Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2011

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

July 31

July 31, 2011 (2011-07-31) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters and accidents
Law and crime

Politics

[Posted] Yani Tseng

Article: Yani Tseng (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 2011 Women's British Open winner, Yani Tseng became the youngest golfer in history to win five major championships. (Post)
News source(s): Golf Digest, ESPN W
Credits:
photo of champion
  • More prose. Right now the article contains very little recent information beside what is said in the blurb. It would also be great if you can expand the personal life section. Right now the article is almost completely career record, which makes it pretty much only interesting to golf fans. JimSukwutput 04:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's better. Changing to neutral. JimSukwutput 05:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not ITNR at the present moment, which is because they are only looking at the men's majors, and I believe that it is quite sexist on ITNR's behalf and should be changed. I have done a tremendous amount of work to bring women's articles up to the level of men's, so it can be included in ITNR. I think we need to open a discussion on ITNR golf to include women's stuff.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be so quick to accuse ITNR of sexism. The significance of a competition is largely measured by its viewership, and it is a fact that men's sports (with some exceptions) tend to have a larger audience. Blame the audience. JimSukwutput 18:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be wrong to do so, but I just see way to many inequalities on Wikipedia, when it comes to women in sports has a men's in the exact same sport. I am trying to rectify this one step at a time. I hope you join me in making wikipedia a equal place for all, not just select areas or scopes.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that all men's sports with a comparable amount of coverage to the Weetabix Open get included? That seems equal to me. Kevin McE (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Ramadan Massacre

Article: Siege of Hama (2011) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ More than 100 people were killed in Hama, Syria, where thousands continue to protest against the rule of Bashar al-Assad the day before the start of Ramadan. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, New York Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: At least 136 people have died, with over 100 in Hama, and 19 in Deir ez-Zor. -EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is ready and the kosovo serba clashes is not???Lihaas (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Lihaas here. I previously opposed the article that he had updated because it was, IMO, poorly written. But that was still in a MUCH better state than this one. I would not support this being posted at this stage. It needs at least double the size; the history section needs to be rewritten or eliminated; and the result needs to be clarified and sourced. JimSukwutput 13:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Ideally, this should have a little more content. It's just a lead, and some reactions that aren't central to the story. Removing [Ready]. -- tariqabjotu 07:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Historic event. --bender235 (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is clearly consensus that the topic is notable, but the article is in poor shape and has a {{POV}} tag on it. I'm not going to post if it's in that condition. NW (Talk) 13:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, eventually. But the article has a really long way to go. And it has a POV tag. Last time I checked there wasn't any discussion on the talk page so it can probably be removed. RxS (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support when POV is removed. Major event. ~AH1 (discuss!) 17:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues have been fixed Article is ready now -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready I'd really like to see this go up, but the article is still in poor shape, despite not having any tags. The article is now extremely confusing, for the infobox suggests this siege began on July 31, while the article suggests it began in June. When we get down to the part about what happened in the past couple days, we have a thin-on-details Ramadan Massacre section. Perhaps the article could be improved by moving the last paragraph in the lead down to the appropriate section, but at this point, the article is very difficult to follow. -- tariqabjotu 19:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Still not an award-winning article, but it's certainly much better now. I changed up the blurb quite a bit; specifically, I omitted the mention of Ramadan, particularly because the "siege" is still ongoing. -- tariqabjotu 19:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky debt crisis

Can we get a sticky on the 2011 U.S. debt ceiling crisis#Timeline? There hasn't been any one single event worthy of posting but it has been one of the top stories this week. Marcus Qwertyus 10:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

conditional support for a pre-determined short-term basis (a week? till aug 5 or resolution) as its globally notable despie being domestic and the talk of the town at the moment. Although id prefer a regular article than the timeline synopsis...though then gain as a stickhy timeline could work.Lihaas (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as there is no single event, we can wait until some sort of agreement is reached or we can wait until August 3, when no agreement would be an event on its own... --Tone 15:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unusual globally watched drama about the worlds sole superpower possibly headed towards default on its debt ( which for the longest time has been regarded as one of the safest investments known to mankind)--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Stickies are best used for those stories where there are multiple ongoing developments, and ITN risks becoming saturated with separate threads of the same story. So far we have had no posts on this matter, nor indeed even any nominations. A sticky therefore strikes me as far too premature. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Crisp pretty much has it correct. One way or another, in three days, we can simply post a blurb about how the crisis was resolved or about the collapse of civilization. Swarm u | t 19:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same main reasons as Crispmuncher, the only ITN worthy post I foresee out of this is if the US actually defaults on its obligation to it bond holders. Mtking (edits) 22:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The principals don't even know what the deal is yet, nor has any reliable source posted its outlines. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

July 30, 2011 (2011-07-30) (Saturday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters

Law and crime

Sports

[Posted] U2 360° Tour

Article: U2 360° Tour (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ U2's 360° Tour, the highest-attended and highest-grossing concert tour of all time, concludes in Moncton after 110 shows. (Post)
News source(s): Billboard.com
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The ending of the tour is significant not only because it set records as the highest-attended and highest-grossing tour of all time, but its 110 shows took place over a three-year period in countries all around the world. Please note this is my first nomination here, so I apologize for any procedural issues I may have overlooked. Since I've never written a blurb here, I'd be happy to rewrite it to make it more suitable. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong support as a fisrt (we just posted harry potter) and a minority topic as music is rarely on here. (forissues not pertaining to death)Lihaas (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 16:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone add "in 30 countries" to the end of the blurb? I think this would be a good way to show how internationally diverse the tour was. Here's a source.[1] –Dream out loud (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

July 29, 2011 (2011-07-29) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
  • Johnson & Johnson announced that it will lower the maximum daily dosage of one of its signature products, Extra Strength Tylenol, in order to reduce the risk of liver damage. (Reuters)
  • Pay-TV company BSkyB secures a seven year deal to share the United Kingdom broadcasting rights of Formula One racing. From March 2012 half the races will air on Sky, while the BBC retains the right to show the other half. (Bloomberg)

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime
Movies
Politics

Sport

Military resignations and arrests in Turkey

I don't know if we have an article on it (yet), but NY Times has a very interesting article on it. NW (Talk) 02:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that we should use Sledgehammer (coup plan), per this BBC article linking the resignations to that. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
shouldtn we get an article and an update first? it would give better background as to whether its notable for ITN. i myself am a bit split at the moment.Lihaas (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Ukraine mine accidents

- At least 18 coal miners have died after two mine accidents in Ukraine. Many people are missing. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Large amounts of deaths and people are missing. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mining accidents, unfortunately, are extremely common and part of the job. The article on Mining accident says this for China: "Between January 2001 and October 2004, there were 188 accidents that had a death toll of more than 10." If this were to be posted, then we would have to post one mining accident every 7.4 days, for China alone. JimSukwutput 18:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, a comparison of Ukraine to China is more apples-to-oranges; China is especially notorious for lethal mine accidents. Poland is probably more comparable; the article List of mining disasters in Poland lists fewer major accidents in recent years. SpencerT♦C 05:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I can see is that the bottom line is both countries are developing nations and accidents as such are fairly common and usually tend to go unreported. The fact that the death toll is 18 heightens the seriousness of the tragedy but it is not uncommon.YuMaNuMa (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that China is more notorious for lethal mine accidents is probably because it produces 45 times the coal that Ukraine does. If you have fewer miners, you have fewer mining accidents - and that does not make them any more notable. It wouldn't be particularly notable, say, if Cyprus had a mining accident, even if it were extremely rare due to the country's size. JimSukwutput 10:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of the opinion that relatively frequent events like mining accidents, especially in countries that don't necessarily have an impeccable safety record, should only be posted if they have some special claim to notability, like being the worst in a country for a long time. If either of these incidents develop into something like that, I could support, but I'm not sure why two completely different incidents in separate mines are covered in one article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I remember correctly, we posted the story regarding the Chilean miners a while back. If this one gets popular, it may be worth posting this too based on precedence.--WaltCip (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Chilean miners story was popular because they were still alive and were successfully rescued. That's not the case here and, as pointed out above, that makes it just another tragic accident. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the sort of headline newsy news that we should be doing less of. Unless there's something more to the story than just a mining accident we should let it pass. If we look at it from our readers perspective, it's not likely that many of them will be looking for information on this topic. RxS (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Tropical Storm Nock-ten (2011)

Floods in Seoul

Article: 2011 Seoul floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Floods and landslides in the Seoul region of South Korea kill at least 69 people, while surrounding areas of North Korea are also impacted by flooding. (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Heaviest two-day rainfall in Seoul since 1907. ~AH1 (discuss!) 19:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if someone creates/finds an article about the flooding in South Korea that is worth a separate blurb. –HTD 17:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brief article created. Although last year's floods in North Korea and Vietnam killed more people, such deadly floods in South Korea are a rare occurrence. ~AH1 (discuss!) 19:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. ~AH1 (discuss!) 19:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Basically same reason as above - fairly common occurrence of natural disaster. JimSukwutput 19:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please state what you mean by "common". Or this could just be another case of what I call news fatigue to seemingly oft-reported stories. Just because significant floods occur every year does not imply that an individual flood of a certain magnitude is always common in a specific area. ~AH1 (discuss!) 19:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with news fatigue. I simply think there are much more important stories elsewhere - be they related to humanitarian disasters (see the Somalia famine article below, of which I was the main author), or scientific discoveries, or political conflicts with long-reaching consequences. Natural disasters like this are unforeseeable and largely unavoidable events, and do not have any long-term consequences. Reading about such news does not give us any information beyond the fact that, out there, some people have it worse than us. Yes, it's important to know what's going on in the world, but when 3/4 of the stories nominated here are natural disasters, there's something fundamentally wrong with how we consume news. JimSukwutput 22:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I think (and this is purely my opinion) there are two important differences between those "disaster" stories that ought to be posted and those that ought not. First, whether it is man-made (i.e. preventable) - for example, famines, massacres, accidents caused by poor training, and so on. Second, whether there is something that can be done about it - for example, disasters caused by environmental damage that can be reversed, or disasters that require an international relief effort. If neither of these are true, then the disaster/accident is purely unavoidable and unchangeable, and it becomes simply a consumption of news. The famine below is what I think is most appropriate in this regard - it was preventable, and there is still something that people can do about it.
Not to mention the immense difference in scale - using the death rate provided by the famine article, the famine is causing nearly 3000 deaths per day. This disaster nominated here simply pales in comparison to what's happening in many countries in eastern Africa, and I would rather we post numerous developments on that than this. JimSukwutput 22:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

