warren Christopher the first secretary of state for US President Bill Clinton dies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. we dont vote count. the 2 and 3 supports have no reason whatsoever. and 2. what his global notability? a foreign min dies and hes automatically a saint? this needs to be removed.Lihaas (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To give a reason, support due to the lasting significance of a number of his initiatives in the Middle East and Europe including in the Balkans, the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel and the Iranian hostage crisis. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-post possibly pointless oppose. I can understand why a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama type might be posted in similar circumstances but would disagree with posting less senior figures as there seems to be so many of them. And that he was Clinton's first secretary of state suggests that there was more than one which, in the space of eight years, seems a little too frequent. That he died of cancer suggests his death, while tragic, was not unexpected. That U.S. presidents (or presidents of any kind) should line up to pay tribute to a former colleague hardly seems unexpected. --candle•wicke 03:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As laid out above by Eraserhead and myself, he was actively involved in a number of major peace and war operations, thus is thoroughly notable for what he did. C.f. WP:ITN/DC points 1 and 2. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 03:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Moon

Not particularly noteworthy, if interesting. Not exactly ITN material imo, so oppose. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, I did anticipate that kind of oppose - but I am still disappointed. It is the moon. The closest for 18 years. It is on BBC News (on rotation) and features in worldwide newspapers - today.
I'm sorry that my suggestion does not include any blood and gore, but I rather hoped that this was an Encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. Millions, if not billions, around the world will be looking at the full-moon tonight.
Our article, moon, is an FA, and is excellent; this is a rare opportunity to feature quality, encyclopaedic content on the main page, for a short time. It will not happen again for another 18 years.  Chzz  ►  10:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Despite my tone, above - thank you for considering it. I do appreciate that, in spite of my clear disappointment with your opinion.  Chzz  ►  10:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support while the update isn't quite up to ITN standards it is an opportunity to get a Featured Article on ITN. And there are comments from a lot of people at WT:ITN3.0 (and actually below in the Frank Buckles discussion) about including more articles of Good/Featured article status. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should really encourage any more extensive updates. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did think about that; however, the article previously had no info on the moons distance from the Earth - which I found odd, in an FA. I think this one-off date, the closest during the "Wikipedia era", warranted mention. But anyway - that'd be an issue for discussion over at Talk:moon rather than here, presumably - 'coz if we start complaining about recentism here at ITN, we'll get into some problems :-)  Chzz  ►  12:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Of global interest, and I buy the argument about a Featured Article on ITN. Jusdafax 12:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There is nothing here that was not forecast decades ago. Where is the news element? Has the Moon article been substantially revised in the light of this? Does it deserve it? Astronomy is replete with once in a lifetime/once in x thousand years events. This something that was surpassed 18 years ago. In any case, as drafted, this makes a completely non-notable point in that it refers to something that occurs frequently. The Moon reaches perigee once a month. The only difference this month is that purely by chance the moment of perigee is very close to the point of full moon. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The news element is, that it is happening today - for the first time since Wikipedia existed. Once in eighteen years is hardly "frequent". If not accepted though, we can discuss it again in 2029.  Chzz  ►  12:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Crispmucher, you could make the "chance" argument about every Sport story we post. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it again: this blurb does not refer to anything at all unusual: it happened last month, the month before that and the month before that. The notable element is the "super Moon", where two essentially unrelated phenomena approximately coincide - namely the full Moon and perigee - and that is the chance element I referred to above. The result of this coincidence is a full Moon of greater than normal apparent brightness - that is the thing that is unprecedented since 1993. You can argue that that is notable but as above I still view it as non-newsworthy. However, as drafted the blurb does not refer to the Moon's phases or brightness. It refers to the Moon's perigee only. Just so that everyone is clear on this: this is something that occurs every month. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb suggested states: The moon reaches its closest point to the Earth since 1993 Today (19th of March), and will appear 30% brighter and 14% larger than at its furthest point. So that isn't something that happens every month. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So can we work on the phrasing, perhaps? How about, ":*The moon reaches its closest point to the Earth during a full moon since 1993 Today (19th of March), and will appear 30% brighter and 14% larger than at its furthest point. " - or can others word it better?  Chzz  ►  13:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point: I should have checked back for the precise wording of the proposed blurb. But the point still stands: it is not because it is at the closest point: that is a monthly occurrence. It is a rarer combination of factors at play. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AstroHurricane001, there's a few too many suggest/comment things in that - I think your suggestions are good, but could you possibly suggest an alternate tag, to show what you mean? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
  • The Moon reaches its closest point, or perigee, to the Earth during a Full moon since 1993, occurring on March 19 in a particularly close 'Supermoon', and appearing 30% brighter and 14% larger than at its farthest point in orbit at apogee.
I realize it's somewhat awkward, but "apsis" does not have an update nor needs one though "perigee" and "apogee" seem to refer to the closest approach by Earth to another object, while Supermoon is a bit informal and tends to cause media panic when linked as the main article. ~AH1(TCU) 15:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As this event actually happens in about 3 hours in the UK (moonrise, 18:34 UTC) - and a bit longer in the US - then if it is accepted, it'd be nice if it were fairly soon.  Chzz  ►  15:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was about to post this, but the information in the article needs to be corrected. From what I can tell, this is not the closest the Moon has been since 1993. This is just the first time since then that the perigee has coincided with the full moon. The article used to support the relevant section seems to say precisely that. -- tariqabjotu 15:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing by 'Ready' you refer to the alt from User:AstroHurricane001 above? Which looks fine to me, except I don't think "full moon" needs a capital F. And anything to make it a bit clearer would be nice. Can't think of that right now; I might later. But time-wise, it would be nice to get it up. Chzz  ►  16:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ready means the article is updated and there's enough support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+surely it should be [moon]] bolded, not apsis.  Chzz  ►  16:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tariqabjotu yes, you are correct - hence the alt mentioned.  Chzz  ►  16:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC) @AstroH. - re. <!--area or diameter?--> - it would appear sources just say "larger" or "bigger" in appearance - therefore logic says, it's the "way it looks" hence diameter (as the circle we see, from here)  Chzz  ►  16:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I like astronomy news, but this one is dumb. It is about 10 km closer than it was a few years ago, which is less than 1 in 10,000 of the total distance. We do not post the closest distance of Earth to Sun or any other objects that would otherwise be more interesting. Let's keep it to astronomy entries of real notability. Nergaal (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted AstroHurricane's blurb is too long, though. -- tariqabjotu 16:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can we make a direct link to #Appearance from Earth? ~AH1(TCU) 16:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That there are more important events means that ITN doesn't cover the breadth of the encyclopaedia, besides more important astronomical events could be nominated - the moon seems like one that is interesting to a lot of people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But NOBODY can notice the difference!!! Having a spacecraft exiting the Solar System is waaay more important, even if the news don't write about it. Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been nominated earlier I would have definitely supported that, unfortunately it was just a little too late that it was nominated :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Referendum

I'm an involved editor, having worked on the 2011 Egyptian revolution article, and related articles about the region. This is a very important event that could well impact the direction which Egypt takes over the next decade. The mere prospect of the country having a constitutional referendum--not to mention the significance of the outcome--is a milestone for the country and a key indicator of what the political process will look like as they chart a course through very new and dynamic terrain. I'd like to see it on the main page so that readers can continue to follow the developments in the Middle East rather than just forgetting that after the revolution there is the real story of how they decide and structure their future. These events will determine which path Egypt takes, whether the political process will be swayed to traditional power bases, if the activist-led progressive non-sectarianism can be maintained amid the fractures of democratic maneuvering, if old tensions will ignite... it's just an amazing thing to watch unfold and tomorrow marks a major waypoint on that journey. Ocaasi (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: References need to be filled out (listing author, title, date, etc.). Support, but probably preference for waiting for final results. SpencerT♦C 03:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References has been filled out. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for results, per long-established consensus to wait on elections and referenda. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 04:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can post it now and update it when the result comes out like we did with Southern Sudanese independence referendum. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A referendum to create a new country can hardly be compared to a regular constitutional referendum. I would oppose any attempt to post before results are known. Keep POV out of ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 04:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to what you first said. Now, I am not trying to push my POV on anyone. As for your reply, a referendum is a referendum no matter what it is about. Some are worthy of being mentioned and some are not. I think this one is and that why I submitted it to be ITN. If it doesnt get consensus among our peers, it will not be posted. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable to wait for the results. The article is pretty incomplete and is mostly made up of text taken directly from the constitution and the proposed amendments. The result fields are all blank and there are some maintenance tags in it. It'll fill out and be better for it. RxS (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
obvious notability but 1. precedence waits for results, though 2. it could very well take longer and thus delay the notability from iTN. think we need to re-sticky-fy the MENA protests. stuff going on in Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt right now and more to follow in at least LebanonLihaas (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

March 18, 2011 (2011-03-18) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Ongoing clashes over South Sudan

Article: George Athor (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Armed clashes between the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement and a dissenting faction led by George Athor kill hundreds of people in South Sudan. (Post)
Article needs updating

The news-factor of this story may be compromised as it is a recurring event, but I think ITN should make a mention of these mostly recent clashes:

~AH1(TCU) 16:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support this series of clashes seem worthy of posting, however where's the update? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support when there is an updated article to link to. Thue | talk 20:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support itn--BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We're overdue in terms of timing, but a recurrence of a clash would prompt a renewed posting. ~AH1(TCU) 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Ellamy

The UK's role is just one part of the no-fly zone. Is there a reason why it should be especially featured? Do you have a suggestion for how the current blurb should be updated? Thue | talk 17:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to some news sources the UK along with France seems to take a 'leading role' in the participation of the no-fly zone. It has to be worth noting that the UK is first to take action in any operations concluding the no-fly zone. Jaguar (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the article is way too short at the moment. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be short at the moment but it will be updated in the mean time. Jaguar (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "post early" argument only holds when it is obvious why the subject is very important. I am not convinced, and the current article's content doesn't make an argument for why it is more important than the Libyan no-fly zone article itself. Thue | talk 18:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the first nation to take action, and the importance is high as Operation Ellamy could lead into something bigger than expected. I think an appropiate line would be: "The United Kingdom, France and the United States release Operation Ellamy, an operation to strike Libya from air and sea." Jaguar (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2011 Yemeni protests

Thue | talk 16:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support when updated a bit more. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A state of emergency is a serious enough development. --candle•wicke 18:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a significant development in the Yemen protests. Passionless -Talk 18:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the article a bit more under the March 18th heading. Passionless -Talk 03:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe they were identified as police here.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per candlewicke--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, marking ready as the article has been updated and there is a good blurb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --Tone 09:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Update: 45 killed. ~AH1(TCU) 15:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. Thue | talk 20:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fukushima I nuclear accidents

Notable update: "Japan nuclear safety agency says level 5 incident at Fukushima reactors No. 1, 2, 3, raised from level 4". Nergaal (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that Japan has been talking down the severity; without claiming being an expert, I would agree with France's assessment that this is already a level 6 event. So I don't think we should feature Japan's downplayed estimate in ITN. Thue | talk 15:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is the first time they have accepted anything towards the assessment made by others. Nergaal (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[50] Nergaal (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little off-topic but the Cooling requirements section in the article has no references. I dont know if that entire section should be there given that this is linked to main page. i didnt wanna post in article talk as it will just get lost. -- Ashish-g55 16:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There is obviously some level of subjectivity regarding the severity of this disaster. Per WP:CRYSTAL, rather than be hasty to post something which may be untrue, we should wait until the facts are out regarding the full extent of what has occurred.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air France Flight 447

A judge in France has charged Airbus and Air France with manslaughter in relation to the disappearance of Air France Flight 447 over the Atlantic Ocean in 2009. BBC (Air France) BBC (Airbus) Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 12:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until they are convicted, especially since it is "preliminary" manslaughter charges. Thue | talk 15:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager 1

This is kind of old and I am surprised nobody noticed it: Voyager 1 did its first maneuvers in over two decades (since Family Portrait (Voyager)) [51]. In light of the current events, it is an nice reminder how useful nuclear reactors can be. Nergaal (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too old I think. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, oppose. The maneuver itself is a bit too obscure. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 11:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to necessarily support because it is a bit old, but I still want to thank you for mentioning this, I didn't know, and it made my morning warmer and fuzzier. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] MESSENGER does Mercury orbit insertion

Took 6 years but it finally does it. First man made object to orbit mercury. Pretty big achievement. -- Ashish-g55 01:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Given the number of names I recognize on this list, I'd say it's definitely ITN worthy.--Chaser (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but MESSENGER#Orbital_encounter_of_Mercury needs a little more expansion to explain the full notability. SpencerT♦C 04:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a B-class article which is currently in the news. I second the call for timely updates as this event progresses. Let's hope this news prompts further work on the article, which should be the ultimate aim here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Historic event. Agree with Carcharoth about getting it posted. Jusdafax 06:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with above. This is indeed historic and ITN-worthy. – SMasters (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nergaal (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A significant achievement, worthy of ITN.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support In fact, why isn't this posted yet? This is a fairly major space achievement. If the failure of Glory can make ITN, this should be a shoo-in. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 11:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. I did only mark it ready a little earlier. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about
as the blurb? Thue | talk 14:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

March 17, 2011 (2011-03-17) (Thursday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

[Done] Sticky for Japan

After artificially keeping the earthquake and tsunami in Japan on ITN for a while by removing the second to last item for a cycle or two, I've replaced that blurb with a non-cycling link towards the bottom of the ITN section (a "sticky"). There was some discussion of this here. Note that the generic blurb about the efforts to control the radiation at the nuclear power plant remains at the top of ITN. Comments about the sticky are welcome.--Chaser (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. The sticky allows users to quickly access info on the cleanup of the earthquake and tsunami and it allows us to leave ITN itself open for news regarding the nuclear plant. --PlasmaTwa2 00:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, very good call. Jusdafax 03:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also support this, but with the caveat that it is still not clear yet which is the bigger story. It is possible (in fact, very likely) that the news of the nuclear power plant has been distracting from the real tragedy here, the thousands lost in the tsunami, and the ongoing efforts to provide supplies to the tens of thousands (and more) who survived and have been made homeless. This is not just a "cleanup" effort, but has the potential for a humanitarian crisis (it is similar in some ways to what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina). I would support fresh items being posted about the tsunami consequences at some point as the article is updated with that information. Carcharoth (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you're saying. There was a proposal below that went nowhere, but if the death toll tops 10,000, as it almost certainly will, then I think there would be support for a new blurb. I would support it for that and other stories.--Chaser (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The tagged article is not quietly appropriate. We have two events with one deriving from the other, and two articles with very high number of views and updates. Apparently the tag is to minimize the updates with inserting new blurbs, but it directs only to the article about the earthquake. Of course the earthquake is the main event, but since we have a separate article about Fukushima where additional updates are made. But don't forget that the developing story is the radioactivity caused of Fukushima explosions, and the global awareness is about it. In nutshell, the current tag should be trimmed with creating an article as a timeline of the both events with other minor as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] UN security council approves Libyan no-fly zone

Suggested blurb: The United Nations approves a no-fly zone over Libya, and military intervention against Gaddafi's forces
I did not link to Libyan no-fly zone or United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, because the first does not talk about the potential for foreign military action, and the second is still a stub. Passionless -Talk 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How come the very important part that foreign armies have been given the right to bomb Gaddafi's troops is not part of the blurb? Passionless -Talk 00:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better?--Chaser (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much, thank you, Passionless -Talk 01:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update quake entry

  • The official toll has passed 5000 deaths (although it might pass 10k eventually). Perhaps update and bump the entry with this? Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support an update for "surpasses 10,000" or "one month after the earthquake the death toll stands at . . ." The article will show the updated figure, but it doesn't rise to front page headline status with each update. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Waziristan drone attack

I have made here and am repeating here, a proposal to remove the Middle East and North Africa protests link. The reasons are as follows:

  • (1) The Middle East and North Africa protests is getting few updates compared to the other items on the template
  • (2) Individual items are still going up (e.g. Bahrain items recently, but nothing on the Libya situation?).
  • (3) The news is being dominated by the earthquake and tsunami, and the nuclear power plant news
  • (4) Room needs to be freed up for other items (including individual MENA protest items if needed)

So I think a decision needs to be taken to either remove the MENA protests link or insist that items related to this can't go up separately. At the moment, the MENA protests link takes up too much room, when there is a great deal of demand on the available space in ITN. It is likely for the next week or two that the earthquake and tsunami, the nuclear power plant, and an item related to the MENA protests, will be on the template. As well as the MENA protests link. That leaves little room for anything else. Either we accept this, or we make changes to accommodate other items that have support to go up. I'm not sure which, so proposing here to see what the consensus is. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above rationale.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, other than Bahrain there's really not all that much left going on that warrants a sticky. Was thinking of proposing it be removed, myself. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 08:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now. Could be another escalation in current activity, so let's be open to putting it back up. Jusdafax 08:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

March 16, 2011 (2011-03-16) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime
  • Police in Cambodia ask prosecutors to charge recruitment firm T&P with illegally detaining its staff. (BBC)
  • Raymond Davis, an official with the United States embassy in Pakistan, is acquitted of charges of two counts of murder and released from jail after compensation is paid to the victims' families, the result of intense diplomatic talks between the United States and Pakistan.(CNN) (Times of Pakistan)

Politics

Sport

Transport :
  • Indian Railways driver Surekha Yadav loco pilot mail drives the Deccan Queen from Pune to Mumbai CST, for Central Railways division, and becomes the first woman from this country to do so.