July 28, 2011 (2011-07-28) (Thursday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

[Posted] Sticky: 2011 Horn of Africa famine

Changed nomination to sticky as there is consensus in that direction. Closing previous discussion. JimSukwutput 04:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2011 Horn of Africa famine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The UN World Food Programme begins an airlift of food to famine victims in Somalia. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The famine is a really big humanitarian story, and this development belongs on the main page. --Rhombus (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A bit late, in my opinion. The first UN airlift was on 13 July according to the article. There is no doubt that the famine remains a crisis, however, considering Al-Shabaab partially lifted its ban on humanitarian workers. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Al-Shabaab did not lift its ban (though it was previously reported so); in fact, it just entered into a major conflict with government forces. In addition, this is the first UN airlift since famine was declared on 20 July, and to my knowledge is only the second one throughout the drought. Airlifts are major operations, and few ever occur. JimSukwutput 18:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Comment. This has already been on ITN twice, on the 17th and the 20th. Have there been any new developments since then? Jenks24 (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Lots of donation pledges; violent conflicts between government/aid groups and Al-Shabaab; and so on. I don't think this is the most important development, but there's definitely something that can be posted, given that this is the first official famine in nearly 30 years and have already resulted in at least twenty thousand deaths. JimSukwutput 18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as to any majorfamine, the UN will be airlifting food to the country. An event like this was inevitable since the famine grew into a crisis so there is really no point posting the same/similar event twice. YuMaNuMa (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral it has come under criticism for red tape delays, while at the same time the number of refugees into Ethiopia is steadily ridsing as a result of the famine/drought. might even be a weak supportLihaas (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support, though not necessarily this particular blurb. I think this particular event is more important: "Africa Union peacekeepers say they have seized key territory from Islamist insurgents in Somalia's capital after they allegedly threatened aid camps." This is a major conflict, involving tens of thousands of African Union soldiers. JimSukwutput 18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support make it sticky. The crisis isn't going away anytime soon. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of sticky Previously, "stickying" something was reserved for the Olympics- international events with high probability of multiple ITN postings (new world records and such), and ones that were constantly being updated well with new information. Recently, the usage has been expanded, and I think at times it has been appropriate, but for items such as this, it isn't. Stickying should be for clumping multiple items at once, not just a way to blanket cover updates to a single story. SpencerT♦C 02:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support three items: in one blurb; the airlift, the refugee crisis and the insurgency. Major crisis is unfolding in Somalia. ~AH1 (discuss!) 17:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I Moved this discussion as there seems to be a consensus that the AU/Al-Shabaab conflict on 28 July should be mentioned. I also marked "[Ready]" as there is a clear consensus for posting. However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what particular blurb to use or whether to make it a sticky. Maybe an admin can make the choice here? JimSukwutput 18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can this be ready? Nobody seems to know what we're posting, the discussion is fairly minimal, and where's the update? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is an update for each of the blurb suggested, at the ends of the second and third section respectively.
        • Six supports and one oppose seem to be a fairly decent consensus. The problem is that we have different preferences for what particular blurb to use. But I don't think we can resolve that any time soon, and I don't think it really matters. JimSukwutput 19:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • But no one blurb has a consensus, imo. It's not like the options are minor stylistic preferences, the consensus is torn as to which parts of the story are and aren't worth posting. I think we need more discussion (and preferably not just voting). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, I see the point. Any one who hasn't stated his/her preference yet, please comment on whether you prefer the first blurb (UN airlift), the second blurb (AU/Al-Shabaab conflict), or a combination of both. JimSukwutput 22:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this was the first time food was actually being airlifted into Somalia itself. Beyond that, I think it a sad commentary that, as of today, I cannot find any evidence on the main page that millions of people are starving to death as we speak. Instead we had Amy Winehouse's death and the Tour de France winner. The suggestion to make it sticky is a good one. If this doesn't merit it, then what does? --Rhombus (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four people here seem to have a clear preference for posting this as a sticky (Jenks24, Ohconfucius, me, and Rhombus as the nominator). I'm changing the nomination title as a result. Also adding [Ready] - there are four supports for the sticky, two additional supports with no preference indicated, and one oppose for the sticky and one additional oppose with no preference indicated. A fairly decent consensus. Article was updated for both of the events described above and is being updated constantly. JimSukwutput 14:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both a sticky and posting. The posting as this is no longer news the air drop was over two weeks ago. The sticky as this is just one story, not a continuing series, such as Arab Spring or News International phone hacking scandal. Mtking (edits) 03:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the article. The airlift you're referring to was on July 13, in Kenya. The one nominated here occurred on July 27, in Somalia. As for stickying it, I certainly don't see how a hacking scandal of one company warrants one while a historical famine that affects 11 million people in 6 countries does not. This is not "one story". We have already posted two stories related to this, and there are two more stories nominated above that have gained widespread support. If this does not become a sticky, then we will have to post the article four times, and as Ohconfucius said, that number is only going to increase in the future. JimSukwutput 04:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed the [Ready] tag, it was "added" twice by Jim Sukwutput first when he moved the text here only to be removed by an administrator (HJ Mitchell) here and then re-added here. Please only add the "[Ready]" Tag once, if someone else, especialy an administrator, removes it leave it to others to judge if it should be marked again. Mtking (edits) 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mtking: HJ Mitchell removed the Ready tag because there was no consensus at that time about which particular blurb to post or whether to sticky it. Since then, two of the users have expressed their preference for stickying it, meaning that there is now a large majority in favor of that (if I can assume Eraserhead1 supports it, that makes three). And while HJ Mitchell said he prefers more discussion, 3 days have passed and there has been no response from any of the two previous oppose votes, one of which, by the way, is factually incorrect like yours. Would you also care to retract your incorrect statement, and explain why you still hold on to your position? JimSukwutput 13:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support either or all. Major news -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to reemphasize the continued significance of this event and the many developments that have occurred around it - there are over 600 news articles about the Somalia famine alone during the last day. For example, torrential rain destroyed many of the refugee camps yesterday 12, leading to at least hundreds of deaths. On another note, some governments have made significant contributions to the relief effort, including Canada's $50 million and France's €30 million 3. To add onto that, the large-scale conflict between AU forces and Al-Shabaab is still going on and AU forces just launched a major offensive to seize large amounts of territories back from the insurgents 45.
This is also, by the way, stickied on the French and Spanish Wikipedias, and the German Wikipedia's article is constantly in the news section and getting more views than ours. How we can fail to post such an event in these circumstances is utterly incomprehensible to me. JimSukwutput 14:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matter-antimatter symmetry

Article: CPT symmetry (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ By determining the mass of an antiproton, physicists at CERN confirm the CPT symmetry. (Post)
News source(s): Nature, Science Daily
Support. Important LHC discovery. ~AH1 (discuss!) 17:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] New Prez of Peru

Moved from 27th because item can only be posted today.

Article: Ollanta Humala (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ollanta Humala takes office as the new President of Peru following a two-round election. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Support we posted Aus.Can/Uk election for result and govt.
Also if need be we can link inaugurated to the relevant section Peruvian general election, 2011#Inauguration. Important this is to be added TOMORROW. Lihaas (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"rarely " post? why the bias to anglo-countries. (although i think Ireland was posted too, coul dbe wrong)
Stats dont mean they were necessarily on ITN, it was a hot-issue at the time and it could have generated sensation. (peru market and silver prices in the news back then) STL generated views without ever being on ITN.Lihaas (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - as ericleb01.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

umm, did you see the response to that?
striking BabbaQ b/c its been disproved and withdrawn.Lihaas (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose per Ericleb01. JimSukwutput 18:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to reiterate, we dotn vote count here. you have to give a reason;; and that point has a counter-arguement, so you should counter that.Lihaas (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see it, and wouldn't have understood it anyhow. Anyway, switching to neutral now based on Arsonal's comment below. I don't think it makes sense to post a insignificant story just because we didn't post the main event previously, but I see the point.JimSukwutput 18:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ill take that as a barnstar ;)Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but it's not until tomorrow anyway. Still... Good compromise for not posting the elections. Nightw 19:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
so ITNR? though election has plenty of post-result prose too nowLihaas (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not ITNR, and the election story is old. Nightw 22:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked your blurb, since the transfer of office, rather than the inauguration ceremony, is what's important. Nightw 10:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment can someone makr this as ready? his swearing-in is either starting soon aor already udner way.Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ready. "Peru Swears In Humala as President" (Voice of America) I also tweaked the blurb a bit. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question should we bold the election article (or both?)? as the former has the current quit e git prose update of the inauguration.Lihaas (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the lengthy prose on their on the inauguration is current,Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peruvian general election, 2011#Inauguration can be bold linked.
also see the 2011 election and president-elect sections on the page[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Posted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

July 27, 2011 (2011-07-27) (Wednesday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

[Posted] 2010 TK7

Article: 2010 TK7 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Asteroid 2010 TK7 is confirmed as the first Earth trojan asteroid ever discovered. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Support This is the first Earth trojan asteroid that has ever been discovered, astronomical firsts are generally considered noteworthy. XavierGreen (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because a lot of readers of this section don't seem to realise that this section is to promote quality rather than be a simple news ticker.  狐《FOX》 13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand, the criteria are (and I quote) "the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article." While I wouldnt dare compare this to the cure for cancer, thats pretty much what has happened. A sub-par (but still found to be adequate as reflected by discussion above) article attracted other editors to join in and make it better. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what happened. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doku Umarov/Caucasian Mujahadeen

Article: Dokka Umarov (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Following a dispute, Dokka Umarov re-gains leadership of the Caucasian Mujahadeen that had been split with Aslambek Vadalov (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Support its deadly rare thate we post leadership battles of extralegal/rebel bodies (hich dont qualify at ITNR but are de facto entities), the opportunity is here for a change to ITN. Lihaas (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose The problem with posting these underground developments is that they're notoriously unreliable. Note here that the latter of your sources (in the article) says: "The Sharia court ruled in favor of Umarov, according to a statement released by Kavkaz Center, a propaganda arm of the Caucasus Emirate." Also, this is (despite its international notoriety) a pretty minor conflict, with only one million people in the territory involved. We give far too much weight to Islamic terrorism already, and even if we are to continue that, I'd rather some high-significance places like Northern India or Western China be covered. JimSukwutput 18:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is one of those stories that nobody actually knows anything about. How many mainstream English Wikipedia readers knew that the Caucasian "emirate" was in a leadership crisis? Let alone cared. It's not exactly covered in independent journalism... Nightw 18:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But thats exactly the point. to get people to know. WP out to educate as Jimbo has often said.
independent journalism? what else is the source quoted? its not mainstream media
[3][4][5][6] + article now updated further to show that he was warned of an exscalation after the unity deal, which comes as russia faces "near daily attacks" in hte region and the occasional moscow attacks.Lihaas (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
longwarjournal?Lihaas (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
kavkazcenter.com --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the info comes from longwarjournal. though the blacklist discussion of that was quite dodgy too. I agree when its cited as historical truth, but when its cited as a source for a statement then its not off. (in this case itis used as such)Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, one finds that reports of who is nominally in charge of organizations without transparency is not reliable and generally irrelevant - much less front page news. Do we know who's in charge of each crime family? hacker group? the skull & bones folks? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb of Philip the Apostle

Article: Philip the Apostle (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ According to Italian archaeologists, the tomb of Philip the Apostle has been discovered in Hierapolis, Turkey. (Post)
News source(s): FOX, Herald Sun

Nom. --bender235 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Are there better sources? This is being attributed to remarks in the Turkish popular press by a researcher who, rather than finding something unexpected, has discovered exactly what he has been looking for for 12 years. μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed with Medeis here. Either we wait until we have a better confirmation, or we say that it's a claim. I'm also not convinced about the significance of this. From the sound of the article, it doesn't look like the tomb would contain any particular cultural artifact, so right now it's simply the place where a notable person was buried. Pretty much only symbolic value for Christians and Muslims. JimSukwutput 18:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I have some archeological training here see 4 major problems off the bat here. 1)Typically Archeologists announce these finds in papers at Major Conferences or Prestigious Journals after years of documenting their digs. The fact that 2)no paper has been received by some sort of peers. 3) they are declaring this as "Philip the Apostle" when the tomb is not even open yet. 4) I am not really seeing wide coverage of it anywhere but some of the more tabloid type of news. I am not holding my breath. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poking some holes into this theory Read the Foxnews article and look at what they dont say: Francesco D'Andria is never described as an archeologist and they always distinguish between the "Professor" and the "Archeologists" in the text. This implies that he is probably a Legit PhD prof somewhere. My experience tells me that that he is religious scholar with no formal scientific Archeological training. Real archeologist go with measurable hypothesis to test (how large was is this site? what does the rubbish pile contain). Treasure hunting Religious scholars say absurd objects like find the Grail! the The Ark of covenant! Noah's ark! Jesus' Tomb! Philip the Apostle's tomb! It's also odd they dont mention the university or he is affiliated with which is not the norm for the press. There is always the distinct possibility that he is total fraud and just wants to make it a tourist spot. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Joe Arroyo

Article: Joe Arroyo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Colombian salsa singer Joe Arroyo dies at 55 years of age. (Post)
News source(s): [7] [8]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Support Far more hits, over many more years, that other recently featured singers. One of his hits "may well be Colombia's most important song": others say "When you talk about Colombian music, your reference point is Joe Arroyo". Had a soap orpera made of his life story. Kevin McE (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, the death was expected; might as well withdraw the nom, Kevin, because we all know it sure as hell won't go through. *rolls eyes* For the record, I support this as I supported Facundo Cabral's murder, because South American culture is extremely under-represented here (aside from the Copa América) and this would be a nice place to start. Arroyo was supposed to receive the Lifetime Acheivement Award from the Latin Recording Academy in November. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this is not an ITNR event. no deaths are, usually (always?) require consensus.
nbut about to nom a Latam article for tomorrow..or should i do it now?  DoneLihaas (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is in a poor state. There are only two sources and the early life and health issues and drug abuse sections are completely unsourced. Truthsort (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Besides the poor sourcing, the article does not tell us why this singer is notable (besides having a lot of albums), which is always a bad sign. JimSukwutput 18:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I suspected, being outstanding in one's field, despite being mentioned in the death criteria, is far less likely to get a death raised to ITN than being a regular in gossip columns and scandal sheets. Kevin McE (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK expels all Libyan Embassy staff

Source for Story, Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose nothign new, just undue notice to one action. the Arab Spging sticky is already there. if something notable happens on the field then its worth an indiv. posting. (believe france has already don e so)Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well. This is not the first country to do so; especially when we talk about recognising the NTC, as it has been done with 31 countries so far. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not even close to being the most notable thing to happen about the Libya conflict in the last few days. For example, there was a development about whether Qadaffi could stay in Libya under the rebels' demands.JimSukwutput 18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Expelling diplomats is symbolic, but no big deal; recognition of the rebels is much more significant, but since the US and several other Western countries have already recognised them as the legitimate government, it was almost certainly going to happen sooner or later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Haidar Hameedi killed in suicide bombing

Article: Ghulam Haidar Hameedi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The mayor of Afghanistan's second largest city Kandahar, is killed in a suicide bombing. (Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:

Article needs updating
support as pertinent to the stability of Afghanistan (the big conflict in the world at the moment that NATO is on the verge of losing) in general and Kandahar in particular. TWO high-level assassinations recently (both of which were posted (or was it just the one?)). mayor of the most precarious city in Afghanistan is notable by itself. three high-level this month aloneLihaas (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
so is Karzai's bro (whos technically even lower)..posted that when elationships dont necessitate notabilityLihaas (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Ready] Border clashes in Kosovo-Serbia

Article: 2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Clashes occur in North Kosovo between Serbs and the Kosovo Police, who attempted to take control of two border posts. (Post)
News source(s): [10] [11]
Credits:

Article needs updating
Source for story. --93.137.108.54 (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found more coverage here.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Started a stub for the event, 2011 Kosovo-Serbia border clashes.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article now at 2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose as an isolated incident, if it grows then post it. there are lots of "important conflicts" we cant post any incident in themLihaas (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a big deal. Kosovo is the site of the largest EU international intervention now or ever before. Story also involves NATO and has serious geopolitical implications. --85.124.37.18 (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
like...? 1 dead kosovar means..? if a couple of terrorist mean anything than see aboveLihaas (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The situation has escalated even further now. See here, and here.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support per my comment above about if the situation escalates, it has and there are intl concerns. Ive done a big update to the page and marked ready. re-worded the blurb slightly tooLihaas (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes definitly ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
umm, no its all sourced i did it myself. there are no intermediate refs so no need to add every para ref. the next following ref has all the info, you can check if you want. if you feel the need to repeat refs (which i didnt see) then youre welcome to add them. consensus seems to suggests its ready, though. (remarking)
theres also a massive 3 para prose on the current events as well as the even bigger reactions that pertain to its current "crisis" level. weve posted numerous articles with far less prose.Lihaas (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell is correct here. The article is poorly sourced. In particular, this source was used for half of the response section (by Lihaas' reasoning), but doesn't seem to contain any pertinent information. The article also needs some strong copyediting. Removing [Ready] once again. JimSukwutput 20:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what wrong with BBC, which incidentally is NOT the whole of the response section? Is that not RS enough? The incidents section (which is the crux of the issue) is not dubiously sourced. What copyediting do you suggest? (could do so if there was a prob) we still have three vs. 2 poeple suggesting its ready
Pretty much debunked Mitchell's statesments (and without acrimony at that)
Just saw the page and see no attempt at copy editing or anything in talk. (ready) per 3 vs. 2 conensus
Conversely, if one explains the problem it can be solved, but how is another editor to know what needs updating otherwise. Mitchell's concerns on sources were answered. but i dont see what JS' concerns are. sorry, if im blind ;) (but au contraire, not a single thing here is unsourced, excect possibly for background which is sourced on the requisite pages)
What then are the reasons for your (JS) claims that its poorly sourced? (asking in AGF so sa to correct it)Lihaas (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lihaas.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously can't understand what you're saying. And ITN is not a majority-vote - 3-2 is not a consensus, especially since you have done nothing to address HJ Mitchell's issue with the article. Go work on the article if you want to get it posted, rather than starting an incomprehensible tirade against me. JimSukwutput 16:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To help you out, here are a few examples of obvious grammatical mistakes that need to be corrected:
  • "Serbia has also stationed troops in the northern region and moved to enforced a boycott of goods" - 1st section
  • "...was killed during a grenade blast near the border and one more policeman with at least one currently being treated in hospital for severe wounds and five more have sustained injuries during the operation to take control of the border posts[3] and the consequent clashes with local residents from the North Kosovo" - 2nd section (run-on sentence)
  • "Serbian protesters came back returned in the evening and attacked the post" - 2nd section
  • "The mob reportedly included "dozens of masked men, armed with crowbars, clubs, axes, Molotov cocktails and handheld flares,"[2] as well as rocks and other debris" - 2nd section. The problem here is that the mob does not include rocks and other debris; it's rather that they're armed with rocks and other debris. The wording here makes that ambiguous.
  • "however the United States and the United Kingdom were opposed the move" - 3rd section
...and a bunch of others. I suggest you seek help from other users if you don't feel that you can't copyedit the article correctly. Unfortunately, I will not be able to help, as I am quite busy at this moment. JimSukwutput 16:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What tirade? i didnt once attack you, unlike the NPA above.
Virtually every single article on ITN is not grammar-proof, picking out bits to bite at after the original arguement was debunked seems more like vengeance mongering here. The phrase about the mob also follows "armed with..." see what precludes the dodgy bit. otherwise  DoneLihaas (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "original arguement" wasn't debunked; I did not talk further about it because you seem to have no intention on correcting the problem. I'll let another admin see if he thinks having half a section unsourced is fine - quite clearly, the admin above does not.
Obvious grammatical errors are not trivial problems. The article was poorly written to the extent that many non-native speakers would not be able to comprehend it. This was not "vengeance mongering" - I mentioned the problem in my first comment above. Since you did not seem to recognize the problem, I gave you some examples to help you with that. Your lack of appreciation is noted.
There are still significant problems with the grammar of the article, making some parts of it virtually incomprehensible. Here's another example: "He also added that though co-operation with the "international community...the constitution and the sovereignty of my country are sacred for myself and for my countrymen and go beyond any partnership or loyalty."" I strongly suggest you to ask another user for help in copyediting the article. Otherwise I remain strongly opposed to posting this. JimSukwutput 13:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to look more like a power-struggle than actual prose problems if you ask me. How can anyone strongly oppose this article, I find that to be very strange...--BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Power struggle? I have no problem with User:Lihaas. In fact he is probably the user here that I agree with most frequently. This article, however, is simply not up to standard. JimSukwutput 16:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I strongly disagrees.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