IAR: Non-free image on ITN

I know that no copyrighted images are allowed on the main page, but this is a very unusual situation. Officials are not very forthcoming with information, and I think this image would be very informative for many. Thoughts? Nergaal (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the name of the image is misleading, since I uploaded a newer version. Nergaal (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No thoughts? Anybody? Nergaal (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. And, to be honest, I don't think this image is that earth-shattering. -- tariqabjotu 19:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tariqabjotu. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the image wasn't all that great. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems is that this image (or any image of all four reactors) shows nothing at the 100x100 pixel resolution of ITN images on the mainpage.--Chaser (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that image is earth-shattering, when you understand what you are seeing. But I am not too happy about non-free images on the main page. Thue | talk 19:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last time someone stuck a non-free image on the MP, no less than Jimbo came by to take it down. This is pretty much a "thou shalt not" under Foundation policy, anyway. Courcelles 19:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that image is still useless at 100 pixels. Try removing the first : from this and previewing 100px Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Raymond Allen Davis

Oppose, I don't see how this case should be given special attention than any other case regarding diplomats in trouble (e.g. Silviu Ionescu). Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 15:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no multimillion payouts there. AFAIK this is the first time money has been paid in a case involving diplomatic immunity.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support firstly while there is diplomatic immunity I don't believe there are any cases of a diplomat essentially murdering at least relatively innocent citizens of another country on their soil, secondly I've never heard of millions of dollars of blood money being paid due to this sort of action. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is an unusual story and ITN blurb, and Mwalcoff is right when he notes that the story has not had much attention in the US. May be controversial, but I stand by my support above. Jusdafax 23:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Protest The blurb should read that the charges have been dismissed. I suggest "Pakinstan dismisses double murder charges and frees CIA contractor Raymond Allen Davis after blood money is paid." μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was pardoned under sharia law after payment of blood money. That can hardly be construed as Pakistan dismissing the charges. --Stephen 00:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While our article says dismissed, the source article says "acquitted" and pardoned. The charges are not pending and it's highly inappropriate to refer to them as if they were. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. I'm extremely uncomfortable making reference to these murder charges on the main page when there has been no adjudication on the merits of them. A charge does not equal factual guilt, but that distinction is lost in a headline.--Chaser (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As a matter of order, is there some explicit policy on how to refer to legal charges against living persons? Was surprised I couldn't find one at MOS or BLP. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Um... what? The blurb as it is now says almost nothing. It relies on everyone knowing what this case about. I fail to see what everyone's issue with the word charged is. First, the article says numerous times that Davis killed the two people; there is no debate about that. Whether it was technically murder is a matter of debate, but part of Davis' defense is that he killed them in self-defense. So, obviously, he killed them. If the issue is with the word murder, you could use charged with killing two people, but the crime he was charged for was double murder. Even though he was "acquitted", with charged in past tense, it remains true that Davis was charged with double murder. Even ten years from now, it would be true to say he was charged with double murder. But, that aside, it's particularly innocuous in this current setting because we are saying in the subsequent clause that he was freed. Even if I were to grant you the point that charged will give people the impression that he was convicted (as some people apparently read), there are plenty of other alternative words -- like "suspected" -- that would convey the point. But, as it is now, the blurb is far from informative for anyone unfamiliar with this case. Rather than eliminate mention of what the incident was, reword the clause instead. -- tariqabjotu 00:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The blurb says nothing! It's quite unclear. "...Raymond Allen Davis is freed (from where?) after the payment of blood money (by whom? to whom? for what offense?) Swarm X 01:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. The source says he was acquitted. "Charged with murder, he was released", is not only defamatory, it's just plain illogical. "Acquitted of the charges, he was released" is the objective statement. Innocent until proven guilty. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Defamatory and illogical like in this headline? If you don't think the wording is clear, fine, but there's nothing defamatory about it. It's an accurate description of what happened. Not the only accurate description, but an accurate description nevertheless. I would suggest that you propose something else, but given you don't want to read my reply or even pick up a dictionary to learn what it means to be charged with a crime, I don't actually give a damn what you think. -- tariqabjotu 02:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed suggest alternative verbiage with the first post in this subtopic, [54] which you apparently overlooked. The question is not with the meaning of the word charged but its timeliness. It is quite true that at some point Richard Jewell was suspected of a bombing and Gary Condit was suspected of killing Chandra Levy. But it would be highly inappropriate after the fact to refer to either as suspected killers, even if once they were. 04:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • How about American Raymond Allen Davis acquitted by a Pakistani court of murder charges after payment of blood money thereby ending diplomatic stand off. --Wikireader41 (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted something similar to that. Yes, it still mentions double murder and charges, but hopefully this pacifies those who thought the original wording somehow suggested he was convicted. (Note that the aim here is not to make it seem like he didn't kill two people; that is a fact that is undisputed by even Davis himself.) -- tariqabjotu 02:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, never mind; as pointed out on WP:ERRORS, acquitted is no longer in the article. Any other suggestions? -- tariqabjotu 03:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with the current version. It may be best to avoid terms like pardoned and acquitted although some sources use both [55] Nil Einne (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think those terms would confuse a lot of English speakers outside Pakistan. I can only speak from an American legal perspective; what happened here would not be described as a pardon or acquittal in the United States. Acquittal means a finding that there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt. Pardon usually means clemency granted by the governor or President. Neither happened here. The charges were dropped. If you want to be more formal, "dismissed".--Chaser (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the timestamp of Nil's comment, I assumed he was referring to a version that uses "dropped". -- tariqabjotu 03:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and dropped is probably better (and also seems to be what some refs use). More formal is not necessarily wise when we're having difficulty conveying exactly what happened. Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I guess dismissed better conveys the idea it was the courts not the authorities who appear to have been the ones who made the decision Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording should be modified to say That Pakistan has dropped the charges, not simply that charges were dropped. There are no such things as charges without a charging body. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a local or regional government, not the state of Pakistan, that charged him. So I added "in Pakistan". What would specifying the charging body add to this blurb?--Chaser (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) That seems to me to be unnecessary detail and another thing we will probably be wrong at particularly since we still don't really understand what exactly what happened. Are you sure Pakistani is even accurate? Isn't it really the Punjab provinence that's involved, it's their law minister that's generally making comments? Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording seems eminently reasonable, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Crackdown on protesters in Bahrain

  • "Bahrain violently cracks down on peaceful protesters drawing international condemnation."
currently ongoing and cpertinent (see as the timers red (how come though? is someone not refreshing it?))Lihaas (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although not with that proposed blurb as it's comes across as holding a POV. It's on most news outlets right now. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 11:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support though we have a Bahrain item on ITN already. Agree that blurb wording needs work. By the way, is this an update to that one or a new item? Either way I am supporting a blurb for this notable development. Jusdafax 11:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yep, update, also want to suggest alternative blurbs? im totaly biased right now.Lihaas (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK to me, and I haven't been following it that closely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has posted this.--Chaser (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese stocks fall, then rally

"Japanese stocks fall in the aftermath of a massive earthquake and tsunami."

March 15

March 15, 2011 (2011-03-15) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

History

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Sport

Frank Buckles

This item was proposed (by another editor) back in February following the death of Frank Buckles, the last US World War I veteran, but there was opposition then. I said I would propose the item again following the funeral (as I was sure that this would generate fresh news coverage), and am doing so now. If you opposed then, please do consider what I said back then (it is unlikely that the passing of the remaining veterans will generate the same amount of news coverage), and please do consider this item afresh, as the article has been much updated (as can be seen if you read it in full, there is more to the story than I have mentioned here). A longer blurb is available in the news portal for 15 March, but I shortened it for ITN. There are also some freely licensed photographs available of the lying in honour at Arlington if pictures are needed. Though the article is about the individual, the emphasis in the blurb reflects the news articles, which report this as marking the passing of the generation he came to represent. I realise that the news is currently dominated by other matters, but I hope that we can take this opportunity to mark the passing of this era in our own way, by pointing our readers to the article that has been updated following the news of the various commemoration events. Carcharoth (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a notable event for the United States that is generating media coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know we can have items about only one country in In The News, but Carcharoth, you ask us to look at it afresh, while you have completely failed to address those concerns expressed by many before that this was only about one country. To those Wikipedia editors not from the USA, the consistent failure of those who are to address the fact the Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia is a source of ongoing concern. HiLo48 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did say "please do consider what I said back then" - have you gone back and read the archived discussion and what I said then? In that discussion, David Levy told you that "the ITN criteria no longer include an "international" requirement (let alone a "global" one)"? My basic argument here is:
  • (1) This item was covered outside the US media (including in Australia and the UK).
  • (2) It has received timely updates, and indeed has been much-improved during the course of the news cycles.
  • (3) We are unlikely to see this amount of news coverage again anywhere worldwide relating to the passing of the World War I veterans.
I'd like to add two further points:
  • (i) I'm not from the US - my interest in this comes from following news items related to World War I in general.
  • (ii) I felt bound to honour my previous statement that I would resubmit this proposal, and I would hope that would be respected.
At the moment, with only one support, this almost certainly isn't going to get the support needed to be posted, but that may be more due to the fact that Wikpedia's 'in the news' (ITN) section has (wrongly, in my opinion) more of an emphasis on the amount and type of news coverage something receives, than on the quality of the article(s) concerned. This submission is a prime example of a news story that took time to develop, during which time the article itself was massively improved. That, to me, is what ITN should be about, channeling interest generated from news coverage towards improving articles, as opposed to an attempt to provide global coverage of high-impact news (I go to a news service for that, myself). Carcharoth (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me jump in on this one. As one of the editor/author's of the Frank Buckles page, I think that the last US Veteran of WWI is notable and should be mentioned on ITN as this is something that will never never happen again. That is big news. Earthquakes, tsunamis, wars, these are things, sadly, that will happen for hundreds of millions of years to come. But there will never be another US Vet of WWI. Say something like "Frank Buckles, the last WWI Veteran from the United States is laid to rest. Only two living veterans left from that conflict." That would give the United States view, plus the international view as the other two vets are Brits (there is a debated vet from Poland). But it takes me back to my point from earlier. If we miss this oppotunity this time, it won't come around again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with what you say, but disagree with the suggested alternative text. The text I suggested deliberately puts Buckles in the context of the generation that he came to represent. It would be inappropriate, in my view, to start with a mention of his name. The real news here is the "passing of a generation" and the commemoration of that generation, not the death of an individual. In other words, the commemoration is for all of the 4.7 million US soldiers that fought in World War I, not just for Buckles. I would even suggest the following, to de-emphasise the name:

The passing of a generation is marked by the burial of the last US World War I veteran with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery

As I said, that would suitably de-emphasise the individual and correctly place the focus on the generation being commemorated. Carcharoth (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the above, it works. Support. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 07:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- I opposed before and still do, this event has zero impact on the lives of over 99.999% of people, events of this magnitude should be put on the appropriate pages like the recent deaths portal though it probably fails to meet the international and high notability aspects required for the current events portal. He was not the last vetern of WWI, just the last of his nation, going by that criteria we would end up with hundreds of last vetern war X of nation Y died, even if we ignore some nations and wars. Also if this was to be posted it should have been when he did die, just like we do with those highly notable people.Passionless -Talk 08:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Same as Passionless. Are we going to list the death of every last WW2 veterans in every country? I doubt it. I'll support the last WW1 veteran, but not one of any particular nationality. Nightw 08:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WW1 and WW2 are far more notable than any other war in the 20th century at least. Posting the last WW2 veteran from the major countries wouldn't be a particularly onerous burden. However regardless unmarking ready. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Um -- "every last WW I veteran" now? Not even a potential handful, really. I think a grand total of two more in the universe? Surely not a big deal to allow for their eventual deaths - this is not like commemorating fifty or a hundred potential people - it is about a total of three (now two, IIRC). As for "impact on people" - frankly, I do not see that as a real issue. This death was covered in the US, Canada, Australia, England (The Times etc.), France (AFP), person notable enough for Malta of all places [56], and Switzerland (Nachrichten.ch - Mar 1, 2011 Frank Buckles starb am Sonntag friedlich in seinem Haus in der Nähe von Charles Town im US-Bundesstaat West Virginia. ) I trust the international nature is proven without needing cites from another dozen nations? Collect (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ITN may be the only section in the Main Page except the FA section that rejected a WP:GA. LOL –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing news from Japan

It seems likely that there will be ongoing updates in our articles on the news from Japan, which will dominate the news for the next week or so at least, so I've suggested discussing here how best to handle this. Leaving this not here to point people there, though if the discussion is best held here (or somewhere else), please switch the two round and point people here (or to where the discussion is held). Carcharoth (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I haven't looked, but is the MENA protests article is getting ITN-appropriate updates at least daily? If it hasn't it should probably be removed. But we've stuck up article stickies there anyway w/o any prose updates so... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I can see, the article is updated permanently as the new ongoing events happen, but cannot be easily seen due to the fact that the tagged article is still the main article about the protests, but not a timeline. Seems like the protests are quietly more silent than in the previous weeks (except Libya and military intervention in Bahrain), and we can think of removing the tag. On the other hand. the ongoing events in Japan could possibly go in a new tag, but I will strongly oppose it without well prepared article (timeline or summation of all events) which will indicate the all events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to start such a timeline article? As for the rate of editing, 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests had 28 edits on 15 March 2011; Fukushima I nuclear accidents had 592 edits on 15 March 2011; and 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami had 327 edits on 15 March 2011. So that gives some idea of how rapidly the articles are being updated. Also note that the MENA protests sticky seems a bit redundant as there is a MENA item up there at the moment (the one about Bahrain). Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Explosion at Japanese nuclear plant

A third explosion at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in Ōkuma, Japan forces the evacuation of workers and increased the risk of a full meltdown. NY Times.--Chaser (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: radiation per hour is 100 times that of background radiation in a year => roughly 1 million above background (and a thousandth of that near the Chernobyl reactor in 1986). Nergaal (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fukushima I reactor #4 on fire

[57] Additionally, those living within 30 km of the reactors have been ordered to stay indoors due to increasing radiation levels. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that no-one has commented on this in nearly 24 hours. What is the point of having ITN blurbs up there if updates like the one Titoxd suggested are ignored? I read about this on the train home, and I was surprised to see the ITN blurb still stuck on yesterday's news about reactor 3 (see above). I suggest that a more vague blurb be put up indicating that this is an ongoing crisis, and leaving readers to get the details from the article (which will be updated far faster than the ITN blurbs), and this 'sticky' item be left up there for at least a week (including the earthquake and tsunami one as well). This will avoid the situation where ITN blurbs are lagging around a day behind what is actually happening. Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

March 14, 2011 (2011-03-14) (Monday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics

[Posted] Saudi Arabia sends troops to Bahrain

Saudi Arabia sends troops to help quell the protests in Bahrain [58]. The obvious Wikipedia article is 2011 Bahraini protests#14_March but that is currently telling a milder version of the same event. Thue | talk 20:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support when updated a bit more. A significant development. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BorgQueen. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should be sufficiently updated now. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is ready before a concrete blurb has been suggested. Thue | talk 22:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about: Persian Gulf nations, including Saudia Arabia, send troops and police to help quell protests in Bahrain -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The Oil, again. ~AH1(TCU) 00:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nergaal (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Marks a new era in regional relations. Jusdafax 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BorgQueen. --candle•wicke 01:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why was this posted when 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests is already in the ITN box? Carcharoth (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was never under the impression the sticky was intended to stop the posting of any protest-related item. The blurb here doesn't even link to that article. -- tariqabjotu 02:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Dalai Lama steps down

I said I'd support it as a no-brainer if he did. True to my word, I'm even nominating it. Nightw 14:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per previous - this is a political only change and this guy isn't a notable politician as he doesnt rule anyone or any territory. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Support for meeting the celebrity criteria I have proposed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tibet may not be a sovereign country, but the Dalai Lama is an international figurehead for the Chinese opposition. He is widely recognized and so leaving his political post is ITN-worthy.--Chaser (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--aside from his political status, which I would say is notable, he is also the religious leader of Tibetan Buddhism. Less significant religious leaders have been notable enough for ITN in the past.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need an update in the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't need to reckon the political status of Tibet to judge the significance of this report. I must notice that the Dalai Lama is not only a political figure as leader of Tibet, and the current sovereign has become a true cosmopolitan with very high international recognition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the suggested blurb, which is inaccurate in two senses. He has proposed to relinquish his political authority. He hasn't actually done anything yet, and he would retain his religious office. I support a more accurate description. Raul654 (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal for better one: "Dalai Lama gives up his political role in Tibet after more than 50 years ruling the government in exile."
Emphasizing only the political authority is too short, so I put additional information to lengthen the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It also needs to be clear that he doesn't have a political role in Tibet, he has a political role in the Tibetan government in exile (otherwise we are pushing a POV) so I suggest the following blurb: "The Dalai Lama proposes to step down as political leader of the Tibetan government in exile."-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO that's addressed by the second bit in the blurb above ("ruling the government in exile"). As to your "proposes" language, is there any real doubt about them accepting his resignation?--Chaser (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I read the blurb through properly as you have a good point, but I still think my blurb is better as its not as ambiguous. I'm perfectly happy to remove the word proposes - you are right that it will almost certainly be accepted. So I think:

The Dalai Lama steps down as political leader of the Tibetan government in exile. is better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Expect China-wide block... ~AH1(TCU) 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Wikipedia is blocked in China anyway, no?--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

March 13, 2011 (2011-03-13) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy
  • Donald Elmer, the Chief Executive of a small U.S.–based pharmaceutical company, Koronis, said that he is looking to raise money through London's Alternative Investment Market, thus enabling the next stage of clinical tests for his company's anti-HIV product, KP-1461. (Reuters)

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] China adopts a new 5-year plan

This just happened minutes ago so western sources haven't reported it yet, [59].