July 26, 2011 (2011-07-26) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Colombian Constitutional Court rules on same-sex unions

Article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Colombia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Constitutional Court of Colombia unanimously rules to order the Colombian Congress to legislate on same-sex marriage within two years, upon when if Congress fails to do so, same-sex unions are granted all the rights of marriage. (Post)
News source(s): [12] [13]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is probably quite a major decision as it may lead to Colombia becoming the second country in South America (alongside Argentina), the fourth outside Europe, and the eleventh country overall (unless another country, possibly Australia or a Western European country, moves faster) to have same-sex marriage nationwide. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 11:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong oppose we can post every country in the world doing so and its not even a regional first. Furthermore it seems they legalised unionjs not marriage. Akin to Mexico City (although whats the status of that? as the largest Spanish -speakign country it would be more notable when its national)Lihaas (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Colombian Congress may decide that it will be same-sex marriage. This is a significant news item; it doesn't matter that such news items are becoming increasingly common, the story is still a notable one. Also, this is a region which is fairly underrepresented on ITN. Additionally, the ruling of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court on same-sex unions was posted on ITN. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 17:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think we should have posted that. But we got 1 ready Latam article, another that was rejected yest and the copa america wone below. the underrepresented tag is being overused;)Lihaas (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Moroccan Royal Armed Forces Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash

78 people have died after a plane crashed in south of Morocco. Support as the nominator. That's the deadliest accident in 2011. - [14] EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 line, 1 source. not a chance in hell thats going up even if its notableLihaas (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eugen, for the love of all that is holy, start making longer articles before expecting them to be showcased on the Main Page. This sort of thing is part of why this section is despised and ridiculed by so many.  ƒox  14:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason people despise ITN is because it's not updated often enough. And that's because we don't get enough nominations per day. How are you not encouraging the fact that he nominates one nearly every other day? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with fox. There's no point putting it up there if the article has no content. People can just read headline news instead. JimSukwutput 14:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support pending additional information. There isn't much detail on the actual story yet. All sources are referring back to the Moroccan army release. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 15:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guys, I think you're forgetting the entire point of Wikipedia. An article very rarely goes from nothing to B-Class in a flash. Eugen made the article (Eugen didn't even make the article, so these personal attacks aren't even warrented!), but he's not obligated to expand it to ITN standards. It seldom ever does in most nominations. That's why we have a community to back his efforts up. See also: WP:BUSY. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That might be valid criticism, and it's possible that you might get some support for it at WT:ITN. However, the blurb for this, if or when it goes up, will be to the effect of "plane crashes, X dead". Common sense suggests that, if we're linking to an article, that article should contain more information than the blurb. This one doesn't, at the time of writing, but it is possible to write a reasonable article on a current event. thoughof course, you need sufficient sources and time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not trying to gather support for anything I've said. I'm just saying that articles on this encyclopaedia take time to develop and don't rely on single editors for expansion. You can see what I mean by checking the most recent version of the article. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when updated. hopefully the article will be expanded in a timely fashion.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I don't think any additional information can be added as airplane crashes take months maybe even years to determine the cause of the crash and as you all will know, Wikipedia doesn't run on speculations. YuMaNuMa (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Royal Moroccan Air Force" does not exist. * The very term is emblematic of Wikipedia's attempt's to classify everything in terms that the English speaking world can understand. I see a whole sequence of articles under the same terms all rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The left nostril of the real prof (talk • contribs) 06:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support iff the article is expanded a bit more, and given some structure. I'm busy elsewhere atm, but it is covered by ASN and Flight. The relevant thread on Pprune, whilst not a RS in itself, does contain links to RSs that would be suitable to expand the article with. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Truong Tan Sang becomes the new President of Vietnam

Article: Truong Tan Sang (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Trương Tấn Sang becomes the new President of Vietnam and nominates Nguyễn Tấn Dũng to another term as Prime Minister. (Post)
News source(s): [15]
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Based on the modest amount of English sources on this issue the article's actually looking pretty good.  여우 《FOX》  23:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, article quality isn't a sliding scale depending on the availability of sources. The number of sources doesn't affect quality of prose for example. Not asking for this to be pulled, but it should never have been posted. RxS (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Dũng had already been confirmed for a second term, I think the blurb should be changed to reflect that. DHN (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The blurb as proposed was fine. However, by the time this reached the template, President of Vietnam had morphed into President of Vietnam. Other than the old bad habit of making two links when one will do fine, I can't see why? Vietnam is already at the second degree of separation from the subject, and those at the first degree have all been linked. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything about the lives of Vietnamese leaders is treated as a state secret. Until January, Sang was a guy on a list with a name and a position, end of story. The article represents pretty much every scrape of information available about the man that I could cull off the Internet. This basically consists of his résumé and the Wikileaks cable on Vietnam. There is no political campaigning and no one I've talked even voted in the election, although the government claims 90 percent turnout. Kauffner (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

July 25, 2011 (2011-07-25) (Monday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • Moody's cuts Greece's credit rating further to Ca on the grounds that a proposed debt swap is equivalent to a default. (BBC)

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Sport

The NFL Lockout is resolved

Article: 2011_NFL_lockout#Labor_dispute (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The National Football League and its players reach a settlement ending the 2011 NFL Lockout. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

Article needs updating
  • The Hall of Fame games was canceled and the drafted players terms were changed. But the big news is the collective sigh of relief from fans that I feel makes this newsworthy. Also the start of the lockout was featured in ITN FWIW. meshach (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has it (Start of the lockout was posted)? Anyway... oh good. Now let's wait for the barrage of opposes screaming "U.S. biaz!!!!!!1111" Don't tell me I didn't warn you... –HTD 19:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woo-hooo!!!!!!!!! man cant live without football at all!!
buit the NBA lockout actually resulted in a change to the season so this is not that big.Lihaas (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to come to grips with this. I'm getting the impression that this all happened in the off-season, so no actual competition was impacted. No team fan missed a game. Is that right? If it's right, Oppose. Claims of the form "If this were XYZ League it would be posted" are meaningless. It isn't, and it wasn't. Hypotheticals are not strong arguments. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be incorrect because they're your words, not mine. You misquoted me. If you feel the need to be dishonest in your arguments, you probably don't have a case. A little bit of ethics here please. No trickery. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
roflmfao BRILLIANT! funniest mo. on WP yet. ;)Lihaas (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of you need to stop trying to have the last word, move on, and stop this pointless argument. No one's honor is being impugned because they were or were not misquoted in an argument over an ITN article. (of all the things to bicker about on Wikipedia, this is probably the second most worthless, behind Wikiproject scopes) --Golbez (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per HiLo48. I haven't seen a support vote yet that is not based on an opposition to imaginary "anti-American" bias. Please, drop the bullshit. Something that essentially did not happen would not have been posted, be it about American football, soccer, cricket or whatever else. We don't report news on hypothetical events unless they are almost certainly expected to happen. That is not the case here. JimSukwutput 10:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment ditto per Jim Sukwutput, this would not fly if it was a mere threat in europe or the ipl or any nonsense, if it happened then yes there is more notability. Should we post all industrial lockouts that hurt production (Maruti recently had one, and possibly still ongoing, lockout that signigicantly cut output). Furthermore, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not valid.
per Eraserhead's support "and something did happen" but somethign did NOT happen,,Lihaas (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the instructions for why that's an invalid argument. "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose since a lockout happened and got solved all out of season. And anti-Americanism can not be used as counter argument to get items in... more than half the supports here seem to be using future strikes of other sports as argument. Only past examples can be used for such reasoning not future... -- Ashish-g55 01:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

July 24, 2011 (2011-07-24) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Politics

Sport

Science

Death of Nguyen Cao Ky

Article: Nguyen Cao Ky#Death (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former South Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky dies at the age of 80 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. (Post)
News source(s): LA Times, New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
Stupid that twas posted, but i guess former head of sate/government so support reluctantly.Lihaas (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Vietnam's leader during a very important time for all countries involved in the war there. (I hope the lack of interest isn't a sign of trying to pretend it didn't happen.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2011 housing protests in Israel

what the hekc blurb is that "in the jewish state" we dont pov-push here. discussions of the states religous nature dont belofeng here.Lihaas (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
much better, and for the record post-posting supportLihaas (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a ITN mention in the article talk page would be good.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Egyptian Anti-SCAF protest

Article: Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Supreme Council of the Armed Forces#July (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Over 200 people were injured in Cairo when thousands of demonstrators marched to the Defense Ministry (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, The Guardian, Reuters, The Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated
Support: As the nominator. I am going to update the page right away and I will post a blurb; Also trying to get an image to illustrate the protest -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The July 28th is significant due to it's context and scale. It was the largest mobilization of Anti-SCAF protesters to the Min. of Defense. Along with June 28 and April 8, it is among the most violent days of the post-revolution. In addition, it comes the day following SCAF Edicts 69 and 70, which target the April 6th movement and those who use social media to organize anti-SCAF events, and represents the beginning of a more aggressive policy against these groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.20.77 (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. From the look of that article, this doesn't seem any more notable than the numerous incidents that have occurred in Egypt alone for the past two weeks. We already have Arab Spring stickied, and I don't think this warrants a stand-alone post. JimSukwutput
  • Comment These nominations on blurbs concerning Egypt have been way too numerous to the point that some of them are no longer reported in the mainstream media befitting a sticky. Our stickies -- the World Cup, Olympics, Arab Spring this spring (it's already summer lol), the Japanese tsunami and nuclear disaster -- all had wall-to-wall coverage when they were ongoing. This one, Arab Spring in the summer, no longer has that level of coverage. Hence it's high time to take down the sticky as the updates aren't coming in daily or probably be pointed to a better article (such as an timeline article, if that exists). (Also, the News International has to go if there are no significant developments until next Tuesday). –HTD 15:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an important development, and certainly warrants inclusion in the front page. This is the first time SCAF has openly resorted to police tactics (the excessive force, the use of thugs, etc...) in dispersing a protest, and it's all the more notable since SCAF has also entered into near-open hostility with prominent activist groups like April 6 and Kefaya, making various accusations against them. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's already stickied. But HTD makes a valid point. It's probably time for the sticky to come down. I'll reevaluate if that happens. Swarm 17:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sticky covers the Arab Spring in general, but not all major news from each country. I do not why we cant have the sticky and major incidents. Arab Spring is ongoing event that takes a huge part of any News channel that covers international news. Also note that we are in summer and not that many ppl like to spend their time in front of the computer typing :D -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing to post incidents when there is a sticky is somewhat excessive. However, as I said, I'm of the opinion that the sticky could probably come down by now. Swarm 23:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Copa América

Article: 2011 Copa América final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football Uruguay defeats Paraguay to win this year’s Copa América. (Post)
Credits:

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

 Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Obvious support for this recurring item -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the sport to the blurb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2011 Tour de France

Articles: 2011 Tour de France (talk · history · tag) and Cadel Evans (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Australian cyclist Cadel Evans wins the 98th edition of the Tour de France. (Post)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Support as nom: inclusion should be non-controversial. May be some interest in expanding blurb to state that he is first Aussie winner, or to name Schleck brothers as 2nd and 3rd (Luxembourg doesn't often get a look in here) Kevin McE (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Mar4d (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Inclusion is uncontroversial and we've got some half-decent prose for the update. However, it is certainly not a question of tweaking an odd sentence in that commented out section. Ideally an update should reflect things that could not have been known before the event in question, and we need references before the post - obviously they won't be available until an actual result is reached, and ideally some reaction to the result as well. If it goes the way you seem to believe we've probably got a head start on this one but no more than that - there is still plenty of work to do. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Refs are actually already available: the last stage is largely ceremonial, so although obviously none of this could have been known before the event, which started 3 weeks ago, it is known a day before it finishes. Refs now in invisible section, and even the URL, though not the title, for today's stage summary is there. But no, I'm not suggesting that it is posted before they actually finish.
Reactions have never been a requirement for sports postings at ITN. I'm sure Evans will say that he is proud, and thank his team, some Aussie politician will say that it is a proud day for all Australians, the race organisers will say that it has been a great advertisement for the sport, and the Shlecks will say that he is a worthy winner, that they are proud to be on the podium, and that they will be back to try next year. Are such predictable platitudes really necessary? Kevin McE (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were no references in that commented out section as of the time I posted my initial remarks and I don't care to trawl through the edit history establishing precisely when those refs were subsequently added. As for reaction, I did say that that was the ideal: it gives some idea of what kind of refs can be used to satisfy the update requirements. Old references, or expansion of previous events, do not qualify as an update. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry: re-reading what I had put it does look like a nag. What I meant was that, contrary to your assumption that refs "won't be available until an actual result is reached" doesn't apply, as it is 3 weeks that are summarised. My "Refs now in invisible section" was meant to highlight the difference in the content from what you had looked at: I was pointing out a change since then. Kevin McE (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Tour de France is a pretty big event in terms of news coverage each year. YuMaNuMa (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed with Crispmuncher here. More work is needed. JimSukwutput 02:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: No reason not to. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Also, I'd support the blurb containing something about Evans being the first Australian to win the Tour. Jenks24 (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Australia Support pending update etc (I think it's helpful to nominate early like this). Also agree with the blurb mentioning that Cadel is the first Australia winner. He's the first outside of Europe and the US to win. Woo! --Mkativerata (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support And echo the request above to include something about him being the firdt Australian to win le Tour doktorb wordsdeeds 15:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subtle hint Race over and all the updates done. Kevin McE (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Someone get their shit together and get this on the frontpage now, please. Lugnuts (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a BIG problem with this blurb: "In cycling, Cadel Evans (pictured) becomes the first Australian to win the Tour de France." The one proposed above is miles better. Not only is the current blurb grossly overlinked with 'cycling' and 'Australia' in blue, the key article is hidden behind a misleading pipe 'becomes'. I would therefore propose this to be amended to : "In cycling, Cadel Evans (pictured) becomes the first Australian to win the 2011 Tour de France." --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saw this from OC's contribs list. Australians don't regard themselves as such a backwater that their country-name needs a link (and not even to "cycling in Australia", not that I encourage any link at all in competition with the main one ...). Is "cycling" any more than a vague dictionary word, superseded by "2011 Tour de France" (deceptively piped through "become" to the main article!!!)? I agree with his suggested cleaner version, except that I piped the last item (the main article) to remove "2011", which corrects a wrong fact in the sentence. Tony (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Linking isn't for Australians, it's for those not familiar with Australia or interested in finding our more about Australia. The blurb is fine as it is. RxS (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see, it's for the typical American redneck who hasn't even heard of New York. ;-) You still haven't explained why the original blurb (Australian cyclist Cadel Evans wins the 98th edition of the Tour de France) was inadequate and had to have been substituted in this fashion. I think that the original blurb was more concise, adequately linked and without misleading pipes. I find this culture of admins who control the post and insist on making changes to the blurb to apparently incorporate as many darn blue links as is humanly possible to be quite bizarre. Then we have the dismissive "The blurb is fine as it is" – I say it's fucking pisspoor. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The blurb is fine as it is" seems to be the mantra around here. I do not regard it tickety-boo for one moment. Think again. There is no reason why ITN (already disliked by many WPians—see the recent RfC) should fly in the face of site-wide guidelines on wikilinking. Tony (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting admin seems to have done his own thing rather; blurb v different from that initially proposed, and apart from overlinking of Australia, the linking of cycling, if not redundant, is inappropriate: road bicycle racing would be a far more apposite link. The article on the 2011 Tour de France is not wholly, or even mainly, about Evans' win, so hiding that link behind the word becomes seems inappropriate. Tried to raise this at WP:ERRORS, but was sent back here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

July 23, 2011 (2011-07-23) (Saturday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and entertainment

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

[Posted] Wenzhou train collision

Article: 2011 Zhejiang train collision (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