China adopts a new 5-year plan which aims to boost spending on public services, decrease economic inequality, and increase employment and wages.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thue | talk 08:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - world's most populous nation plans for the future. It will be interesting to see if the story gets much play in the Western media, so I almost !voted to wait, but am assuming it will be in the headlines. Jusdafax 08:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support significant event for worlds second largest economy regardless of coverage by the western media. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, however, it would be a good idea to include the congress in the blurb. Discussed a couple of days ago. --Tone 10:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a three paragraph update, so I'm marking this as [Ready] to be posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley abruptly resigns

Very interesting case in major headlines where a top U.S. official speaks his mind and gets sacked, political "resignation" terminology aside. CNN Am linking to Manning's article, which is in quite reasonable shape, as opposed to the Crowley one, which needs work. Have decided to leave out mention of Wikileaks and whistleblowing due to length concerns. Suggested blurb: U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley abruptly resigns after controversial comments regarding the jail conditions of Bradley Manning. Jusdafax 07:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article Bradley Manning is fairly extensive, which is always a plus, and properly updated already. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thue | talk 08:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crowley's article is in poor shape (whether we bold it or not, he's the subject of the blurb) and this is quite a minor event. As the State Department's spokesman he's obviously on the telly a lot but he's really not a significant official. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He may be on the telly a lot but realistially only political junkies would be familiar with him.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to be addressed first, indeed. --Tone 10:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The updated section looks OK, but the orange tags do need addressing. Support assuming they are removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jusdafax. Disagree with Mkativerata, have often seen Crowley's name mentioned in the international media in relation to the United States actually, so perhaps others have too. --candle•wicke 01:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think spokesman for the State Department is important enough for the resignation to be featured on ITN. I used to know one of his predecessors, and I didn't think he was a big celebrity. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arab League calls for no fly zone over Libya

Amid continuing conflict in Libya, the Arab League calls for for a no-fly zone.

  • Suggested. The news reports say that the UN Security Council is expected to debate this next week, although it is still far from assured. The bigger news might be the change this signals in Arab politics. USA Today reports that it indicates Arab governments now have to pay more attention to public sentiment. The Libyan uprising article is updated, but it needs polishing before going live. The other aspects of this that could be included in the blurb are that the Arab League has ceased to recognize Qaddafi's government and has instead recognized the opposition as the legitimate voice of Libyan people.--Chaser (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Important development in this ongoing story. Jusdafax 21:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jusdafax. Thue | talk 22:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose nothing happened as yet, the Al is a notorious talk shop.Lihaas (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Merely "calling for" something isn't very significant. The change in attitude is interesting, but whatever anybody says, a no-fly zone isn't going to happen unless the US is on board, because, if the media are correct, only the US have the money and aircraft to actually enforce it. I might support if a no-fly zone were actually declared (though I'm not sure what purpose it would serve) and enforced, but just calling for one isn't a significant development. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the timer's red, and the Arab world is shown to have turned against Lybia. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wait for the actual implementation. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. (per above) --Tone 10:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support For all we know a no fly zone might not even be implemented. I say if it is posted we can just update the hook to say that it was implemented. Spongie555 (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis

A U.S.-led research team may have finally located the lost city of Atlantis, the legendary metropolis believed swamped by a tsunami thousands of years ago in mud flats in southern Spain. [60] - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would be good for the April Fools In the News. Spongie555 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the last time I checked, Atlantis was at the coast of San Francisco... Ok, seriously, is there anything more reliable than that yahoo link? A peer-reviewed paper? --Tone 10:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article in question is Tartessos. ~AH1(TCU) 00:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IEA next executive director

Former Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs, Maria van der Hoeven, is selected as the next Executive Director of the International Energy Agency. Beagel (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support there definitely needs to be more of an update, but this is probably worthy of posting if an update is made, they seem to have quite a lot of Google hits talking about what they have to say. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean update of Maria van der Hoeven or the International Energy Agency article? By my understanding the Maria van der Hoeven article should be hooked, but I do not oppose if it will be the IEA article. Beagel (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I support this should be posted on ITN but let's wait till she actually takes office on September 1, 2011. Spongie555 (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Nuclear meltdown

The Japan nuclear plant entry needs an update. Officials refer to the situation by using the words nuclear meltdown. Nergaal (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to nuclear meltdown earlier. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 08:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need an update. The explosion turned out to be somewhat irrelevant, and should be removed. But it is new that there have already occured partial meltdowns at two plant at Fukushima I. And there are cooling problems at one more reactor at Fukushima I and 3 at Fukushima II [63]. Mentioning the 200.000 people evacuated also seems fair. Thue | talk 08:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it was "somewhat irrelevant, and should be removed". Without the explosion there wouldn't even have been all the hype and fear of nuclear meltdown, so it's hardly been irrelevant. That's not a valid reason for pulling an item anyway, "irrelevance". Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 09:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring all but the actual ITN issues, I'll say that I do agree with SP that the explosion still has relevance to the blurb, as I see it. At last check there were two reactors in danger of or actually in "partial meltdown" and three others that had significant issues. Jusdafax 09:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is all the hype and fear about a nuclear meltdown, because there is a large probability that a partial nuclear meltdown has already occured, according to NYT[64]. We don't need an explosion to feature a nuclear meltdown ITN! As for removing mention of the explosion, the explosion should of course still be mentioned in the article, but it is usual ITN practice to tweak the blurb to reflect the current situation, and since the explosion apparently was of little consequence other than immediate shock value, then we should consider blurb alternatives which focus on other aspects of the disaster. Thue | talk 09:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the current blurb makes it sound like the explosion caused the possibility of a nuclear meltdown, which is not the case as far as I am aware. This should be fixed. Thue | talk 09:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(several ec's) In an attempt to address this discussion's thrust, how about Japanese officials order 200,000 evacuations due to concerns regarding possible partial nuclear meltdowns including the Fukushima I (pictured) nuclear accident, amid overall earthquake death toll estimates of over 10,000. Jusdafax 09:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC) To clarify: I propose replacing the current top blurb with this one, and propose keeping the current photo unless anyone has a better. Jusdafax 09:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be better to hold this separate from general earthquake, and not mention the 10.000 dead estimate. And full meltdowns are still possible, so we should not only mention partial meltdowns. and I would call it one evacuation of 200.000 people, not "200.000 evacuations". Thue | talk 10:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on this a while now and it is dawn where I am. Agree with your last point, don't agree with the 10K death estimate being pulled but can live with it out, and the meltdown wording is better your way. I'm too toasted to write another version so if you or someone else would like to take a whack at it, I'd be obliged. What I really hope is that the Japanese get a handle on this situation and we can go back to arguing about more mundane matters. See you next time, Jusdafax 11:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the blurb update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my proposed update. Note that not all the 200.000 are evacuated because of the 2 partial meltdowns at Fukushima I, which the previous suggested blurbs might make readers think. Thue | talk 14:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to keep the blurbs to one sentence, I've never seen a two-sentence blurb used on ITN, and more generally, used in headlines. I don't think Japan needs to be linked. Neither does Fukushima I need to be linked twice to two different articles. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 14:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could add an "as", as is sometimes done ITN; but that seems so artificial. With regard to the double-linking of Fukushima I, that was the best place I could find to link. Suggestions welcome :). Thue | talk 14:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb suggestion: Japanese officials order 200,000 evacuations due to concerns regarding possible partial nuclear meltdowns, amid overall earthquake death toll estimates of over 10,000. --Kslotte (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or myabe leave out the earthquake and instead update the estimation into the current earthquake blurb. --Kslotte (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New blurb suggestion: Japanese officials order 200,000 evacuations due to concerns regarding possible partial nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. --Kslotte (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The posted (not by me) blurb is an excellent compromise. Formulating those blurbs is an art, which I do not excel in :). Thue | talk 21:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5 people killed in Israel

A family of 5 was stabbed with a knife in the West Bank. Source ---Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 01:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article which would survive an AFD, imo. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it will survive the Afd currently placed on it. Its to early to predict any notability in a weeks or month time. What we do know is that it is notable now.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You took my comment out of context; I made the comment in the assumption that an article didn't already exist. Now that I know it does and it seems to meet notability criteria, I agree it will survive AFD. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers;).--BabbaQ (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well... it's a lot harder to kill several people with a knife rather than with a gun, bombs or via mother nature, hence the quite low casualty. Espoo shooting in Europe is an ITN item had a comparable number of casualties.. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing could be that there has been alot of international condemnation for this one single event.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the imagery adds to the story's appeal but the act is different in the context and timing of the conflict.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. but how often do people go around celebrating savage murders ( of children) by distributing sweets ??[66]--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - at least at present, as I think the article in its current form has POV issues. Gatoclass (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • obvious oppose 5 dead is not newsworthy. should we then post all the occurences of dead in sudan or rapes in congo? this is not a news service. and per the other 2, in a conflict zone it doesnt stand out as much as otherwise (which even then would be dubious)Lihaas (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

March 12, 2011 (2011-03-12) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Sport

NFL owners locks out players

For the 1st time since 1987 there has been a work stoppage in the NFL. Source Baseball Watcher 17:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is Greek to me...  狐 FOX  17:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read 2011 NFL season#Labor dispute. Baseball Watcher 18:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look important enough to be in the news section, especially considering what is going on at the moment, and the NY bus Crash isn't up yet as well... Not bein Bias against sports fans, I know how passionately you guys feel... ;-) also, very localised events are minor, this isn't international news, which say, the super-bowl generally is so it's not -all- localised. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, guys, can we please stop using "not as bad as Japan" as part of oppose reasons for items? Look at the item on its own merits. Sad as the earthquake is, the world keeps on turning and the template will need to be updated with other news going on in the world at the same time. -- tariqabjotu 21:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Baseball - can you sum it up in a few sentences? There's a heap of jargon in there.  狐 FOX  21:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[After Edit conflict] The important negative is that it's only about one country. It's significant that those wanting to include it have only called it the NFL, as if the rest of the world is expected to know what that abbreviation means. I do happen to know, but which N is it? All a bit narrow. And it's a game played professionally in only one country. Would those Americans who want it included think a similar event in the Irish Gaelic Football competition should be "In the news" ? HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 GAA items at ITNR, perhaps unsurprisingly, as compared to American football's one. We'd get really more than enough coverage of the uber niche GAA-organized events.–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 00:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is going to affect millions of people, and not just in the USA, as American football has fans all over the world. Indeed, NFL games are held in countries from Japan to England. Jusdafax 21:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
how does it affect anyone if there is no ongoing season? oppose since off season lockout is just not big enough. we can post if this lockout stops the season from starting -- Ashish-g55 22:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This [[67]] LA Times article explains in detail why this is a notable news story, in my view. Jusdafax 00:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does that article explain why it is notable? I asked above, would you accept a similar story about the GAA as globally newsworthy? (Nobody answered.) What about the AFL? It's one sporting competition in one country. Needs a strong case to make it globally important. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the Japanese make an anime about Gaelic sports or Aussie rules football, then we'd talk. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is global importance essential? More than half the audience lives in the US where NFL is popular, and there are plenty of vastly less notable sports on WP:ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there's that argument that says "Anything that happens in the USA is more important than anything that happens anywhere else because the USA is big." If that is a valid argument, those of us not from the USA might as well stop being part of the Wikipedia project now. :-( One could also argue that the audience impact is less important than that on the players. (Which is obviously true.) In that case, the impact in GAA, AFL and NFL would be similar. HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess no one's arguing about significance (probably except you). Just interest. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And why limit to Australia and Ireland? Nigeria, the Philippines, and India all have more English speakers singly than Australia and Ireland combined. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I so hate having to explain my clever contributions here.... It's nothing to do with English speakers. Australia and Ireland both have equally insular, home-grown, professional football codes, just like NFL. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be true the US is several times bigger economically, politically and population-wise than Ireland and Australia combined. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it bloody well is, but did you actually read anything more than the post that you just responded to? Please look 5 posts up at my 01:52 post. Why do we bother to call this a global encyclopaedia? Hey everyone! Meet Wikipedia, the All-American Encyclopedia. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to be quite so hyperbolic. If this was the French Wikipedia I'm sure there would be more stories on France and Quebec, than you might otherwise expect if those countries didn't speak French. There is no need to complain just because something is of interest to Americans. Its not as if we don't post events that occur outside the US. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're not getting this, are you? What does French Wikipedia have to do with it? Or maybe you're unaware that Australians speak English. I come to these pages hoping to have intelligent conversation, then find people fail to comprehend simple facts, and don't read what others post. I'm giving up. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I know that the Australians speak English... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And someone who agrees with you does it, despite teh fact that you gave no reasons at all! All very nice. Hides a lot of tricky questions for your side of the argument, doesn't it? You don't win debates by removing an opponent's arguments. Very unethical! How about you play nicer than that? HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the sarcasm and get with the discussion. As I have now asked three times, with no sensible response, would you accept a similar story about the GAA as globally newsworthy? What about the AFL? And please don't ignore me again. Your response may well shape policy here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pushing for a more inclusive attitude here for weeks. See [68] for example. Post a request for AFL and if the article is up to par I'd support in a heartbeat. RxS (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and no one is saying Anything that happens in the USA is more important than anything that happens anywhere else because the USA is big. That's wildly off the mark, it's an argument that's only occuring in your own mind. RxS (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop avoiding the question. I said "a similar story". That means it is of the same quality as the one being considered here. Just answer the question! HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the AFL players went on strike I'd be happy to support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Screw the AFL, of course that'll be added w/ overwhelming support since it's not an American sporting item. U.S.-centric items do get added, but only after contentious discussion, when a drive-by admin adds it, then further contentious discussion happens and no one has the balls to remove it (actually, someone may have the balls but it will be re-added again, and we're back to square one). What I'd want to know if some "insular, home-grown" sporting leagues from non-Caucasian dominated countries will get in. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there's still a fairly good chance that the dispute will be resolved without affecting the NFL season (at least to the point of cancelling games). I'd say as long as this is an off-season dispute with no impact on the actual season, I !vote oppose. Also, looking at ESPN it's not even the top headline there.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not much enough reason to expect the opinions of some people here will change despite cancellation of at least a part of the season. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYC bus crash kills 13

BBC

  • Not the kind of story I'd normally propose for adding to ITN but it's killed a considerable number of people in a major city, it's not something that really happens much. I'm unsure as to whether or not an article would survive AFD, and if one has even been created, but it's worth considering. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 14:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - 2011 New York City bus crash - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't even a rationale for supporting. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 15:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is no article, as a prerequisite. Still, with the disaster in Japan this is a minor accident (at this moment, we have three items where more people were killed on ITN). So, I'll oppose here. --Tone 16:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tone, with all due respect to the souls in NYC. Jusdafax 16:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That second sentence has to be among the worst oppose excuses I have ever heard. I'm not necessarily saying this should go onto ITN, but if there's a reason it shouldn't, that shouldn't be it. By that logic, we may not have any otherwise notable event on ITN where only a dozen people are killed because... well... it's not as bad as Japan. This is basically the ITN equivalent of saying, "stop frowning about losing your job... it's not as bad as what's happening in Japan". -- tariqabjotu 21:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with User:Tariqabjotu that we can't measure everything by the disasters in Japan. But bus crashes are still too common to feature ITN, as can be seen from a google news search [69]. For example [70] and [71] were bus crashes in the last 3 days, both with more fatalities than the NY crash. Thue | talk 21:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think bus crashes with multiple fatalities are rarer in New York than they are in Southern Nigeria and North West China ;) -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Wait] Kyūshū Shinkansen fully opens

It is only 130 km long, and due to the earthquake the opening ceremonies have been cancelled (though the trains are running) and it would be the third Japan story on the front page, but it is a little different from what we usually post. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait normally I would probably have supported, but just like the opening ceremonies would have seemed misplaced to the Japanese, this item would feel misplaced along the other items on ITN about earthquakes, tsunamies, and nuclear meltdown. I suggest we post it when the Japanese hold the postponed opening ceremony. Thue | talk 10:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Radioactive material leaked from Japan's nuclear reactors

Article: Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant
Streaming links: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698 http://live.reuters.com/Event/Japan_earthquake2