At least 32 have died after a train accident in China - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 20:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose Minor train accident. We have had consensus against posting train accidents with much higher number of deaths before. JimSukwutput 20:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CCC. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not in two weeks, no. There gotta be some consistency here, or else we'd get hundreds of non-notable nominations every day just to see if some users or admins suddenly changed their mind. JimSukwutput 01:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, we do need new criteria. Because we are starting from scratch with each nomination. But that's a good thing, in cases like these, because we shouldn't be comparing two completely accidents by their death toll. That's just trivialising what's really at hand and is the completely wrong way to look at it. That's why WP:CCC applies. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 12:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's nothing to trivialize about an accident. Accidents are non-foreseeable tragedies. The only impact they have on society is measured by how much deaths and injuries they've caused. In which case, why does it make sense not to give more weight to larger accidents and less weight to smaller ones? Would you post this if, say, one person was injured? JimSukwutput 13:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's not true. Impact is not solely measured by the death toll. I would support posting if the one injured person was the Dalai Lama from a car accident. I would support if just three people died from an oil rig explosion. I would support if thirteen died in a school shooting. You see where I'm going? No accident or tragedy is the same; hence why we cannot pin a consensus to one and expect it to decide the rest. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • School shootings are not accidents, and oil rig explosions are generally preventable. Getting hit by a lightning is not. However, there does seem to be more information coming out about how this collision might possibly have been prevented if a better system was in place. That would make this notable. JimSukwutput 00:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A tragedy in its own right, but something that will leave people thinking why should I care? Swarm 20:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, comes right after another high-speed rail opened in China that we also featured ITN. Marcus Qwertyus 21:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are dozens of high speed rails in China with new sections appearing every year. Just because one opened this year does not automatically make all train accidents newsworthy. Also, any attempt to connect the two would be WP:OR. I have seen no reliable source that said that this would in any way affect the future of high-speed rail in China. FYI, the high-speed rail that was opened a month ago was the Beijing-Shanghai line, which is nowhere near Wenzhou. JimSukwutput 21:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I think there are good reasons for supporting this: accidents on high-speed lines are rare, in part because these are the most modern parts of a railway system and so have the best safety features. The expansion of China's high-speed rail network has been the subject of quite a bit of coverage. And 32 deaths, while fewer than have died on the UK's roads tonight, is still a non-negligeable number. Having said all that, not even I would put the article on the front page in its current state! Physchim62 (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support if some minister tomorrow declares that high-speed rail expansion will be halted until more safety measures can be put in. Otherwise, any argument about how this is related to the rest of the Chinese high-speed rail network is purely speculation. JimSukwutput 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't suggesting it was something specific to Chinese high-speed rail. If this crash had happened in France or Spain (two other countries with a lot of high-speed track), you bet we'd be posting it! Physchim62 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – this is the first ever bullet train accident in China with passengers killed onboard. Python eggs (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comes during the ongoing major expansion and revamp of the Chinese railway system. Significant death toll and very high number of people wounded. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we expect an article? Swarm 01:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has pretty much nothing because nothing pretty much happened. A lightning struck a train and a train got derailed. Then somehow this manages to be connected to China's expansion of high-speed rail, which has as far as we know absolutely nothing to do with it, and anything that asserts otherwise is pure speculation. If an accident happened in France would you talk about China's high-speed rail? I seriously cannot understand how this nomination is even being considered, given that we have a precedent against posting similar incidents. JimSukwutput 01:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this was an HSR accident, involving a CRH1 and a CRH2. You make it sound like it wasn't in China and wasn't fatal.

--Simfan34 (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being an HSR accident does not make it any more special, unless we have confirmation that the accident was somehow related to the design or construction of HSR. We have no such information yet. All we know is that a train got struck by a lightning and somehow managed to derail. JimSukwutput 02:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support High-speed accidents are rare, and fatal accidents even more so. China Railways has been plagued by reports of corruption and poor construction as a result, and the significance of this event is quite great. Additionally, this is the first fatal HSR accident in China.--Simfan34 (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for some perspective on how often this kind of accident occurs: List of rail accidents (2000–2009). Note that many of them have at least twice the death toll of this incident, and most of them don't even have an article, never mind an ITN nomination. I'll also note to admins that both of the "Strong Support" votes above are from users who are participating in ITN for the first time. They may be unfamiliar with the kind of criteria we have for posting certain items. JimSukwutput 02:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted I don't find the two opposes compelling enough to overturn the support for this item. And I'm sure you're all aware that I tend on the side of posting rather than not posting. -- tariqabjotu 14:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support. Accidents like this are unusual in a highly developed and modern system like China; in India, 40 people dead isn't uncommon, but in a high-speed syatem like China's, major accidents don't happen too often. C628 (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Amy Winehouse

Article: Amy Winehouse#Death (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ British singer Amy Winehouse is found dead at her home in London. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

Article needs updating
Welcome back, mate! Nightw 18:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs an update. I might suggest caution here; The Cause of death is currently unknown. It'd probably be worth waiting to see if info develops.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I'm somewhat hesitant to oppose this, especially given the wave of support above, and considering that I'm personally an admirer of the singer. However, objectively speaking, this just doesn't pass the criteria. She has two albums, only one of which has received notable attention, and ever since then she was known more in the tabloids than in the music industry. I simply can't see this being an equal of, say, the Oslo attacks or the East African famine.
A second problem is that there is very little information available right now. I suggest we wait for a moment, even if we post this (which seems likely). JimSukwutput 17:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Batjik's second point. Let's give it a few hours to see if we get an reliable source saying it was a drug overdose. If we don't have more information in a few hours, at least some of the excitement at the article to insert the latest Twitter rumor will have died down.--Chaser2 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Toxicology tests will take weeks. I'm fine with waiting until we can put some more into the update (it's edit conflicts galore over there at the moment), but I don't think we should be looking for the impossible. Physchim62 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose;;; these peeps in the ent. biz are perpetually dying of some drug over dose or somthing. Now is it was political then its somethingLihaas (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much agree. This wasn't particularly unexpected. Grsz 11 17:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont' think you could possibly call the death of someone at age 27 not unexpected (unless they had been ill for a while). It may not be particularly notable, but it's hardly normal even for someone with a history of drug use.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, that's not our fault. The article will be updated further once updates are available, but right now they're not available. Swarm 18:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death of an individual can be ITN-worthy per se. The three sentence limit feels rather artificial, especially if there is just not enough to write at this stage. --hydrox (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose on notability grounds, but I certainly don't feel there's grounds here to override our normal requirements. This sin't Michael Jackson.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, the article meets our normal requirements. Can you point out what the problem is? Swarm 18:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just how on earth you managed to get "soapbox" from Kevin's comment is utterly beyond comprehension. And tampering with other user's comments is never allowed, unless the comment was grossly insulting to another editor. Nightw 19:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if expressing an opinion is acting as though this were a soapbox, perhaps we should delete every opinion. Alternatively, you might like to explain that extraordinary accusation. Kevin McE (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Avala, that was not even in the vicinity of soapboxing. You're an established editor here, so you should know better. Kevin, it looks more like it was a screwed-up edit conflict; I wouldn't be too suspicious. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comment just got nuked, it happens. Swarm 20:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I didn't see it, sorry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Article is updated and there's a consensus here. RxS (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus is there that this meets our criteria for posting deaths? Obviously neither criteria 1 nor 3 are applicable, so we are left with number 2: The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such. She may have been important to the media, because of her very public history of substance abuse, but one album does not make anyone a very important figure in their field: there are assertions made that she is "internationally known", or "a star", but nothing presented as evidence that she was "very important", and evidence presented as to how she had not done enough (and sadly, will not be able to do enough) to be thus considered. Kevin McE (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this kind of speaks for itself in terms of recognition. Also, we kind of have a de facto precedent of posting sudden, surprising deaths of highly notable people that should probably be written into our criteria somehow. Lastly, we're not governed by statute. If we have a consensus to do something, we don't ignore that consensus because it arguably doesn't agree with a written rule somewhere. Swarm 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23 awards? Britney Spears won over 300, and I don't think there'd be so much support here if she were to pass away. But anyway, I agree there is a consensus here. JimSukwutput 20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if britney passed away i can guarantee that there would be support at MJ level... you underestimate her popularity. -- Ashish-g55 21:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be as long as the Ted Kennedy discussion lol –HTD 08:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for what it's worth. If we didn't post this, we might as well not post deaths, ever. It has the coverage, the significance (most Grammy Awards by a female signer in one night, most for a British singer), and it fits the stupid and new criterion of being "sudden and unpredictable". Can't believe people still find ways to oppose. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, if symbolic, along the same grounds as said by Kevin McE.
Totally irrelevant: viewing figures are not part of our criteria. Reference to this will only serve to justify tabloid scandal type stories, and the principle suggests that ITN is redundant (people find the article without ITN's help) Kevin McE (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No "tabloid" story that doesn't already get nominated would ever get posted due to the inability to write a suitable update or due to the lack of coverage in non-tabloid sources. Maybe you could write one about Lohan going to jail, but it'd be a push. Posting one "tabloid" story a month isn't going to kill ITN, and its highly doubtful you would ever be able to post more than that - even if they were treated as a minority topic, even if none opposed them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sad fact that humans as a whole care more about some fallen singer overdosing in drugs than about the thousands of easily preventable deaths that are occurring every day in the rest of the world. JimSukwutput 14:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that the unknown number that you represent by x is in fact 1. Which is the whole point. Kevin McE (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know anything about music recording certifications and music charts? The last album received 6×Platinum in the UK, GER and SWI and 2×Platinum. The "1" is the peak position on a chart.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 10:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is called In the News I never understood why we make death criteria so complicated. This death is "In the News" very prominently, second only to the Norweigan tragedy. Who cares if Amy Winehouse didn't cure cancer or land on the Sun? Her death, and the subject of her article, is very much In the News. There should be (or rather should have been) no debate. I know this is not going to be removed, so this isn't worth stirring up drama, but if this death could be said to not meet our death criteria, we need to fix -- or eliminate -- our criteria. -- tariqabjotu 14:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
she died at age of 27 people... that alone made the death that much more notable. -- Ashish-g55 15:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. If this death doesn't meet the criteria, the criteria need to go. Swarm 17:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Overlinked as usual. Suggest it be changed to "British singer Amy Winehouse is found dead at her home in London." Why do we need to link anything other than 'Amy Winehouse'? Who in the English-speaking world do not know 'United Kingdom' or 'London'? When I saw 'death' linked, I was expecting to see another article focussed on her death, and alas, I was disappointed at being misled. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree about "British" and "London"—what a degradation of the linking system. I suppose we can count ourselves lucky that "singer" isn't linked. On the "found dead" pipe, yeah, I can see what you're trying to do: link both to the (top of) the article on her, and then to the newsworthy bit. Problem is that ITN ends up using weird piping to link to the unfolding-event target. My inclination would be to link only to the ITN section, which after all is the point of the whole exercise. If people want to scroll up to the top, fine

      "British singer Amy Winehouse is found dead at her home in London." Tony (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

July 22, 2011 (2011-07-22) (Friday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

41 people die in a bus fire in eastern China

  • Support as nominator. Almost as high a death toll as the bullet train collision. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 05:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Didn't support the bullet train one, so an obvious oppose for me here. But I suspect many others would concur, given that the rationale for supporting the bullet train (recent controversies surrounding expansion, rarity) no longer apply. Plus, this will at least be the 7th item, and I suspect we won't have that much space tomorrow. JimSukwutput 05:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] Elliot Handler, cofounder of Mattel, dies at age 95.

[Posted] Oslo explosion

Source for story, source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait (but support iff we have a valid updated article, this appears to be a very major incident). No sense in throwing a stub (if we even have one) on the main page. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. A building destroyed? If someone actually dies this might be considered. We also have no idea right now what actually happened. You ought to nominate after you have an article. JimSukwutput 14:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I had no idea about the significance of this event when this was written. A post-post support.JimSukwutput 10:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on the details available at the moment. Cause is unknown, no fatalities and only seven injuries are currently being reported, and the BBC are now suggesting the origin may have been a newspaper office and not the government building. Of course I may reconsider if new details come to light but it is looking fairly insignificant at this time. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
In western euopre where these things are much rarer. we posted the bombing in sweden that only killed the WOULD BE suicide bomber.Lihaas (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have occurred in a newspaper building, but caused lots of damage to nearby gov buildings.  Chzz  ►  14:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summer Camp shooting

The "real story" (as insane as it seems) here is the Youth Camp shooting, where there are around 20 to 25 dead according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated The blurb says "kill at least 17 people" since the death toll is still increasing. Theleftorium (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update request With deep sadness I have to inform that the police are now reporting that there at least 80 people who have died on the island – sadly indeed, this is an official figure.. Most of the victims are young. The main page should be updated to refelct this at some point, because it currently says 17. --hydrox (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update ** NYT they arrested a Norwegian man who allegedly disliked "Mr. Stoltenberg's liberal government"; how are those articles looking? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/world/europe/23oslo.html?hp Sharktopus talk 02:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be careful with use of the adjective liberal. It has many meanings around the world. It's a Labour Party government. Why not just stick with that? (I'm saying this from Australia where our Liberal Party is the conservative opposition to our Labor Party, so liberal seems quite silly.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe he is quoting the NYT article, so feel free to take it up with them. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no problems with the NYT using language that works for its primarily US audience, but the global encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, should avoid it where it's problematical. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed with HiLo48 here. We ought not to use political definitions that are only restricted to the American public, especially when posting about foreign events. Even American academics tend to use social democrat or socialist to describe the left-wing, not liberal. JimSukwutput 10:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Liberalism isn't a term restricted to the American public and it only has one meaning. The term is being correctly used here, considering the stance of the Labour Party, but I agree, Labour Party is more accessible. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you read that article, you'll see how you're wrong. What you're talking about is American liberalism. Liberalism in the rest of the world means social liberal or classic liberal. The Labour Party (Norway) self-identifies as social democrat and democratic socialist, not liberal; the liberal parties in Norway are the Progress Party (classic liberal) and the Centre Party (social liberal). JimSukwutput 17:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, no, I'm talking about Locke-esque liberalism -- the "liberalism" studied in nearly every world history class. But, now that I think of it, it's a very broad term that can be applied to any progressive or left-leaning party. Probably why it has so many "definitions". The article for American liberalism is just liberalism applied in the United States. Is "classic liberal" referring to economic liberalism (since Locke was a strong proponent of "laissez-faire")? Because as far as I know, it's social and economic liberalism. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • The liberalism you study in your "world history class" is probably classical liberalism, known in the U.S. as libertarianism (some claim a difference between the two, but it is minor - both are, to be rough, socially permissive and economically permissive ideologies). There tends to be a lot of confusion about the term in the United States because you guys use it to refer to what other countries would call "social democracy" or at least "social liberal", but then when you study it in history you're still using the old definitions, so that people like Locke are mistaken to be left-wing even though they're closer to libertarians. In other countries, liberal is usually considered centrist or centre-right, not left-wing. For example, parties with the name Liberal Party in Australia, Hong Kong and Denmark are all on the right of the political spectrum.JimSukwutput 04:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm not American ;) We have a social democratic party and a liberal party here in Canada, which are left-leaning and a little left-of-centre, respectively. In my history class, Locke was portrayed as the founder of classic liberalism / libertarianism, and, essentially, as a reformer of individual and economic rights (a position that, for that time-period, I'd be poised to call left-leaning). It's still the prevalent view in my mind. But I'm a little ignorant of the modern or prevalent view of what liberalism means. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • What exactly are we arguing about here? The term isn't in the blurb, or in the linked article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Either they're talking about how stupid Americans are, or the American educational system teaches the wrong kind of liberalism. –HTD 08:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, the United States has a definition of liberalism that is different from the rest of the world. It makes little sense to use this for an encyclopaedic page, especially since we have consensus that we use the academic and worldwide definition of liberalism. This is certainly not an issue unique to the United States - plenty of countries have their own definitions for certain terms for historic reasons, for example in Portugual the "Social democratic party" is the right-wing party. JimSukwutput 13:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update request - Reaffirming Hydrox's request to update, since the police have updated the amount of deaths from 17 to 87. Hello32020 (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mother of God. Updated by Rettetast. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow... this sort of makes me sick to my stomach... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMG... Swarm 06:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Hadzic update

extradition completed today, wo we can update the blurb (article is updated)Lihaas (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Condé assassination attempt

Article: Alpha Condé (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Guinean President Alpha Condé survives as assassination attempt after shelling on his house. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated
  • Oppose Another failed assassination attempt. These are fairly common in developing countries - Fidel Castro has had over 600 failed assassination attempts. Imagine if we posted each one of them. JimSukwutput 10:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As stated above assassination attempts are very common, and successful assassinations of government officials can be narrowed down to a weekly to a fortnightly occurrence so a fail assassination would not really qualify for wikinews headlines. YuMaNuMa (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the attack was unsuccessful and attempts themselves aren't necessarily significant. Swarm X 10:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not common or such a prolific one in Guinea, what a broad brush "developing countries"? Its not a govt official alone but a PRESIDENT, which is not fortnightly (libya/yemen excl.)
no supports go without saying, obviously, no?Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it comes to the point where we need something to post, I support this. It's definitely significant enough for ITN if we have nothing better, which we don't seem to. Swarm X 11:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fidel Castro was also a President, and had been for decades too. I agree we need something to post soon, but at this point I'd rather go with the Malawi uprising or South China Sea agreements below rather than one of a few hundred failed assassination attempts to occur every year. JimSukwutput 12:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree, the South China Sea agreement is the 2nd largest territorial agreement in terms of the numbers of countries involved. Surely that is more newsworthy than the many hundreds of assassination attempts. Unfortunately the Malawi protests article is not well formulated yet so I don't think it would be advisable to submit that article yet. YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many "hundreds of assassinaion attempts" on HEADS OF STATE? can we cite a mere 2 dozen (over a short span of time to show its not rare)?Lihaas (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Note that many failed assassination attempts are not published for various security and intelligence reasons - for example, of Castro's alleged 600 attempts only a few were ever mentioned at the time. JimSukwutput14:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HEADS OF STATE gaddafis was dubious and up for various political manoeuvering to claim assassination. i already mentioend yemen (they are in the throes of a civil war, guinea is not)_ maldives is plausible yes, but that leaves about 2-3 in the span of this past few eyars.Lihaas (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's what I found after 20 seconds of googling. You don't expect me to keep a record of every assassination attempt that has ever occurred, do you? You're free to google yourself - I'm pretty sure you can find at least 20. And given that most assassination attempts are not published, that could plausible be up to 100 per year. And even if it isn't 100 per year, this is still far too insignificant to be posted. We want things that are once in a year or at least once in a few months, not something that happens every week or two. JimSukwutput 14:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said mention of has EVER happened i said in quick succession. ie- roughly once a year. of which only 1 head of state plausibly holds up of what you added above. Country's at peacetime with instability threats are more notable ofbviously.Lihaas (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't decipher this comment. Could you please spend a little more time on what you write? JimSukwutput 14:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneLihaas (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We are not talking about Fidel Castro, Gaddafis or any other of the politicians mentioned, but about Alpha Condé, president of Guinea, and unless someone point out that these thing are common in his government, I see no reason this shouldn't be posted. Maddox (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Way to miss the point. Tell me why dozens of assassination attempts every year don't even get mentioned on Wikipedia and yet suddenly a failed (and alleged) attempt on the President of Guinea is newsworthy enough to be posted on ITN. JimSukwutput 22:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once again: we are not talking about these "dozens of assassination attempts" that happen with other people, in other countries, but about this one. Maddox (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that this country is somewhat 'small' and relatively 'unknown' isn't helping you prove your point. The other fact that this is a developing country with a well below average GDP.YuMaNuMa (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now we're talking Guinea, and not about other countries, finally... What was your criteria to stablish it as a "somewhat small and relatively unknown" country? Maddox (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • That was obviously a subjective statement, and we all have different criteria for that. Personally I think we ought to exercise caution about posting news that is limited to a country with less than 10 million people. In this case Guinea has slightly over 10 million. JimSukwutput 10:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, I'm going to take that back now as it is pretty much my personal opinion of the country based on my criteria but assassination attempts are fairly common for impoverishment countries where much of the nation possibly despises their government for not doing enough to sustain the country's economy. YuMaNuMa (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Come on, we have ITNR events on countries the size of Singapore. This one ain't that bad. –HTD 14:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, Singapore's GDP is about 55 times larger than Guinea's, meaning that their influence in the rest of the world is much greater. Still, I agree that Guinea isn't insignificant, but it's just the event which is extremely insignificant. A failed assassination attempt? Come on. JimSukwutput 17:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Come on, not all failed assassination attempts are created equal. This one apparently failed to injure Conde. If he was injured, it would've been supported very easily, just like what happened to Jose Ramos Horta, the leader of the most insignificant of countries. (See nomination.) –HTD 19:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DADT Repeal Certified and in full effect