Nuclear meltdown is feared but not necessary certain. However, nuclear material was released to allow the pressure in at least one of the reactors to go down. Release of nuclear material is even rarer than large earthquakes so I think this should be posted independently. [72], [73], [74]. Nergaal (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Radioactive leaks around the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant are detected amidst worries of a nuclear meltdown, causing thousands of evacuations. I think the evacuations are important. Jusdafax 09:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'm looking at Reuters at the moment. [75] Let's get a blurb. Jusdafax 09:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one - I will posts it to ITN soon if nobody disagrees. Thue | talk 09:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the qualifier "massive" is necessary in the blurb. How about Fears of a nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant grow following an explosion, as thousands of people are evacuated from the area. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 09:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a trimmed-down version. Thue | talk 10:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further pictures from the BBC [76] confirm this is truly a major explosion. No confirmation about the containment building yet, but if that was what blew, this story went from disaster to mega-disaster. Again, I'm not seeing confirmation that it is a meltdown and we need that first; hence my wording is "raises fears." Jusdafax 09:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main question is what type of building has blown. Before we know that, wouldn't any blurp be premature? It might be useful to wait half an hour or so... I am not familiar with this process at all, so just my 2c... L.tak (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explosion has occurred, fears are high, evacuations are happening. What is the problem with posting the last proposed blurb? It only contains information that is confirmed. Nergaal (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nergaal. By the way, the main page at BBC now using word "massive" for the explosion. [77] As for waiting, this wording will do for now, it is all sourced and very newsworthy. Either my blurb or Strange Passerby's is fine at this point in my view. Jusdafax 10:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the counter is red. Nergaal (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that seems to be a rel. safe assumption. Agree with posting... L.tak (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Radiation now confirmed leaking by Japanese officials per Reuters [78]. Jusdafax 10:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters blurb now reports that the evacuation zone is increased to 20 km. [79] Jusdafax 10:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a very good suggestion Nergaal. Admin, please update photo. Jusdafax 10:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do people agree about this? IMO it is a very poor picture, with very little but a forrested hill being visible. A picture would be nice, but IMO this one isn't it. Thue | talk 10:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Too low-resolution as well. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, this 1975 picture although possibly partially dated is very clear: File:Fukushima I NPP 1975.jpg. The building that exploded is the right one in the set of four (left bottom corner). Nergaal (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The overhead shot shows the entire complex. Either is fine using (pictured) in the blurb. Jusdafax 10:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the image ITN. Thue | talk 11:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the entire building exploded, judging from the video [80]. Thue | talk 10:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meltdown is confirmed according to this.[81] Maybe the phrasing is a little too iffy, but would keep eye out for more reports. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the Japanese government quoted by the BBC: "Explosion at Fukushima nuclear power plant not believed to have seriously damaged reactor itself, officials say". Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 11:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the Japanese government says no meltdown according to the BBC. By the way, the current blurb, in which the word "meltdown" is now out, is now misphrased. "... a radioactive contamination." is wrong; the word "a" should be taken out. Jusdafax 15:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, can someone please delete the superfluous 'a'? μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here again I am in agreement with Nergaal. I am seeing the word 'meltdown' in numerous headlines. It is the main thing they are trying to prevent at more than one reactor. Another thing I think that bears mention is the evacuations in the six figures and the fact that at least two reactors are in trouble and releasing radiation. Jusdafax 04:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC) UPDATE: Read this latest [82] from the Washington Post... It is looking very bad, and it seems this could require a complete rewrite of the current blurb or an all new one. Jusdafax 04:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

March 11, 2011 (2011-03-11) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics

UNASUR Treaty enters into force

Comment The article needs an update. There is also no information about the ratification of the treaty by Brazil and Bolivia, while the map shows only Brazil with no ratification.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support the updated content is sufficient, in the past weve posted such updates.Lihaas (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami

Support once the article is updated. But post soon rather than waiting for perfection. Thue | talk 06:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support quick post per Thue. Rehman 06:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Magnitude 8.9 quake strikes off the coast of Japan triggering a 10-metre high tsunami. Rehman 06:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MAXIMUM SUPPORT - Deadliest tsunami after 2004 - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Deadliest"? I haven't seen a single casualty reported yet. Nanobear (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wish granted now? Belated support btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.255.9.129 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The deadliest quake after 2004 is still the 2010 Haiti one, not this. Diego Grez (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deadliest tsunami NOT earthquake. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WHY ARE YOU YELLING AT ME!?! :P I don't care either way, but you said earthquake. And you can't know whether it is or not the deadliest tsunami since 2004 either right now. Diego Grez (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? He did not say earthquake. -- tariqabjotu 21:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yes */me moronic*. Is it just me, or the ITN box is larger than usual? Diego Grez (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although no casualty figures reported yet. Japan is used to earthquakes, so damage and deaths may be low, but this should still be notable because of its magnitude. Nanobear (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Top ten earthquake in terms of strength should certainly be posted. Truthsort (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a big one, much more to follow for sure.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion, with links:
The "many injuries" is based on [83], and the tsunami height is based on [84]. Thue | talk 07:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If one or two people would second my suggested text, then I will use my vaunted admin status to post it :). Thue | talk 07:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. There is also the Irish Taoiseach story a bit further down to post as well and save a trip over to ANI ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously an 8.9 earthquake is newsworthy even if (hopefully) there are no casualties. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support An 8.9 Earthquake is an auto-add for ITN,--King Bedford I Seek his grace 07:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bedford, marking [Ready] as the article has been updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a huge quake. – SMasters (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted T. Canens (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support News outlets worldwide (e.g. Yahoo, CNN, BBC) are already reporting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.174.128 (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please revise the 4 meter to 10 meters. The article has been updated. – SMasters (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This will need several updates as the casualties come in. Shocking pictures. Jusdafax 08:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is the first WP:RS with a death toll [85], but there is no doubt it will rise quickly. Poor souls. Jusdafax 09:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera has reported 19 as of now, and it has been updated in the article. I suggest not putting this in ITN for now, as unfortunately, this number is set to rise and change constantly. – SMasters (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we don't need to update the death toll everytime we get an uptick, but the blurb should read "many injuries and deaths" to be accurate. Jusdafax 09:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you. – SMasters (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could an admin see to this asap? The blurb gives the impression only injuries have occured, which is now clearly not the case. Jusdafax 09:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Never mind it is done, thanks. Jusdafax 09:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MSNBC [86] is reporting there is "a state of nuclear emergency declared" at this time, but no radiation leaks reported. Story may need further updates regarding this. Jusdafax 12:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Belated Support. Quite big then. The article states: "The magnitude of 8.9 made it the largest earthquake to hit Japan in recorded history and the seventh largest in the world since records began." The other six are from 1700, 1868, 1952, 1960, 1964 and 2004 and it is above last year's earthquake in Chile. Also http://www.google.com home page now states: "Tsunami Alert for New Zealand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Hawaii, and others. Waves expected over the next few hours, caused by 8.9 earthquake in Japan". --candle•wicke 14:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Belated Support. Saw the images when I woke up this morning. Tsunami warnings all over the place... this is messed up. Newest estimate I've seen is 200-300 deaths in north-eastern Japan by a witness police. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, radiation leaks are confirmed and my worst fears are coming true, with thousands being evacuated because of issues with Japan's nuke plants [87] [88] the time has come to take note of this fact in the blurb, in my opinion. Bad as it is, this story is getting worse. Jusdafax 00:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until a Japanese source confirms leaks, I think we should be cautious on claiming that. Should focus on mentioning the 10 km exclusion radius around the plants as a precaution, rather than claim (maybe erroneously) that they're leaking. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now it's two plants that have issues [89] and the source about the radiation seems solid: "In a troubling announcement, Japan Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency official Ryohei Shiomi said a monitoring device outside the plant detected radiation that is eight times higher than normal." Major evacuations and officials admitting release of radiation is worth a mention, in my view. Jusdafax 02:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get something from this story as the image, and move off the Libyan flag? I know they're both big stories, but this is the one dominating the moment, as it were. Radagast (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Radagast above. Rehman 03:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree as well. I know there was a potential copyvio pic earlier. Why not put the wave height pic up instead? Definitely not the Libyan flag, for now. – SMasters (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A picture would be good. We may have to wait for some amateur material to become available. But I'm a bit concerned with the seeming "I'm sick of Libya" attitude on display here? Is there some sort of racism at play? HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, let's not throw around the 'r' word! WP:AGF. I think it's just a belief that the Japan quake is important enough. Also, I'm not a huge fan of using flags as the image myself (of any country). They don't say very much. Would it be feasible to use a map of Japan showing the quake location?--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Momentarily this is the best I could find @ Commons Diego Grez (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that a good Japan disaster photo would be a plus. Jusdafax 04:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean to offend anyone with the racism suggestion, but it would help if people gave sensible reasons when they posted opinions. It's hard to agree with "move off the Libyan flag" when no reason is given. I had to guess. Is it my fault if I guessed wrong? HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a thread on the Japanese quake, so the reason was pretty self-apparent.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is your fault. Your instinct was to guess a nefarious motive, especially after people said things along the lines of "this is the dominating story". The suggestion was just ridiculous. -- tariqabjotu 05:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute rubbish. People gave opinions without reasons. Where is the reason in "Can we get something from this story as the image, and move off the Libyan flag?" This all sounds like the in-gang of regular editors, who are familiar with each others' style, bullying the newcomer. Happens a lot on Wikipedia. I can handle the bullying, and I know you won't be able to agree with me publicly, but do think about what the words that are written here actually say. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully suggest all sides chill out. We have bigger fish to fry. Jusdafax 08:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with race. There was a picture there about the Japan quake and it was removed because of potential copyvio. The Libyan story won't go away soon, but this is the lead story globally at the moment. – SMasters (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

iPad 2 released today

The iPad 2 is released in the US today. Here is a source Baseball Watcher 03:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that isn't achievable I'd be surprised. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it sells like hotcakes, then maybe. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the news is. The announcement would have been a better time to post this. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No need for spamming the main page with what would be essentially an advertisement. No major Technological innovations, or "firsts" or records are associated with this product. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 15:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose of course it's going to sell like hotcakes--so what. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just another incremental product release. Thue | talk 13:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

March 10, 2011 (2011-03-10) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

[Posted] First Lupus treatment approved by FDA (in 50 years)

This might be a long shot, but the condition affects 5 mil ppl worldwide, and it just got the first drug approved. Nergaal (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is the first in 50 years: [90] [91]. Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support we don't post many medicine stories and this one seems notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article on the drug Belimumab needs just a bit of polishing. Btw, this article says it is the "First New Lupus Drug in 50 Years", not the first ever. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query Is this a treatment that reduces the symptoms or one that will be a de-facto cure thats what I am unclear about... The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 20:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the article's uses section is touched up a bit. Pretty monumental news in the world of medicine. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Important and notable. Jusdafax 21:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Paris recognises Libyan opposition

France has become the first nation to recognise the Libyan opposition in Benghazi as the country's legitimate administration. I think that's a pretty big development and probably worth putting on ITN. Suggest something along the lines of "France becomes the first nation to recognise anti-Gaddafi forces as the legitimate government in Libya amidst a continued uprising." Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support a rather notable development, however, would this already be "covered" by the sticky link that was added a few days ago? --PlasmaTwa2 13:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say so; we still posted an Egypt-related update that's still in the template right now. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, major news. --Golbez (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. AFAIK, this is a pretty rare move in any circumstance and may set off a chain of similar actions by other nations. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article 2011 Libyan uprising is updated. Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support first recognition of a government is significant (and before anyone compares this to my oppose below the Libyan opposition control significant territory and people and their government has been recognised). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-post support. Huge news. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9 March 2011 Peshawar bombing

Another attack in Pakistan kills 36. Mention: On the top page we have a attack with only 25 deaths.- EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging with current blurb to something like "More than 50 people die in bomb attacks in Faisalabad and Peshawar in Pakistan." However, this article requires significant expansion before this can be done. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 11:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very short. Expansion needed first. --Tone 17:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the article is expanded. I might have some time to do some updating myself. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This one obviously has led to more deaths than the one on the Main Page. --candle•wicke 22:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it a bit, only borderline acceptable for MP right now IMO. C628 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dalai Lama

The 14th Dalai Lama announces plans to retire as the head of the Tibetan exile movement. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested blurb:"The Dalai Lama has stepped down as the political leader of the Tibetan government in exile." – SMasters (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sub national election for a minor province or unrecognised nation state at best. Unrecognised minor provincial government at worst (and which frankly makes more sense given the history). Even for the best provinces (e.g. california) we don't generally post this level of stuff and this is far less notable than Californias election. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning makes little sense. How is the Dalai Lama's government in exile remotely comparable to elections in California?? Nightw 11:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if you believe Tibet is a province of China, then this is either the legitimate tibetan provincial government or it's the unrecognised provincial government. Thus its similar to California. If you believe Tibet is not a province of China then they are the government of an entirely unrecognised country which they don't even de-facto control. Thus it's not worthy again. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you're just overlooking the fact that this is the world's best-known government in exile? Nightw 12:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More than just a government in exile. This is a head of a major religion announcing that the religion will give up all temporal power. Hence just the announcement in itself is extraordinary enough to be notable. Thue | talk 15:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's keeping his religious position as far as I am aware. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your logic. You were so gung-ho about posting Charlie Sheen, but you don't support this? I am so, so confused. -- tariqabjotu 17:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dalai Lama not a rehab loving celebrity? -- Ashish-g55 17:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because he isn't a notable politician as he doesn't rule anyone - even at a provincial level - and he's not stepping down from his religious position (which would be notable). Now sure he's a celebrity, so if people want to support this due to his celebrity status please ignore my oppose !vote. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a little more Charlie Sheen's thing is also only really notable because he was sacked, if he'd decided to leave at the end of the season, I don't think that would be ITN worthy - which would be the equivalence in my view to this decision. -- Eraserhead1 <talk>
Oppose: If and when he steps down, of course it'll doubtless be ITN-worthy. Annoucing plans to do something, however notable, doesn't actually affect anything and we don't normally post items until an event actually takes place. Nightw 11:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a head of a major religion, who will give up his temporal power. Even just the announcement in itself is extraordinary enough to have some effect. Thue | talk 15:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err, it's not if an when... I would have waited. He has stepped down. – SMasters (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"If and when he steps down, of course it'll doubtless be ITN-worthy." Dalai Lama Quits As Tibetan Political Leader. So, I guess you are supporting then? – SMasters (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the Dali Lama steps down does it meet our usual standards for celebrity postings? As clearly the Dali Lama isn't a notable politician. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, what? Of course the Dalai Lama is notable as a politican. Thue | talk 15:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if its possible to be a notable politician when you rule over noone, and control 0km2 of territory - even on a de-facto basis and your government is recognised by 0 other governments, then sure. But then surely the mayor of London, or if you want to argue he has political power because he meets important people, someone like Bono or Bob Geldof, are at least equally notable politicians. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is beginning to look like trolling to me. The Dalai Lama (note spelling) is not a "celebrity" in the generally understood sense of the word, and to describe as such appears deliberately provocative. 87.115.50.126 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, its just that I have a different point of view. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearly a big deal even though it doesn't fit into any existing category. We can use a little comon sense here. The only question is if it should be posted now or when he actually retires. I'd lean toward waiting I guess (though to be honest there's no reason not to do both). RxS (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Support: I frankly don't understand whay there is any opposition to this at all. The Dalai Lama is one of the few men in the world who is a household name on every continent... like the pope. This is bigger news than any story on the front page right now or for a while. This Should Be Posted Already. Cwill151 (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. This will actually be notable when he retires. --Tone 17:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I oppose posting till this act is offically done. However Strongest possible support once it occurs. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the Monday announcement. Yes this is a big deal, but it's a little more hitting once it actually occurs. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there hasn't yet been any update, I presume 14th Dalai Lama would be the appropriate article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2011 Yunnan earthquake

Earthquake with casualties in China. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a two sentence article. – SMasters (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An article covering an event that happened only a few hours earlier... half of the world was sleeping when it happened, so give it some time. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very short. Expansion needed first. --Tone 17:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated and expanded. Also Support. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further expanded, also Support and now marking ready. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

March 9, 2011 (2011-03-09) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Space Shuttle Discovery is retired after nearly 27 years

Oppose We posted the launch of the shuttle, which was more significant than the completion of its mission. In principal, the ITNR declares the launch as a sufficient for posting, but not its return, even if it ends a whole mission.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Conditional support per the discussion about a new blurb above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid use of ITNR: you can't invoke ITNR to oppose a blurb. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is based entirely on the fact that the launch of the shuttle was more significant than its return. The other comment is only an enhancement of my opinion. I would strongly agree if the vote was only "oppose per ITNR", or even "oppose per ITNR pending the launch as more relevant".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My reworded proposal for the blurb:

The mission of the oldest NASA Space Shuttle Discovery ends after 27 years of service.

Thus we'll avoid to mention the return of STS-133, which was already mentioned, and we emphasize that it's the oldest American space shuttle.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like that makes a much more appropriate point. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very good...RxS (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this is the final shuttle run it is clearly notable. Where's the update though? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad enough that we apparently intend having three "final launches" in four months: three final landing and retirements as well in the same timeframe is overkill. Kevin McE (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Discovery is well-known worldwide and as the oldest shuttle this is highly significant. StrPby (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is posted, I suggest re-wording to not repeat space shuttle: "NASA Space Shuttle Discovery, the most traveled shuttle in history, is retired after 27 years of service." A bit briefer.--Chaser (away) - talk 23:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where's the update? -- tariqabjotu 23:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article has a problem tag on it, as well. StrPby (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support w/ Chaser's blurb. I cleaned it up enough to take the reference tag off.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main tags were resolved and the article was updated to reflect STS 133, and of course the main STS-133 has a fully formed article, fully updated. RxS (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wheres the update? I'm not marking this as [Ready] until I see one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead and body were updated with the final landing.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has a one sentence update, please give a link for the body update. -- Eraserhead1

<talk> 08:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was mainly in the Flight section (total numbers, last flight, etc.). I updated the history section (last flight, future) and did some section organizing. Sorry, no single diff for that.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see much. -- tariqabjotu 16:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you got me. I don't usually work this area, maybe there is something missing that I am unaware of. The article isn't that long but at least appears updated.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Ready] Enda Kenny becomes Irish Taoiseach

This situation is directly analagous to, for example, David Cameron becoming UK Prime Minister, which happened after the 2010 general election. Both were posted to ITN. --Kwekubo (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the archives, there were no general elections at least in Europe of a country in similar in size with the UK. The last election of a UK-comparable European country was German federal election, 2009 (CDU/CSU didn't win a majority) and ITN didn't list Merkel being reelected as PM. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reason we can't start posting new PMs now though is there? RxS (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No party won the election; the new Taoiseach was decided only after agreement on which parties would form a coalition government (again, very similar to what happened in 2010 in the United Kingdom, as outlined above). --Kwekubo (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I think the blurb should be reworded to emphasize the outcome of the whole situation, not the name of the new PM.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean along the lines of the following?
Following the Irish general election, a coalition government is formed between Fine Gael and the Labour Party, with Enda Kenny (pictured) as Taoiseach.
--Kwekubo (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is more appropriate. In fact, the coalition should be noted the end of the election crisis and the key article in the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
opppose Kenny was featured in the publication of the results only a few days ago Kevin McE (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting, just as we did in the drawn-out UK and Australian election results. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mkativerata. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the Ireland situation and new government continues to be "in the news" outside Ireland. Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Sky News. --candle•wicke 22:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an exactly 5 sentence update on the event itself with 3 sources, as well as a lot of coverage of the election itself in Enda Kenny as well as an update to the lead. Thus I'm marking it as [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Tchenguiz brothers

Comment We usually use to post involvement of former and actual politicians, but I don't remember we've had arrest of businessmen in such major case.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd support this but the article is pretty thin at this point. RxS (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the article is up to scratch, I'll try and have a look later. But this seems notable and worthy of inclusion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese quake

A 7.2 earthquake hits off the coast of Honshu, JapanUSGS The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 03:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Apart from the lack of a news story and associated article, an observation of the aftermath of the quake (using info gathered from the same site) reveals that the major cities in the area suffered no real damage. Generally earthquakes are posted if they have devastating effects on the area population.--WaltCip (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Big quake but no damage to speak of. Thank goodness! This quake centered on a major city would have been a killer. Jusdafax 05:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed jumped the gun on posting this, I got the Usual USGS alert texted to me and then got Breaking New Alert in my Email. I assumed it was serious. Though the USGS Destruction forecast system showed after an hour after the initial alerts that Damage would run under 1 Million USD with no more than a few deaths. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that this has been overtaken by subsequent events, and ought to close a not news. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

March 8, 2011 (2011-03-08) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Sport

[Posted] Pakistan bombing

[Pulled] 100th anniversary of International Women's Day

It appears in the section below every year, but this year is its 100th year, and commemorations are on a bigger scale than normal, hence my suggestion. – SMasters (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support of obvious interest to women who are under-represented. 100th anniversary is significant as well and generating significant press coverage. The guardian had a whole section on it this morning. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good article, very topical and of interest to a large segment of our readers. RxS (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was seeing where Colipon was going, but I'd agree in saying that the centennial of the celebration is in itself notable. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Eraserhead1. GreyHood Talk 17:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I agree it's significant, as noted above it's already linked in the DYK section, and the purpose of ITN is to link readers to informative WP articles so that's already done. As an aside, have any of our editors actually witnessed any celebration of this holiday/anniversary? I mean, it's barely known in the US outside specialized academic circles (as far as I know). It's huge in Russia, but mostly as day of Valentine's day type romance with very little commemoration of of the kind of Women's issues being featured on Wikipedia right now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many celebrations going on around the world right now... just one look at the news and you'll see that it's also big in Japan, India, Europe... and you have this as well. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this looks like its been updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Belated Oppose That's really not a significant update - not enough for this to make sense on ITN, at least. The blurb says "events are held to celebrate..."; the article says essentially the same thing. Unless I'm missing something, there's absolutely no information on any of these events. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong belated oppose the article is not in very good condition. "Events are scheduled..."? I don't see the news part about this item. --PlasmaTwa2 02:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another belated oppose. It still says "Events are scheduled to take place in more than 100 countries". What 100 countries? I see two 'non-events' in the U.S. ... (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled, per above belated opposes, even when considering we're more likely to receive belated opposes than belated supports. I wasn't too comfortable about putting it up in the first place anyway, given the lack of precedence for what was essentially putting a holiday in ITN. -- tariqabjotu 07:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Misogynistm? Nergaal (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume that was a joke. -- tariqabjotu 07:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is this? The update is well above what we normally have for an ITN feature and doesn't "essentially say the same thing" as the blurb. The article is in a fine condition and obviously thwarts some of the articles we normally post. I'm going to assume that this was a joke, because it was totally unwarranted. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When an article still says "events are scheduled to take place..." the day after this was reportedly in the news, the article just isn't good enough for ITN. --PlasmaTwa2 20:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...the fact that it was updated to reflect upcoming events but not updated to place everything in the past tense once the event is over is not a great reason to call it not worthy for ITN... I could do it in like two minutes. The initial update was just fine and a request for an update should have been placed instead of rashly taking down the entire blurb over this dumb rationale. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There. Was that so hard? Can this be placed back up now for lack of a proper reasoning? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are these supposed events? There's no mention of them in the article at all. 87.115.50.126 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, depends on the region I guess. I was watching the news yesterday and everyone was celebrating it differently (South Korea was hosting a massive dance, or something). "Celebrations" is vague but I don't have much time to write three paragraphs on how everyone is celebrating it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the IP. The news is supposedly that events are taking place in celebration of International Women's Day, but the article has no information about any events. The article does have an update; the update just doesn't have anything to do with what's supposed to be news about this. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started the update but didn't have time to do any more. I really wish people would have helped put in some updates (there where numerous from Google) rather than spend time whinging in here. – SMasters (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot help but wonder whether those who wanted this pulled were men or women? If anyone needs to ask why, they have really missed the point of International Women's Day HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

March 7, 2011 (2011-03-07) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science

[Posted] Euthanasia in India

Supreme court of India lays out guidelines for passive euthanasia.LA times --CarTick (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support very interesting story. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support. I know that these types of guidelines aren't common in the West, but my ignorance leads me to ask whether or not this is some sort of first. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sorry i am not sure i understood your question. first in issuing guidelines or first in issuing guidelines on Euthanasia? I guess the supreme court in India in the past has issued guidelines on issues which are not clearly addressed by constitution or other laws. --CarTick (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, normally guidelines like these are subjected to various beliefs and moral issues... to see them laid out in court like this cannot possibly be something seen very often in the modern world. That's why I asked if this was some sort of first. Because I'd gladly support a landmark decision. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it is quite path breaking. most of the media including BBC news headlined the other part of the news which is that it denied euthanasia for the woman involved in the case. some people celebrated that news without realising the broader implications of the guidelines. guess the news is slowly sinking in and headline in one of the major news papers changed to India joins select nations in legalising "passive euthanasia" as the day went on. we dont know how it is going to play out. but, unlike in USA, we have a high level of reverence for the supreme court and the judges are not strongly affiliated with the political parties and beliefs. I am pretty sure most of the lawmakers are relieved that they didnt have to deal with this. --CarTick (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convincing enough, also seeing that there are very few countries that have followed through with this. Besides, it's medicine, a domain that we don't exactly cover very often. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated. Is it ready to go, or do we need some more support? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can more be added to the article about the reaction to the decision? Except for the one person calling for more debate, there is nothing else mentioned in the article. SpencerT♦C 22:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more reaction, and clarified the comment on the religious leaders, which was also reaction. I should point out that there are very few other countries who have gone as far as India here - they are trend-setting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure to draw interest. RxS (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Obviously notable and of interest to a wide readership. Jusdafax 07:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why hasn't this been posted yet, there is a lot of support and the article is well and truly updated? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Pulled] Jacques Chirac on trial for corruption

Article: Jacques Chirac, though as far as I'm aware there has been no update made so far. Yahoo! News, BBC, France24. 23:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait until the end of the trial, and then we'll see what the results are. SpencerT♦C 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending an update. I know we normally wait for verdicts, but this is the first time a French President has been put on trail since Petain. Modest Genius talk 00:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article update. – SMasters (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportFormal trail of of an Ex head of state is about as notable as you can get. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. C628 (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support All good, article is good the topic will draw people into our srticles. RxS (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would normally suggest to wait as well, but this seems important enough to post now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually The trial might be facing a long delay. The court has to rule on a claim by a co-defendant. Might be worth holding off a day or two. RxS (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Highly notable. Let's get it posted, with all due respect to those who want to wait. Jusdafax 02:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't this on? Nergaal (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The trial has been suspended. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Sheen fired

Source for Sheen being fired--BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support there has been a lot of controversy over this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we are going into pop culture... Not a kind of ITN material I would prefer. --Tone 22:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its certainly big enough that I've heard of it, and I'm not an American, nor am I interested in celebrity news. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Well, was there any similar event recently so that we can compare it to the bigger picture? Not counting the final episodes of longest running shows and award ceremonies. And, what are the lasting reprecussions apart from the fact that they will need to find another player for the show? I may change my mind but those are two things I would like to clear up first. --Tone 22:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good news is always welcome and this will have far more widespread and longer lasting repercussions than the paid agitators protesting at the Wisconsin capitol building. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this will have far more widespread and longer lasting repercussions... Like what? -- tariqabjotu 22:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously I want to here the logic on that The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd say the repercussions are rather notable. I will likely mean the end of a popular sit-com (I haven't seen any confirmation yet on the TV show, but loosing their main star will probably kill the show). It was CBS's most popular show. We probably ought to wait until we learn the show's fate, but I'd say the abrupt end of a popular TV show is fairly major.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose c'mon, we don't even have cabinet level members being let go from national governments ITN; here a mere celebrity who will no doubt land back at the same show once the controversy passes and a suitable "re-hab". What's next? Lindsay Lohan's trial/plea bargain? let's have some decorum here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Had this been a politican fired we wouldnt have had this discussion. The main difference is when a politican gets fired millions of dollars arent at stake.. her it is. dont be so narrow minded people.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The Japanese foreign minister story is ready to go as I updated it, and I'm sure will be posted shortly.
The last celebrity story to be posted was Prince Williams engagement back in November, so being a "mere celebrity" doesn't get you posted in the slightest. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some people don't consider the second in line to the throne of 17 countries to be a "celebrity" equivalent to Charlie Sheen. Just an opinion. 87.115.50.126 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relative merits of the two cases aside, the point is that we don't post lots of celebrity news by any stretch of the imagination. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did we even care when Simon left his very popular show? It's the weirdness aspect that makes it "newsy" at all, but as Don Henley says: Kick 'em when they're down. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Strong oppose. Tabloid fodder, celebrity 'news' with no wide-ranging implications. This is an encyclopaedia, not a showbiz magazine. Modest Genius talk 23:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we never post celebrity stories? Frankly you're just making MickMacNee's point on the RFC for him.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK so then why is it in the news on both Sky News and CNN for example? If it is only tabloid fodder?.. Or only followed by those likeing celebs? Seems like a weak argument.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And lets not forget its being covered by the BBC, Forbes, New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, LA Times, Marketwatch and CNN, all of which are serious sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All "serious" sources post junk stories as well: most of those will probably have "Tiger kills Lion at zoo in Ankara" within 12 hours, but that does not make it important international news, just mildly diverting filler. Kevin McE (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is laughable. If it were an actor being fired in, say, France, this would never have been nominated. All the most worthless nominations on ITN (and, for that matter, the most hotly debated) concern trivial crap like this from the United States. 87.115.50.126 (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably on the French wikipedia it would have been nominated. And lets not forget that the US exports more TV than anyone else (maybe even more than everyone else put together). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And let's also not forget that the television industry of the United States ≠ something of global newsworthiness. 87.115.50.126 (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because practically every country in the world has US imports on TV it is of global newsworthiness and that's why its being covered by non-US sources like Sky News or even Taiwan News. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My god, you've won me over with the strength of your argument. USA! USA! USA! 87.115.50.126 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to go overboard... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, actor messes up his life, goes to rehab, criticizes his bosses, and gets fired. Big deal. If we are to do the arts, then Record-breaking Picasso goes on show in Britain has better intellectual value. SMasters (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to add that this is no ordinary Picasso – it is the world's most expensive painting sold at auction (US$106.5m) – World's most expensive painting goes on show in UK. SMasters (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm in the UK and this has been all over the place, Sheen this and that. This guy has created some mass interest on a different scale. I wouldn't normally support tabloid stuff, but this seems different.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 23:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is still a large orange maintenance tag in the updated section, and that needs to be resolved. As for my view, leaning towards oppose; repercussions not that significant. SpencerT♦C 00:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest oppose Spoiled brat spoils things: sitcom gets change of cast. Trivia in extreme. If this is now deemed to be what ITN is for, I'll go and join those suggesting at the RFC that the feature is removed altogether. Kevin McE (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "trivia in the extreme" when its being covered by serious news sources around the world? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because those sources report trivia, every day. Because it is cheap fodder to obtain from the wire services without needing any dedicated journalistic effort, because it allows them to put a familiar face on the front page, because media often appeal to the lowest common denominator, ... Kevin McE (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So which sources don't report trivia? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seriously, some need to realise that sometimes popular culture stories rise into bigger ones. The feature is for any story that gains widespread coverage in the news. It's going to happen from time to time.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 00:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we do. I would support pop-culture stuff like Harry Potter breaking some record, etc. This particular story is just not significant. A messed up guy goes on talk shows to criticize his bosses. It was probably a gamble, and he lost. Too bad. It is newsworthy in the entertainment columns, because that's what they cover. But we have to ask, is it really ITN-worthy? – SMasters (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I would oppose "actor gets fired" in nearly all circumstances but this was the highest paid television actor,[93] and a huge number of serious news sources around the world have followed his problems and will report his firing prominently. By the way, I'm not American and don't watch the show. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose charlie sheen has been in news for few weeks now for being who he is. its no surprise to anyone that he got fired. nothing more than a male lindsay lohan. we didnt post her we cant post her male counterpart either -- Ashish-g55 01:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per BLP He spazzed out in spectacular with fashion with fire works and the whole nine yards... but Really? WP:NOTGOSSIP. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; completely irrelevant. A TV series, particularly one like Two and a Half Men, does not matter, its actors even less so. There is nothing in this story that has any impact on anyone. It's obviously going to get coverage from news sources, because they have entire sections devoted to entertainment and gossip news. We don't, so the question becomes whether this is important enough to give it equal weight to events like national elections or spaceflight. I would say the answer is no. C628 (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; This is actually quite funny. The other day not even the Economist could manage to keep Charlie Sheen from being a feature topic. Now it's hit Wikipedia as well. Colipon+(Talk) 01:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modest support. In all fairness, "tabloid fodder" or not this has whole thing has garnered a lot of media attention, and denying that it is "In the news" is just bias against popular culture. Objectively we could also note that Sheen was the highest paid actor because of this job, and the fact that he was fired from it could be used as a good rationale for posting. Also worthy of noting is the quality of the specific articles (decent) and the red timer. But of course, in the grand scheme of things, this maybe isn't the biggest deal. (But who really cares, right?) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I supported posting a blurb regarding the de facto firing of top rated (on MSNBC) newsman/commentator Keith Olberman for what were political reasons. It didn't get posted. This is different. An actor goes on a lengthy meltdown and gets fired. Yes it is in the news. But we start down a slippery slope if we start posting this kind of story. Just say no. Jusdafax 02:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I posted above, this isn't just the meltdown of a celebrity, which probably isn't notable enough. It is likely going to kill a major US tv show. To anyone who doesn't think that's notable, then imagine how you would feel if you're favorite TV show is abruptly canceled at the height of its popularity.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be annoyed, but I wouldn't expect it to go up on ITN. TV programmes always end eventually; this particular one was popular but not unprecedented so. Besides, whether something my 'favourite TV show' is irrelevant to its actual worldwide historical importance. Modest Genius talk 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't think we should be deciding for our readers what they should be exposed to (or interested in). The topic is being covered around the world, the article is in good shape and there's clear interest in the subject. What more do we need? RxS (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Famous actor and his recent situation has been covered extensively in the news. This is a bigger than normal celebrity story with a bigger than normal celebrity. Part of his wild behavior is believed to be due to the fact that he is the star of this big show and can do no wrong. This is big news and a watershed moment.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree that the ITN refresh rate is low, but posting this would not be an adequate restart. Seriously, it was not an unanticipated event, and his firing is neither irreversible nor it implies the cancellation of a (mediocre) TV show. If the best paid athlete in American sports would get suspended for drug uses we would still not post it even if he makes $10 mil a year. We would post perhaps is 100-m dash WR holder would get suspended, but this guy is not a WR holder (he probably even loses at being an attention whore to Lohan or Assange). Nergaal (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find the casual brushing aside of this nomination shocking frankly. If this story was simply about a celebrity such as Paris Hilton, there would be no argument, but the event does have rather serious repercussions on a major TV show. Since it appears 80% of ITN editors don't have TVs, let's start with the basics. Television, like sports, the Internet, music, and cinema, is a very large part of many people's lives. Americans, for example, watch around 150 hours of TV per month.1. Many people spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on flat-screen televisions and DVRs to maximize their experience. Following a popular tv show is often a significant part of culture, with fans anticipating episodes of their favorite tv shows and then in this day and age immediately chatting with their friends on the episode. To give an odd but poignant example, Russians once demonstrated in Moscow at the threatened cancellation of the hit US tv show Santa Barbara 2.
Now to be honest, I have never watched 2 and a Half Men. But it was the most popular show on CBS and has been referred to as the 'biggest hit comedy of the last decade' 3. As one can see from the Two and a Half Men article, the show was broadcast in dozens of countries around the world. We don't know the fate of the show as of yet apparently, but we do know that the show has lost its megastar and in the past halted production when Sheen wasn't available for filming. The show will most certainly be seriously affected or simply canceled. Last month, we posted the suspension of three cricketers due to drug use. I think this is a comparable event in terms of notability.
ITN rarely features TV news, and abhors celebrity gossip, to a large extent the immediate slamming of this nomination is predicable. However, if the above conversation is typical of how ITN nominations are posted, then it makes me wonder if MMN isn't correct in saying that ITN is 'irreparable'. OK, that's extreme, but it makes me better understand where he is coming from.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT--Sorry, I was wrong about the posting three cricketers being banned for drug use. That was for spot-fixing. Nevertheless I think the comparison is valid. And we certainly have posted stories about Athletes getting banned for steriod use, such as Alberto Contador.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never in my entire time on Wikipedia have I have read something so condescending. I'm sure everyone here knows what TV is and that lots of people watch it. And I'm sure everyone here understands lots of people find this story at least captivating. That people disagree with you that this story deserves a place alongside stories about elections, space exploration, and engineering projects does not make them stupid. -- tariqabjotu 06:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if my condescending ruins the point that I"m trying to make, then I apologize. But I stand by the fact that many of the opposes above don't show any serious consideration of the notability of the topic (eg 'tabloid fodder. No significance beyond those who follow celebrities'; 'no wide-ranging implications'). It's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And regarding the posts currently on the template, I would argue that WP readers are 100 times more interested in this than any of the events currently there except the SSI storming in Egypt. Elections of micro-states and space exploration are among the most objected-to events on ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a hell of a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT opposes going on above, which don't tackle the merits of the case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree on that. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest you both read the Wikipedia:I just don't like it essay again. A !vote like that would be to oppose because 'I don't like the show' or 'he's annoying' or even 'I don't like celebrity news'. Saying it's trivial, or tabloid fodder, or lacking in significance, are NOT 'I don't like it' arguments. Modest Genius talk 00:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Its trivial" is a specific example given in the essay I read - WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and 'I don't like celebrity news' is used if you read between the lines. Tabloid fodder I accept isn't an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, but as its plainly false in this case it doesn't really hold any weight. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Trivial" is also a specific example of types of things ITN doesn't post, according to our criteria. That makes sense because we want items of significance. If people can't base their votes on the criteria, and they can't base their votes on personal opinion, what can they base their votes on? As I said farther down on this page, ITN is currently a process that is based on subjectivity, like it or not. And even if it were to change to a more objective approach (an understandable proposition), it's debatable whether we could (and should) develop a set of rules that would allow nominations like this to sail through. ITN, in my opinion, will inevitably remain at least partially subjective, even if it is less subjective than it is now. -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand how the sacking of the highest paid TV star in the US (and I assume the world), which will more importantly likely kill the show or at least seriously affect it, has no cultural impact. TV is culture.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...articles are in really good shape..." Not quite; the updated section still has a large orange maintenance tag at the top, and elsewhere in the article there is a yellow one as well. SpencerT♦C 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There's a lot of interest in the topic because it's celebrity gossip. This is exactly the kind of stories that news outlets post to get hits and ratings. In the long run, and with an application of common sense, this is not significant in the least. Half of the TV shows that are popular today will probably be unheard of five or seven years from now. I hope that I will not be the first to see Wikipedia perpetuate this tabloid garbage. Even if it may fit the criteria as posted above, this really does not fit the scope of news and info that WP:ITN posts on a daily basis, and it would look horribly out of place compared to what's up right now on the ITN ticker. In short, this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote, but then again, this is not a deletion discussion.--WaltCip (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that your post is simply IDONTLIKEIT, but I'll take issue with your saying that this doesn't fit into teh scope of the news on ITN. Surely most of our readers consider this more notable than the space launch, or actually a non-launch (I"m not objecting to it but we get A LOT of complaints about there being too much space on ITN). Then there's how it fits with ITN entries that appear generally. Charlie Sheen was the most highly-paid actor in Hollywood. Surely his firing is on par with Alberto Contador testing positive for drugs and some people would say it's on par with a major politician getting fired. We post sports news all the time--how is that more significant than television news? This story was one the main page of the BBC, not simply the entertainment section. Surely at some point these kind of stories rise above the 'celebrity' level.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we ignore all the WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes we certainly still have to wait for the POV tag to be removed before this can be posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly no consensus to post this, however. 87.115.50.126 (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the support votes are much stronger argued than the opposes if we ignore the WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes - which could be done at the discretion of the posting administrator (due to that guideline being added explicitly after many of the comments here were made) - then it looks like there probably is a consensus to post. Wikipedia operates on a consensus basis, not on a straw poll. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To date, ITN does not have objective criteria (aside from specific instances in ITN/R) for what counts as suitable for the section:

Unlike the TFA and Did you know sections of the Main Page, ITN rejects items deemed trivial. The criterion was previously written as "a story of international importance or interest". This standard is highly subjective and the focus of much of the disagreement over particular candidates.

So subjectivity is, believe it or not, codified in our criteria. The standards for what constitutes don't-like-it votes are, under our current criteria, much higher here than in areas like XfDs, where we have very clear, long-established guidelines. And, even under typical don't-like-it standards, I do not see the slew of invalid votes you keep mentioning. There's nothing close to consensus here, and the weight of your insistence of one is severely diminished by your ardent support for this nomination. -- tariqabjotu 21:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it's this precise subjectivity the reason why there is a large discussion going on threatening to remove ITN altogether. We are being too strict as to what we are letting through and, frankly, it's getting to be a very boring procedure. In essence this is a wasteland of opinions attempting to overtake other opinions. Hopefully that will change.
@IP: I never said that there was a consensus, either. But we are not "clearly" in absence of one... in fact you could say that it is almost close. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Consensus on Wikipedia is not determined by headcount, though. It's the strength of the arguments and the decision of the administrator that count. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it determined by wilfully ignoring the opinions of everyone who disagrees with you. There is no consensus to post this. 87.115.50.126 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's consensus in theory, but as we have seen multiple times in the AFD/MFD circuit, the smallest minority could have the most eloquent and most policy-compliant arguments in the world. A consensus still has to be solid for the most part. I suppose if there's ever going to be any attempts to buck that trend, however, now would be the time. I would be pleased to see an admin close this discussion with a "posted" only so I could see the resulting discussion. Frankly, ITN is - as Tariqabjotu pointed out above - a highly subjective procedure, hence why I dismissed the premise of a !vote being invalid simply because it doesn't comply with WP:ATA.--WaltCip (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its always extremely boring (regardless of the story) when someone uses WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments - especially when you bring sourced and reasoned arguments to the table. And in the RFC a lot of people have agreed with me on the matter, which is why I was bold and this morning added it specifically to the header at the top, and why I made the comment here that simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments could possibly be ignored - which is exactly what it says in the header.
And when I say that the support arguments are better, I don't think I'm entirely just being bias, for example there are claims that this is "tabloid fodder" but then the supports have pointed out that practically every serious news source (even the Economist has covered it in their print edition) has covered is as well, which makes those claims redundant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an essay, not a policy. There have been plenty of reasoned arguments in opposition to this, which are not diminished simply because you don't like them. 87.115.50.126 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a essay about how subjectivity is the dumbest type of argument in a debate. No one is saying that your arguments are invalid (well, a few are saying that), but that they are just flawed. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some reasonable arguments made in opposition but the use of 'tabloid' fodder and similar arguments amongst them have been problematic IMO. There's no ITN criteria that prohibit celebrity or entertainment news. ITN's criteria are very minimal, but they do specify that we should not post items deemed 'trivial'. IMO it's been demonstrated that it's is a bit more significant that trivia, but anyway. What this discussion does show is we need to establish some more specific criteria.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't believe some of the reasons people are opposing for. Obviously some hate to follow popular culture. This is meant to be a fair process, atleast weigh up the story first before shouting tabloud fodder, this gentlemen confirmed it himself. It's obvious only natrual disasters, wars and presidents are allowed anywhere near this section.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 00:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are plenty of good reasons stated above not to post this. Stop quoting IDONTLIKEIT every other sentence when there are other opposes besides those too. Charlie sheen just came out of rehab, goes on radio and goes all crazy on directors and gets fired. Tabloid fodder or not there is no news in there. and tv shows are not only made in the US. if a similarly big star were to get fired...lets say amitabh bachhan from millionaire in india we would never ever see it on ITN. Posting this creates an opening for a black hole of tabloid stories of people who cant stay out of rehab. and no im not saying this just because IDONTLIKEIT... -- Ashish-g55 01:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, there is only a 2-sentence update in what's supposed to be the updated section, as well as a maintenance tag over the section. Important article issues, not IDONTLIKEIT, are a major issue here, as well. SpencerT♦C 12:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per Modest Genius and ResidentAnthropologist. This is just tabloid fodder. We are an encyclopedia not a rag magazine. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that this is tabloid fodder is not a valid argument, people use Wikipedia for all sorts of reason, some of which are to read about TV stars and their issues. We shouldn't be trying to guide peoples interest in one direction or another. RxS (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To further that point we have decent articles on all the relevant topics, including Charlie Sheen and Two and a Half Men.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was my point, too. We can expose more visitors to our good encyclopedia articles that are in the news. It's arguably not as historically, internationally significant and certainly not as serious as politics, space, disasters and centennials, but more visitors are likely to click to read what the Wikipedia articles have to say about this topic, past and present, than scoff that it's degenerating into a tabloid. That's why I enjoy reading this page, because rejected and especially divisive topics like this one often have as quality and interesting encyclopedic articles as the ones that get posted.
My other point was that the notability comes not from his notoriety, but from the firing of the highest-paid TV actor. MeekSaffron (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While tabloid fodder is extremely problematic in this case - as its covered by every major English source in the world - most of the time it would be a valid argument to use to not include something. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano

Wait until a there are some effects, such as people evacuating. But then, support. --Tone 19:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Tone.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per "Update an article linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated." --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The usual response would be to request a better update (there is one, just not good enough) rather than opposing on that basis alone. The posting admin will check for both consensus and an update. Modest Genius talk 21:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting annoyed at people using ITN as some Requested Updates clearing house. There are specific criteria, like an article, and an update, and informing the admins of that. If these are no longer requirements, they should be removed from the header. This is not WP:RA, nor is this where one requests updates to an article. If the user knows if an update was made, please link it; if they don't, then their nomination is wholly premature. --Golbez (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all - having a nomination underway here a) allows more time for consensus to form and b) encourages other editors to get involved in the update. Several times in the past I've updated articles because I saw a nom here, which I would not otherwise have done. Modest Genius talk 00:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to completely ignore a particular criteria then why does it exist? --Golbez (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't ignore it. We simply fix the fault, "conditional support" it and move on instead of blatantly opposing it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, since this is interesting and our associated articles (Kilauea, Pu'u O'o Hawaii Volcano Observatory etc) are pretty good. The update needs to be improved though - there's a paragraph each on Kilauea and Pu'u O'o, but only a single ref on the former and none on the latter. Modest Genius talk 21:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and then support, as per Tone. SMasters (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's pretty unlikely that there will be any evacuations, since that bit of Kilauea has been erupting on and off for the last 150 years. That tends to discourage anyone from putting a house between it and the sea. Without anyone to evacuate, there won't be any evacuations. Modest Genius talk 23:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a topic I know something about, and I have a couple contributions to the articles. I would love to see this posted, but in fairness I must oppose on the grounds that, while these are dramatic changes and I am seeing articles at different websites and on television, it is not unusual for the area per Modest Genius. The new lava vents are inside Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park and the topography of the area means, as noted above, that there is no danger to structures or people. Now if there is a huge uptick in activity, or if the vents start migrating downrift out of the park where there are homes, then that's a new ballgame, and there will be fairly easy consenus to support. Please note that I am not rooting for people's houses to be destroyed. I have personally witnessed that with the late Maurice Krafft and it is an extremely sad thing. Jusdafax 02:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, slow-motion non-explosive event that has been flowing continuously since 1983. Abductive (reasoning) 10:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Japanese foreign minister resigns

  • Seiji Maehara resigns as the Foreign Minister of Japan. I basically scanned today's important news stories and saw this as probably the most notable (would have went for the Picasso painting as well, because it showcases a good article, but it's probably not at the same level of notability).

    The reason for this nom is because this is one of the most important positions in the world's third-largest economy, and deserves some due notice at a time when we are running out of articles to post on ITN. It could also have grave effects on the current government of Naoto Kan. If we posted the corruption scandal of Liu Zhijun then this one should be a no-brainer. Colipon+(Talk) 21:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Japanese politics is interesting, and this kind of thing is worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article Seiji Maehara should be updated now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. --Tone 22:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The problem with Japanese politics these days, is that it's so much of a merry-go-round. If you have a look at the list of Japanese Foreign Ministers, they have had a new minister almost every year for the last few years. I would support if it was the Prime Minster, but it seems that Foreign Minsters just come and go all the time. – SMasters (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When was the last one who actually resigned? Looking through the list most of them seem to have been replaced in a cabinet reshuffle. And there's clear international interest as I've used British, American and Chinese sources.
Lets face it the British shuffle their cabinet pretty regularly, it doesn't mean that resignations at that level aren't a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, I would support if it was PM or even Finance Minister, but I'm not so keen on the Foreign Minster. If we are to do politics, then I personally think that Former-French president Chirac on trial for corruption is far more interesting. It's my opinion and everyone is welcome to outvote me. SMasters (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, I've nominated it above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to concur with Eraserhead. The previous changes of Foreign Ministers in Japanese politics happened to coincide with the departure of their respective prime ministers. This time the foreign minister independently resigned. Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton resigned suddenly and it not being ITN material? That would be absurd. Colipon+(Talk) 01:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a blurb including the reason. Important position in that 'neck of the woods' these days and for that country.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, but how come this is notable, while the resignation of Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg over his fraudulent dissertation was not? (BBC) --bender235 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe Guttenberg's resignation was notable. But it wasn't nominated, was it? --BorgQueen (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And another question is what the decision for posting is based on. I don't see a clear consensus here, so I'm inclined to think that we deal with personal judgement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of posting there were 3 well argued supports, one reasonable support, and only one well argued oppose. The consensus is pretty clear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you regard the support in principle as a well argued support, then we don't need WP:VOTE.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't - I regard the other three, myself, the nominator and NortyNort as the "well argued supports". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not particularly difficult or damaging to reverse an ITN posting, so I tend to have low standards on what counts for consensus. Like Eraserhead said, this is good enough, and I will continue to hold firm on the position that statements like yours -- "Even though I don't oppose this posting, this still didn't have enough supports to be posted" -- are counterproductive and unhelpful. We can have standards, but we don't need to nitpick. -- tariqabjotu 20:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Jusdafax 22:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

March 6, 2011 (2011-03-06) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

March 5

March 5, 2011 (2011-03-05) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts

Arts and culture

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Ok, a section just to discuss this. Instead of posting every relatively minor update regarding the protests to keep them on the Main page, why not simply put a sticky link and update just the really major events? If we can do that for Olympics and FIFA World cup, we can use it now as well. --Tone 10:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as per my comments in the section below. Nightw 10:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thue | talk 11:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think its the best idea that I have heard today -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Makes sense. However, can we have an idea of how long we would leave it up?--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Until this is a top story in the worldwide media. Or, we can say we leave it on for max 3, 4 weeks? --Tone 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a pre-agreed duration of some sort. The World Cup and the Olympics make sense as stickies because they take place during a defined duration. I suggest we start with two weeks. After that can agree to extend it if necessary. On the other hand, if events unexpectedly quiet down, we can agree to drop it, though I'd say that's unlikely.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the protests are already down than one one or two weeks ago. However, it's not late to put the tag.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was to propose this after the outbreak of the violence in Egypt, but in general we need an article titled Timeline of the 2010-11 Middle East and North Africa protests.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also suggest adding a box with the latest updates. It should have space for six updates. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This could be done with just splitting the current ITN box and adding the title, but then we don't need the tag. Another solution is as I suggested that the tag on the bottom should not direct to the main page, but to a timeline of the protests, where the latest updates will be made.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like splitting the current ITN box and adding the title -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion then is in rearranging the template to look like this:
In the news (in the header out of the box)
*...
*...
*...
*...
News related to MENA protests (header in the box)
*...
*...
*...
Wikinews - Recent deaths - More current events... (tags out of the box)
It's really good for the sake of the current events, but the modification would change the main page a bit more.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good to me. Can you do it? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no, because the page is protected with access only for the admins.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ITN box is not that big; I don't think we have enough room for that nor enough major stories (other than "the protests are still happening") to justify splitting the box. -- tariqabjotu 18:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Egypt bans Mubarak from travel‎ nor Egyptian take over the SSI have been posted. We can add them (for example) to the box -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree. This discussion should not prevent the recently voted news of posting, nor to create a time lag after the events happened.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or, they could be just added where every other item is placed. The proposal above suggests we have to always have the latest two or three protest-related stories in ITN. That will inevitably leave us with stale news at times and contract the amount of space that other, non-protest stories can have. And, Kiril, please don't assume I am commenting (once) here to the exclusion of looking at other posts. The last time I saw the SSI story, the update was insufficient, and I split my time on Wikipedia the way I want, not the way you want. -- tariqabjotu 23:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get bothered, but my comment was not addressed entirely to you. I did not even mention that the SSI should be posted, but only wanted to notice that the other news should be gauged. And another point now is do we have to post the current events related to the MENA protests, or only to let them updated in the article tagged on the bottom. Regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And about the suggestion, it's not my intention to split the box. I mentioned it as one of the solutions, so please regard it only as a proposal based on the discussion above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nice to have the stick, but can we put some wording on it? Keep it at the bottom and just say ongoing protests in the countries nominated below, and then on Friday we can add Friday prayers b/c thats highly notable growth in th e "action"Lihaas (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Samoan general election, 2011

Elections happened on Friday. Results were posted last night. Article has been updated. Nightw 09:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all is there. --Tone 10:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support while it is a microstate it does meet the criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, going to post. --Tone 12:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Belated Oppose. We need to enforce some sort of standard on these election postings. It seems in this case we just need some common sense - elections of leaders in most pacific islands is simply not significant enough. Colipon+(Talk) 15:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent discussion on elections in small countries on WT:ITN which looks to be pretty firmly against any population requirement for elections. You're welcome to try again - possibly with different criteria, but I doubt a consensus will be found to change the guideline. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could I inquire on why exactly everyone has a problem placing the succession of the leader of a lesser-known country on ITN? I mean, honestly, is it that big of a deal? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the problem emerges when you compare this with something that does not get posted. Just going back to some recent events, we didn't post the US veto of the Israel-related UN draft resolution. Plenty of people would say that was much more significant news that the Samoan general election.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with Johnsemlak. Jusdafax 08:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should have posted the US Israel UN resolution. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We should have. I don't know why that wasn't posted. There was strong support for it, and I made the necessary updates. But that isn't the point, since John was just using that as an example. Nightw 09:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Well, in this specific comparison, that may have been the solution. But I trying to illustrate a general issue--that when we post relatively insignificant (events which get little media coverage and are considered to be of low significance by many people) events, it's fodder for people who argue "We posted X-event which nobody cares about but we can't post Y". To me this is a problem with criteria which require that all events of a certain category get posted. I mean, honestly, with all due respect to Samoans and people interested in Samoan affairs, what significance to 99% WP readers is its election other than a possible stumper question for a trivia game? This goes well beyond the common issue that 'just because it doesn't affect/interest you doesn't mean it's not notable.'--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of consistency is one of the reasons behind the RFC at WT:ITN3.0 I suggest you guys weigh in with some sensible steps we can take to move forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Egyptian take over the SSI

Thousands of Egyptian protestershave stormed to State security buildings all over Egypt and took it over. Aljazeera AFP -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Feel free to reword it as I am writing this in a hurry due to the fact that I am there. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral- I'm not so sure of the significance of this event, none the less if you guys do post, I think this blurb is more simple and true (the buildings were not taken over).
Egyptian protesters storm several State Security buildings across Egypt.
It's more simple but not necessary more true nor more neutral. We did take it over and handed the building to army to stop police officer from burning the rest of the paper at HQs. We are talking to Wikileaks to put together the shredded papers and release them. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go update the relevant articles now, Passionless -Talk 02:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a small update to the relevant articles, Passionless -Talk 03:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously important, but I hope we can wait for a while to see what will happen in the aftermath of the action. And be careful!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any takeover of this type is always worthy of a mention. I'll echo the warning to be careful. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I do support this one too.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article in bold is in a very bad shape. Has any of the linked articles been properly updated? --BorgQueen (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. State Security activities and operations have been suspended by the Interior Minister pending reconstitution [94]. I agree with Borg though. We should link this to a subsection in the main article. This is a major development. --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional but strong oppose per BorgQueen. Support in principle but no to posting until article is fixed up. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note — item was originally proposed with main link being Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution (post-Mubarak's resignation), but as of this comment has been changed to 2011 Egyptian revolution. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary note/comment: 2011 Egyptian protests is not updated with this information. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone other than me work on it? I have not slept in 48 hrs (Its always a bad idea to edit when you have not slept). -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Fixed it (I think). Can someone post it now? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Simon van der Meer

Nobel Prize in Physics, 1984. --candle•wicke 13:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support if the claim that he is one of the only two accelerator physicists who have won the Nobel prize is true. The article will have to be updated, of course. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very short. Oppose for now. --Tone 13:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In his late 80s and no discernible effect on current events. This is for recent deaths, which is linked from ITN. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A death doesn't have to have an effect on current events to be notable. I think that the fact that he helped discover the W and Z bosons is sufficient to qualify under Criterion 2. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ericleb01. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Enough deaths. Let's stop ITN from becoming so morbid. Colipon+(Talk) 01:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKE. Why do we always have to associate a death with morbidity? Can't we celebrate his very important discovery and his life? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Krishna Prasad Bhattarai

"One of the founder members of Nepali Congress" - Hindustan Times. Twice Prime Minister of Nepal in the 1990s / 2000s. --candle•wicke 13:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, article is in pretty poor shape reference-wise. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs more citations and is not in good shape overall. Oppose for now. --Tone 13:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening of Parliament in China

BBC: "The speech is the most important of the year [...] similar in status to the State of the Union address in the US". It opens the National People's Congress which is to discuss the 2011-2015 five-year plan, the 12th such plan. It is to "set the course of the world's second-largest economy for the next five years" according to The Daily Telegraph. --candle•wicke 13:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we did not post State of the union address or opening of the parliament by the queen, so I oppose here. --Tone 13:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support due to discussions of the 5 year plan and I don't think its totally unreasonable to post this for important countries, but I see Tone's point as well so I'm not too bothered either way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I will support the 5 year plan as a result of the congress but let's wait until it concludes. Even for speeches, if we post those, the blub shold be like "President of ... country announces ... in the speech". Just a speech with no effects is otherwise not something I would prefer on ITN. --Tone 14:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can go with that, and yeah I see your point, posting speeches which aren't delivering results isn't particularly worthwhile. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, because I opposed the state of the nation speech in the US, and I'd hate to be accused of bias. But as I sid then: politicians make speeches: it's what they do... Kevin McE (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: Usually, we have waited until the conclusion of the parliamentary session (around March 15) to post what has been achieved - such as landmark legislation or a commitment to certain notable goals. It seems that some notable goals have come out of this year's congress already - such as a pledge for a cap on energy use etc., but it is best to wait to see if there are any official pronouncements before posting on the main page. Colipon+(Talk) 01:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

March 4, 2011 (2011-03-04) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

[Posted] Arab world protests

Comment:Anything particularly notable about the continuation of these? It's an ongoing event... I'd suggest a sticky, but I don't know how those work. Nightw 22:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In Egypt, The new PM joined the protesters in Tahrir square; In Bahrain, Sunni and Shai protesters clashed; In Iraq it has the biggest so far; In Libya, The protesters took new cities, one of the protesters' leader got killed, and Gadaffi bombed few cities. Overall, Its new worthy. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, almost every time we update the blurb, it says "protests continue". Maybe it's time to start thinking about a sticky link and update only major developments such as governmental changes? --Tone 10:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would gladly support such a move. The protests are much too notable to be taken off ITN. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Far more important to have this than the Academy Awards at this time, I think. Might be worth highlighting Lybia. Also think that this should be the first to go if anything else comes up. NW (Talk) 06:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? I think most comments supported a sticky link instead... Can we revisit that alternative? Nightw 07:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where would the sticky link be placed? Is what's being proposed similar to what was done for the Olympics? SpencerT♦C 19:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Brazilian Dam again

[95] Courts reverse themselves again. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 15:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Brazilian judge's decision is overturned by a higher court, allowing preliminary construction on the controversial Belo Monte Dam to begin.

Posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

March 3, 2011 (2011-03-03) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

Sports

Jared Lee Loughner indicted for 2011 Tucson shooting

Oppose Indictment doesn't seem notable enough. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sentencing if anything, but I'm not sure about that either... SpencerT♦C 04:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glory launch mishap

Launch of Glory has failed. Hektor (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This was an important climate change monitoring satellite. The failure cost $424 million.[96] It was also the second failure in a row for the Taurus XL rocket, and both failures were for the same reason. It was described as a huge blow for the NASA Earth science programme and for the rocket manufacturer.[97] Nanobear (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, fairly significant failure. Suggested text: "NASA's Glory climate research satellite and four CubeSats are lost in the second consecutive failure of a Taurus-XL rocket, after its payload fairing fails to separate." Out of interest, why is this listed under 3 March not 4 March? --GW… 15:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --Tone 15:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's hard to disagree with posting things like this, when complete non-events like Chad elections are posted without a care in the world let alone a consideration of their real world interest, but can I ask when would there ever be a rocket failure that is not considered by the real world to be a huge blow/significant/expensive failure? The only notable aspect seems to me that there's clearly a design fault with the rocket. This wasn't its first failure though, so it doesn't have that as a notable point. And it's not the first and it won't be the last climate monitoring satellite either, and plenty of other sattelites have been lost before. And while it was crucial to the Earth Science division (as any satellite would be to its own project), it was hardly crucial to NASA, or indeed wider spaceflight in general. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're commenting as if you know what you're talking about, but I'm having a very hard time seeing anything other than an illogical opinion here. The Chad elections do have a significance, as do the elections of every sovereign state on this planet. To try to single one out for whatever reason is being subjective (hence why they are all included). A failure of this calibre is not a common occurrence, and especially not when it's headed by an organisation like NASA; that's why it's notable. The fact that it failed twice makes it even more notable, because it shows that there was some sort of failure troubleshooting the original problem, something which should not be happening at this type of level. Reasoning that satellites will fail in the future is a reason for opposing this is also a clear fallacy. Finally, a 56-million-dollar project will always be a priority for NASA, because that isn't a small amount of money to simply be throwing away, especially with the budget cuts they've been dealt in the recent past. Any initiative to advance scientific knowledge should always be prioritised. Anyway, I don't know why I wrote this -- since it was posted --, but I just couldn't understand where you were going with your comment. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And you're commenting as if your personal opinions counter my basic facts. Someone below pointed out the obvious about elections, despite our grandiose claims, we probably don't even cover all of them because some don't even get any coverage and they pass by completely unnoticed, even by the people whose sole interest here is elections. The Chad election got sod all coverage in ITN terms - whatever you might think, nobody in the real world cared about it. 90% of the items rejected by ITN have more news coverage than that got in the real world, and it changed nothing in the country either. Posting it is a purely dogmatic decision, in absence of an actual attempt to properly justify it. As for the satellite, 56 million is a drop in the ocean for NASA. I didn't say they wouldn't be bothered about it, or that it happens every time, I said it's not a signficiant failure in the grand scheme of things. The first shuttle replacement failing is the type of signficant project ITN should be featuring, or the first mission to planet X, or the first mission to study a whole new scientific area. This was a satellite to montior climate. Not the first, not the last, and not a vital/crucial part of that field in any way. Being the 2nd failure of that rocket type doesn't increase the notability, it was the only notable aspect, as I had already acknowledged, which you seemed to ignore. Satellite launches have failed before, and they will fail again, that's not a fallacy, it's a fact. You want to suggest everything NASA does is ITN worthy as advancing science full stop, fine - then take your election logic and apply that to the world's space agencies, and other scientific institutes around the world which have far greater impact, and then science and elections is all ITN will ever feature for ever and ever. MickMacNee (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chadian parliamentary election, 2011

Results are finally in. Article has been updated. Previous discussion was 13 February. Nightw 16:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. No change in government, no controversy in the count, and the guy who has been in power since 1990, and had an absolute majority in 2002, now has another one. Not significant at all. MickMacNee (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the item had full support when it was nominated and the article is updated. Elections are notable regardless of bringing changes or not. --Tone 18:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that overwhelming support didn't pass me by, I am neither blind nor computer illiterate, I know what the little blue links are (and it was 3 people simply citing ITN/R, to be accurate). But as far as the rest of the world is concerned though, ignoring artificial process-bypassing wonkery like ITN/R, this is not news. And I had to specifically search for 'Chad election' to get that paltry result. Search for just Chad, then it never even happened. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITNR event. I'd like to see a results table first, but once that's there this should be posted. Modest Genius talk 18:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A results table probably won't happen, since as far as I can tell the numbers from each constituency weren't published online. Even the IPU and Election Guide, my normal go-to sites, don't have them. The numbers on the article are from media reports. Nightw 11:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chad isn't exactly a microstate - and we do post elections for every country. I think the appropriate place to challenge this is on the ITNR talk page to adjust the elections criteria. But I highly doubt a consensus will be found to do so. And actually by including all elections (with an appropriate update) we avoid being too elitist about which countries should be included. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The elitist viewpoint would be that of Wikipedia deciding everybody wants to know about every insignificant election in the world, stuffing every single one on the Main Page at the expense of massive an ongoing stories, when it's provably the case that nobody is interested at all. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we have to agree to disagree, but I don't think discussing which countries to include or not include is likely to be very productive - it certainly hasn't been productive so far. It seems much more sensible to ignore things you don't like and suggest more of what you do like - the "worst case" is that we post more stuff, which given we are much slower than everything else on the main page isn't really a bad thing at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to post, can you suggest a blurb? --Tone 14:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nightw 15:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrospectively, "ruling" may be superfluous if you've also mentioned that it's led by the incumbent president. Nightw 15:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --Tone 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I"m not opposed but I have some sympathy with MMN's position. There was some discussion at WT:ITN a while back about modifying ITNR to not include elections that didn't result in a change of government. This certainly wasn't agreed upon, but I think it might be worth discussion again. This election certainly isn't very big 'news'. On the other hand, I would disagree with MMN's interpretation of the google news hits. I got around 800 when I searched, which while low is not non-existent. --Johnsemlak (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to whether or not we actually do manage to post the elections of every single named country in the world, or if we happen to miss a few simply because there's no available news coverage. My opinion is that, if we are going to be indiscriminate, we better make damn well sure that 100% of all possible countries have a mention, otherwise we risk unintentional convenience sampling...--WaltCip (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we convenience sample, unfortunately there isn't much you can do about it :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media concentration

Feel free to shorten, but considering this is one large company buying out another large one, and I personally think its more important than other companies because it's media-vital to free speech, democracy, etc.- and the extreme concentration in media already, I think this is ITN material. Passionless -Talk 08:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I think this is worth posting and has seen a lot of coverage over the past few months. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a big acquisition and is surrounded by controversy, worthy of ITN IMO. News Corps is also spinning off Sky News to try and alleviate concerns of media ownership as part of the deal as well. I think this is a worthy part of the story but too much for the blurb. With that, I am not sure if piping Concentration of media ownership into the blurb is appropriate. This deal seems to be more of a money-maker for News Corp and I think we should keep it as neutral as possible. Is there another article to link?--NortyNort (Holla) 09:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's a big deal and of worldwide interest. Yeah, the blurb might be a bit long. I go with it either short or long though. Jusdafax 09:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Extensive coverage and newsworthy. – SMasters (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bolde:d article has some verification issues. Has any of the linked articles been updated? --BorgQueen (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is not a buyout, just an assuming of overall control by Murdoch, from an already very significant minority position (with no single entity having a larger stake than him either afaik). Sky has always been considered part of the Murdoch empire, this is not some seismic shift in that perception at all. The Sky News spinout is not a big deal either, it is not a change, but rather an enforced maintaining of the status quo that already existed, as far as news ownership is concerned. MickMacNee (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So news corp split there move into two parts, buy 39% than the other 61% years later. Just because it was slowed down doesn't mean it is no longer worthy of attention, which would be why it is being reported by many news companies right now and why the move needed government approval. Passionless -Talk 21:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The decision is now going to consultation, and there will be both political and (almsot certainly) judicial review. This isn't a done deal yet. Modest Genius talk 18:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe it would be better and of course safer to report the day of the sale.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, I know that competitors can still complain for the next 2 weeks, but why are news companies reporting "Takeover gets government approval" if it's still not decided for two weeks? Is the two week consultation actually a major force, or are they just looking to make a few minor changes to the rules of the deal? If the consultation is just a minor procedural thing like I think it is, than it should be reported now. Passionless -Talk 21:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Third biggest buying more share is news? SkyNews and News Corp have always been cozy, this is making it official. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that we should have posted when Newscorp bought the original 39% of Skynews. I think it is more notable now than then. Passionless -Talk 00:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of Egypt

Support, pending an article revision. Change of head of government, and it's definitely in the spotlight. Nightw 16:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significant set-point in this crisis. Blurb should state he was the previous minister for transport, and was vocal in the protests. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It was one of the main demands of the protesters and they are heading to Tahrir tomorrow to celebrate and to force the army to meet the rest of their demands. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Important and potentially repercussive governmental transition. ~AH1(TCU) 22:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITNR. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'll pile on, this is an easy call. Jusdafax 23:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

March 2, 2011 (2011-03-02) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

Egypt bans Mubarak from travel‎

After his resignation, Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and his family are barred from leaving or entering the country and their assets have been seized. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is being charged in relation to corruption offenses too. In Egypt, For the government to seize or freeze your assets, they need to charge you -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for getting the bit about him being charged wrong. However, there is no information about charges or frozen asserts in the Hosni Mubarak article. Can we have a source on this?--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Egypt bans Mubarak from travel, freezes assets‎ from The Washington Post, Former Egypt Leader Faces More Troubles‎ from NPR and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/14/egyptian-officials-bank-accounts-crime-agency‎ from The Guardian -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we wait for a verdict? --BorgQueen (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know about that. When Bill Clinton was charged, it was a huge news. We can post it again when a verdict comes out (I think its going to take at least few month before the case is closed). What do you think? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankfurt Airport shootings

BBC reports a suspected Kosovan gunman shoots at a bus full of American servicemen, killing at least two. Article will need updating, but pretty significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support rare non-war attack on US servicemen--78.3.223.245 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose relativley small event; Two killed two wounded. This is not even comparable to the moscow shooting The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Two deaths isn't very significant. And no, nationality doesn't make a difference. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ericleb01--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

iPad 2

Released in...1 hour and 15 minutes and 34 seconds. [98] --Posted on 16:44 on 2 March in 2011 (UTC) by Highspeedrailguy 16:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

That assumes it is the iPad is what they are announcing.... but oppose Free Advertising. Firsts and Record are noteworthy but this is run of the mill with little bearing on anything. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 16:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RA. Nergaal (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing really significant about this. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No1curr. A company's releasing a slightly improved product? :o --Golbez (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we should definitely have posted the first one, but this one is just another product update. If it was a new product I would support it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no we should not have posted the first one nor should we post this. posting a new product is just advertisement. The only product we've posted (that i remember) was windows 7 because no matter what 80%+ computers out there (thats billions) use windows -- Ashish-g55 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we should, it was a groundbreaking new product. Its completely silly not to post things just because they were created by a corporation, and it makes ITN overly elitist and bias towards certain events. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WIth perfect future vision, I would have posted the first iPad too. But only because it was the first successful tablet, which would open a new market, which we couldn't know at the time... Thue | talk 09:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
since we couldnt have known we shouldnt post either. Otherwise its just plain crystal balling. -- Ashish-g55 11:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was pretty clear, and a huge number of reliable sources were talking about it - no-one had made a tablet like that before. If we're really going to take that level of proof before posting we are never going to post any technology product ever, and that means we aren't possibly going to be able to cover technology properly. And if we aren't going to cover significant topics that are in the news properly how can the section really be justified.
At that level of proof could you even really prove Windows 95 was going to be significant? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Windows 95 was the next version of the most used OS, and so a pretty predictable success. The Apple iPad was a risky attempt to kick-start a whole new market, with no guarantied success. Yes, there were lots of hype for the iPad, but I don't think that is necessarily enough for ITN. So I don't think the two can be compared. Thue | talk 22:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm sure that you could argue that posting Windows 95 was just "free advertising" for Microsoft. And while the iPad was fairly risky it was made by the worlds second largest (at the time) tech company with a knack for pulling risky things off. ITN wouldn't be worse if we accidentally posted something that became a MacBook Air or an Apple TV rather than an iPhone. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snyder V. Phelps Ruling

The Supreme Court of the United States rules in Snyder v. Phelps that the Westborro Baptist Church picketing is Federally protected speech. AP via Google News

Support as Nom The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 15:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Free speech in relation to this group is a big enough issue that it has been discussed in both my AP Government class and Journalism class, so it appears that it is a rather significant thing. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also maybe of note: [99][100]. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The principle of a right to free speech is well known, and so the idea that it is upheld does not seem immediately worthy of publication at ITN. Is there an explanation as to why the picketing of this small group are of such a high impact that failure to ban them is of great import? Is this importance, or simply depth of public distaste/disgust? I think there is a need to sell the importance of this to the non-US world. It does not have a high profile on front pages of BBC, Le Monde, Die Welt or El País. Kevin McE (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose what is the news here ?? free speech protected in the USA and nothing unexpected or noteworthy happened here. USA is not Pakistan.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about whether or not free speech is protected, but about what types of speech qualify for protection under free speech. As this was a very egregious type of speech that was far enough out there that the supreme court examined whether it qualified for protection...it is speech that is condemned by almost everyone in the United States, so that the supreme court says it is protected makes this story very newsworthy. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nothing egregious about a bunch of loons expressing their opposition at military funerals. I thought this had long been settled with falwell case where he was called a motherfucker. This is what makes US such a wonderful country.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose How does this matter to anyone outwith the United States? 87.115.50.126 (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That demands explanation. How does a decision that an incident, the activity of a tiny fringe group, does not necessitate change in a long established legal principle, change the US, yet alone the world? Kevin McE (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Group has recieved international media attention and numerous travel bans amid hate speech controversies and nonviolent extremist zealotry. ~AH1(TCU) 03:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose no international notability. The article could go to DYK where itd be more warranted.Lihaas (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Where's this "international notability" at our criteria? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kevin McE. I don't see this case as the kind of landmark decision worthy of ITN. The NY Times article calls it the latest in a serious of muscular decisions defending free speech, including one on crush videos (which was not on ITN) and another on political speech (which was). The latter came as a shock and was more sweeping. Obama ripped it in the State of the Union. It was 5-4. By contrast, this was an 8-1 re-affirmation of lots of existing precedent on unpopular political speech. Military funerals make this speech case unique, but the Supreme Court's decisions is just a blip in that broader story.--Chaser (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to be overly elitist about what we include we may as well shut ITN down. If we can't get the number of articles posted up its going to be increasingly difficult to argue why this section should stay at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand how I'm being elitist. Significance is one of the criteria for posting something. I don't think this case is significant enough to post.--Chaser (away) - talk 22:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm picking on you unfairly I apologise. The point of my comment above was made because there were a lot of people opposing a lot of stories on grounds that seemed to be pretty damn weak and very little had been posted before that. We do genuinely risk the section being removed from the front page if more stuff (and more topics aren't posted), the consensus on Talk:Main Page in recent discussions to keep ITN isn't that strong. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not a particularly significant or even surprising decision. There are no far-reaching consequences, this essentially just applies to this one group. Freedom of speech is protected by the US constitution; how is that news? Modest Genius talk 18:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For all those asking how this is news, it might be a question to ask the news sources across the nation who are covering this: Kansas City Star, New York Times, Los Angeles Times. Even in other countries: BBC, The Hindu. Whether this is news or not, it's getting covered widely, and I fail to see how we can consider it not noteworthy. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KsOstm. Grsz 11 02:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minister killed in Pakistan

The article is just a stub at the moment but this is a high level assassination. I think we've had similar cases on ITN before. --Tone 09:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, once the article is reasonably updated. I suggest a small tweak to your blurb:
For the record, we've posted the assassination of Salmaan Taseer back in January. However, the article was in significantly better shape at that point. As for religion part, I've just copied the line from P:CE, I agree we should not include it in the blurb if we post it. --Tone 15:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that many Wikipedia articles about people in third-world countries are not updated, even when the person is genuinely important. So unless you can argue that he is unimportant using other arguments, I would not accept Wikipedia's poor article alone as an argument. I would argue that the assasination of a Minister representing a country of 170 million people is almost per definition notable enough for ITN. Thue | talk 15:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First the article is rubbish, and then dont pov-push (the details are on his page)
Pakistan's Minister for Minorities Shahbaz Bhatti is assassinated in Islamabad.Lihaas (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - news with worldwide coverage. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support assassination of a minister is clearly worthy of posting. Agree with others that current article state is irrelevant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rather minor minister one the whole of things where assinations of more important people are not terribly uncommon The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 16:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is the second assassination ( after Salmaan Taseer) in Pakistan of a politician opposing Blasphemy law in Pakistan which is what makes it more significant than run of the mill stray killings in Pakistan which are all too common.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many things happen in Pakistan; as unfortunate as this event was, it really is local/national news and I don't think the minister was exactly "high-profile." Mar4d (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
local news which is getting international press World community condemn Bhatti’s murder--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Was the only Christian minister in Pakistan. Suggest linking Christianity in Pakistan and Blasphemy law in Pakistan within blurb. ~AH1(TCU) 03:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wikireader41. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we posted this in kind of a hurry, considering we still don't have any real consensus and the article is still in bad shape.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the admin's decision to post, as the timer was red at that time and considering how often we are criticized and ridiculed for being slow. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the decision to post, per Borg Queen. Jusdafax 22:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any real attempt at consensus; just people with differing opinions. We would have waited forever if we waited for consensus. (disclaimer: I voted support above) Thue | talk 01:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post-support, if it matters. I see how this could be seen as important, since this is somewhat reminiscent of the Giffords ordeal, except worse... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Price of Gold hits all time high due to North Africa and Middle East unrest

  • Story is of worldwide notability and interest as price is being driven by investor concerns, and is part of a longer term tripling of gold price in the past decade. Jusdafax 04:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sources do link it to unrest in the mid-east, articles are in good shape. RxS (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose According to even the article itself, gold has regularly achieved new highs in prices over the past few years. It's difficult to justify this nomination since the price could easily go up again over the next few weeks.--WaltCip (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support actually. We've been having similar discussions about oil recently, and consensus has been that round-number thresholds are irrelevant - what matters is the all-time high. Gold and oil are the two most important commodities in world trading. Although this is not surprising, it's the sort of story ITN should be covering - gradual below-the-radar stuff that nevertheless has a large impact, here on the world financial system. Gold as an investment is a pretty decent article too. Modest Genius talk 18:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MG. Your reasoning is well thought out. I did take the time to update the Gold article, and as you say Gold as an investment could be linked in a blurb as well. And I agree that ITN can and should become more focused on matters that are of lasting importance, and not just the latest plane crash. Jusdafax 22:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is "all-time high" a meaningful statement, though? 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. The recent oil price spikes, on the other hand, do represent a high in both real and nominal terms. Shimgray | talk | 18:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MG, but the story should be when was the record set last time. It should be like athletics records: if the record has not been broken in a while, then it should get posted; if it was broken a month before, then it shouldn't get posted. Nergaal (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Here [101] is the link to the NYT commodities chart, a handy tool in this regard. The last time gold crested was late last year, I believe. What caught my attention was the linkage between price and the unrest, which was noted in the source articles as observed originally by RxS in his support. Jusdafax 22:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MG. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be hesitant to explicitly link the price to the latest unrest - there are all sorts of reasons for the gold price to go up. But it's over a year since the last record, so that seems fine to me. Modest Genius talk 23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is going to drop off the bottom of ITN/C without getting posted, primarily because it needs a little more input to solidify consensus. That's a shame, because this is exactly the sort of story we ought to cover, and which we under-represent at present. Modest Genius talk 18:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see only one-sentence update in the article gold. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Protests

Protests in Wisconsin, the largest since the Vietnam war, enter their fifteenth straight day.

The 15th day would be tuesday, so probably 16th would be better actually, and the Vietnam war part can be removed if it's unhelpful. Something new needs to be added soon... Passionless -Talk 02:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I remember this being nominated last month. [102] EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I too would have opposed it at that time, but since then, the fact that the protests have grown to ~100,000 people some days and that they are still going and with no sign of stopping soon increases their notability. Passionless -Talk 03:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-American who watches out for US-centrism, I want to comment that these protests have now been covered on Australian radio. That may be because of obvious parallels with past actions by past state and national leaders here, but it's certainly starting to gain coverage outside the USA. I'd be happy to see something be listed. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Probably worth a support. It's getting to be a big deal. RxS (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support at this point this seems worthy of posting and it is 45 hours since anything was posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The event is historical -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Independent of the international notability here, these are the 'largest US protests since Vietnam' (that's debatable but it still speaks to the significance). Theyv'e lasted for two weeks and are generating huge media interest.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the reason for the protests should be included in the blurb. From the article, Opposition to certain provisions in legislation proposed by Governor Scott Walker to address a projected $3.6 billion budget shortfall. is somehow too long. Otherwise, if just saying protests, the blurb is easily: Protests are held in Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain and Wisconsin. And that looks rather bizarre ;-) --Tone 11:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, although I'm open to blurb rephrasing/shortening. -- tariqabjotu 14:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can we please change it to "Protests in the U.S. State of Wisconsin". "Wisconsin, United States" just sounds extremely awkward. Colipon+(Talk) 21:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me, "U.S." seems very informal. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's standard fare for United States in an adjective form. Anyway, when posting the blurb, I was split between saying "U.S. state of..." and "Wisconsin, United States" (and, I suppose, there's "Wisconsin, USA"), but the more I stare at "Wisconsin, United States", the worse it sounds. I've modified the blurb accordingly. -- tariqabjotu 03:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tariq. I've ranted about "U.S." adjectival use on my user page and am of the belief that WP needs a standard for this common but confusing grammatical issue. Colipon+(Talk) 04:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if "U.S." is more common usage inside the USA than outside? Just a gut feel from a non-American. Not expressing an opinion on what our usage should be. HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to what? If you're saying "U.S." is used more often than "US" in the United States, that's certainly true. It's almost exclusively written as the latter outside the United States. However, I'm not sure why, but whereas Americans would generally write UK or EU or FBI or CIA, the United States is commonly written with periods. But if you're saying "U.S./US" are uncommonly used outside the United States, that's demonstrably incorrect. BBC News, al-Jazeera, and AFP explicitly use "U.S./US state of Wisconsin", and countless other international sources (among them The Age, Xinhua, The Times of India, and Pravdu) use U.S. or US as an adjective. If that's what you're talking about, frankly, I don't know what you've been reading; U.S. or US are internationally used adjectives describing the United States and it is not considered informal at all. Saying "United States state" sounds awkward and I challenge you to find any use of it. -- tariqabjotu 14:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's kinda funny that you declare that something sounds awkward to you as part of a refutation of my declaration that something sounds informal. I'd be more comfortable with "American state". But that's clumsy too, because at some levels it's ambiguous as well. Ah, The United States of America. Great country, but really not sure of it's name. HiLo48 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It's kinda funny that you declare that something sounds awkward to you as part of a refutation of my declaration that something sounds informal." I don't see what's funny or unusual about that. First, while "awkward" is generally subjective, saying the "United States state" is awkward so apparent that it's practically an objective statement. You're saying states followed by state; how is that not awkward?! HiLo, I understand you find "U.S. state" informal and "American state" more appropriate, but I provided a litany of sources that demonstrate that your position is basically exclusive to you. Further, as you imply, "American state" is commonly used to refer either to the United States as an entity or the countries of the Americas, as in the Organization of American States. The unambiguous and widely accepted term is "U.S. state" -- and there's nothing informal about it. Sorry. -- tariqabjotu 17:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since U.S. is obviously not the real name of the country, it's quite easy to define it as informal, but you have convinced me that it's probably the best of the less than perfect choices available. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greek protests

there was support below but it wasnt posted. not for the top of itn anymore, but one can put it below libya.Lihaas (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Greek protest, Passionless -Talk 21:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

March 1, 2011 (2011-03-01) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Grave Nunataks 95229

Read the byline "A meteorite found in Antarctica could lend weight to the argument that life on Earth might have been kick-started from space, scientists are claiming." No story here... This could be something but right now its speculation of what this could mean when further evidence is collected. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk + contribs) 18:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 'Meteorite contains ammonia' is the actual story here, not 'life from meteorites'. And frankly, I can't see them being a significant source of nitrogen in the early atmosphere. Comets and volcanoes are much more likely. Modest Genius talk 20:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the relevant article would be Panspermia - this is wholly insignificant in terms of that theory as Modest Genius above points out. Pther than that it's a meteorite, hardly ITN material. Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there is nothing new here, meteorites have been studied for many decades, this article is just re bringing up an old theory. Passionless -Talk 21:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka fighter jet accident

This happened just a few hours ago, so international sources may not be available, yet. Current sources are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Rehman 10:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is pretty insignificant in terms of ITN. Jets do collide now and again. MickMacNee (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per MMN--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - kind of a common event, with no real repercussions. Passionless -Talk 21:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "She's aged well: Face of incredibly preserved 700-year-old mummy found by chance by Chinese raod workers". DailyMail. 8 March 2011. Retrieved 2011-03-08.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/March_2011&oldid=1147869856"