Article: Don't ask, don't tell (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Leon Panetta certifies the United States military's capability to integrate openly-LGBT personnel after the repeal of Don't ask, don't tell policy (Post)
Both articles updated

Last hurtle for DADT repeal is going to occur tomorrow with Panetacertifying it for the Senate. Discussion should probably should start now. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 22:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

July 21, 2011 (2011-07-21) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • Euro zone leaders secure a €109 billion bailout for Greece with the country going into default for a short period, but with increased powers for the main European rescue fund to assist countries that have not been bailed out, such as Spain and Italy. (New York Times)

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

Lucian Freud dies

Article: Lucian Freud (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Artist Lucian Freud, best known for his often uncomplimentary portrait paintings, dies at the age of 88 (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The "pre-eminent British artist of his time" according to the article even before his death, and is genuinely a household name here in the UK at least. As such I think this compares well to many "artistic deaths" we have posted in the past of comparatively much more obscure artists. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I could do quite the impressive tag bombing run on the article with the number of [citation needed] tags it needs. would not mind posting if issues could be resolved in a timely fashion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. He was 88, though his death seems relatively sudden. I don't know a lot about the man and the article is poor, but The New York Times saw fit to write an obituary and "OM" and "CH" are two of the rarest post-nominal letters in the British honours system. If the article were polished up, a good case could be made... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Unlike Harry Potter 7, that broke a meaningless record of "weekend opening" and was considered ITN-worthy, Freud painted Benefits Supervisor Sleeping and set a world record for "highest price paid for a painting by a living artist". Maddox (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Natural death; not significant. The world record for the painting is important, yes, but that's the only newsworthy thing about him. When we post about people who die of natural deaths, there is generally more than one notable thing he did; otherwise, just post the original event. For that matter, the 2008 sale was not posted on ITN either.
  • Natural deaths aren't significant? About the sale, not being posted means only that: it wasn't posted. Maybe ITN didn't had as many editors contributing as it has now. Maddox (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're a new user in this process, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rules and criteria that we have for posting ITN items before you begin hounding everyone. That's certainly what I did when I first joined the process. Batjik Syutfu 22:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly a "new user in this process", but I understood your point. I've participated in previous discussion abouth deaths (Itamar Franco and Peter Falk's) and they were both significant people that died of old age. I noted three points in your comment:
(1) "Natural death". I repeat the question: "natural deaths aren't significant"? Since when? "Cause of death" isn't a ITN criteria, althouht it can certainly have a influence in the impact of the news.
(2) "Only one newsworthy thing about him". The record is the most noteworthy thing about him, not the only. And even if it was, i presume if "the deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such" a blurb about his death should be included.
(3) "The 2008 sale was not posted on ITN". The fact that the record wasn't posted only means that: it wasn't posted. If there was a discussion about it, and someone pointed as not ITN-material, we would have something to discuss.
Last but not least, I suggest you familiarize yourself with these rules I alleged am not familiarized with and point why he is not relevant enough. Maddox (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have doubts about his significance because every news article about him I've read starts with "grandson of the founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud". That's interesting, yes, but if that's the most notable thing someone can say about him....Batjik Syutfu 01:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is always a valid concern what an individual has a famous relative: are they famous in their own right or by association. In this case I would contend the former. By by association tends to be fairly direct and in this case it has skipped a generation. Who was Sigmund's son, or Lucian's father? The fame has skipped a generation and transferred to a completely different field. Signmund Frued is long enough ago that any surrounding celebrity status has dissipated anyway. When coupled with the independent recognition (and record price as noted elsewhere) is seems the relationship is an interesting side note rather than the reason for Lucian's fame. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Signmund Freud is one of an extremely small number of famous people known by one name. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did you guys got this criteria? If he was a significant artist (and he was) his is death is significant. Or we will only post blurbs about murdered people? Maddox (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support signficant and well known artist. At a post rate of two a day he's easily notable enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a person who spends quite a lot of time on Wikipedia, news websites and an all rounder leisure researcher, I have never came across his name once (Wikinews headlines should reflect the interest of the general public not just a subcategory of people) and his death was of natural causes which makes this news item even less significant. YuMaNuMa (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You not having heard of him only means that: you haven't heard of him. Not intending to go off-topic here, but, I have to answer to your claim about headlines: most jornalists I know believe headlines should reflect what is of public interest, and not what is interest of the public. Maddox (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's only significant when old American politicians die. Or basketball players retire. 87.113.71.232 (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because people tend to die when they get very, very old. When people die suddenly, like Amy Winehouse above, that's a "significant death". And while it's appropriate to post deaths of extremely significant people, (e.g. we'll undoubtedly post Mikhail Gorbachev's death), we can't post every artist or every person who was significant in their field who dies at an old age, that's precisely why we have recent deaths perpetually stickied to ITN. Swarm 18:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there's such a thing as "significant death". The criteria is exactly the opposite of what you're saying - "The death must meet at least one of the following criteria: (...) 2. The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such" - and no one has disputed the record. Unless someone is able to pont he wasn't a important figure (and by that i mean unless someone is able to prove the record does not exist) this should be posted. Maddox (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The death criteria are minimum criteria. The very part of it you quote makes that clear ("must meet"). It's not a case of you meet one of the criteria and the death gets posted. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It says very important figure, not "broke some record". Lots of people would dispute that breaking a record for how much you sold for your painting is an achievement in the fine arts. Batjik Syutfu 21:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having the most valuable painting of a living artist is a pretty significant record. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Achievement in arts had little to do with how much your works sold for. Otherwise Backstreet Boys could be some of the most important musicians in the world. Van Gogh lived a life of poverty; so did Shakespeare. Batjik Syutfu 22:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't really argue that this is manufactured art like the Backstreet Boys - it is high-art. Piccasso is famous for making money before he died unlike some other older artists - but I doubt da Vinci and Michelangelo were poor. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but point is, earning a lot of money is a pretty poor indicator of how great your art is. Some great artists were rich, some were poor. There ought to be some other way to demonstrate him being a "very important figure". Batjik Syutfu 22:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi uprising?

Article: 2011 Malawian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)

Pretty serious anti-government protests and riots in Malawi http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14231251 --93.137.144.166 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Malawi protests article needed first, of course.--93.137.144.166 (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support seems big. 10 deaths today, but we need an article and it can be part of the Impact of the Arab Spring ( Done)Lihaas (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, i was just about to work on it but went out. im adding stiff now.Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment better?Lihaas (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines aircraft order

Article: American Airlines (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American Airlines orders 460 new aircraft from Airbus and Boeing in the largest airline deal in history. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I'm aware that we recently posted AirAsia's purchase of 200 Airbus A320neos (worth US$18.5 billion). American is ordering 130 current generation A320s, 130 A320neos, and 200 Boeing 737s. (NYC Aviation) The order is worth at least US$37 billion, eclipsing AirAsia's order. (BusinessWeek) American is said to be building the youngest fleet in the U.S., and its order has forced Boeing to upgrade its 737 line in order to remain competitive with Airbus among U.S. airlines. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-sigh- We just posted "the largest single order in commercial aviation history" a month ago, you're telling me it's already been surpassed? Good god. Anyway, looking back at the reasons the previous deal was posted, I don't really see anything convincing. It was posted with a few weak supporting statements as it was a minority topic and it "sounded like a big deal". With this coming up one month after we jumped on the last "biggest deal", I'm hesitant to support posting something like this again. Swarm X 06:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this not two separate orders, one with Airbus and one with Boeing ? If so does either one of them exceed the old record of US$18.5 billion ? Mtking (edits) 09:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure since I'm not too familiar with the airline industry. I've not seen something that specifically breaks down the value orders from each company (though that maybe because the final breakdown of planes has yet to be determined). Sources are putting both orders together and saying that this break's AirAsia's record. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 09:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I get the feeling that this is a PR only record, this is really looks like two orders being "joined" to make the news for American Airlines, so unless it is clear that the order to either one of the companies beets the US$18.5 billion I have to Oppose this. Mtking (edits) 10:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose From what the nominator said, there seems to be sufficient doubts here about whether this actually is a record. I say we exercise some caution here. Batjik Syutfu 10:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support on the basis of consistency. just need to confirm if this is prospective or confirmed and itf the article is updated.Lihaas (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Space Shuttle

Article: STS-135 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Space Shuttle Atlantis lands at the Kennedy Space Center, concluding its final mission and marking the end of the 30-year Space Shuttle program. (Post)
News source(s): Sky, USA Today
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Probably worth including a pic as well... Swarm X 02:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use Space Shuttle retirement as the bolded article instead? That would be a better target than STS-135. StrPby (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I considered that, but ultimately I decided to go with the mission, as that article is far better than the retirement one. In any case, the link to the retirement article is now in the blurb. Swarm X 02:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This works for me. Marcus Qwertyus 03:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an obvious entry in my view - I don't see it not being posted. Not bothered about the actual target - why not wait till it's happened and we can see which articles are getting the updates? We need a good, solid update for this one - we did post the launch so we need significant new content to justify the posting, not fudging or completely ignoring the update requirements as some were advocating for the launch. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Support. The story here is Space Shuttle retirement, so that should be bolded. Thue | talk 10:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • I don't think the retirement article should be headlined because one, multiple better articles exist. Two, this is the third space shuttle to be retired. We've individually featured the other two (if I'm not mistaken), so I don't see why we wouldn't feature the final one. Three, STS-135 appears to be ready. The retirement article needs work yet. Regarding the last suggestion, I don't see why we should exclude the mention that the shuttle landed. Swarm X 10:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know little about the issue, so can someone explain why the end of a space programme would be particularly newsworthy? I thought it'd be more newsworthy if some new space progrmame is to be declared.Batjik Syutfu 10:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was one of only two human spaceflight programs in the world. It leaves the United States, for the first time in decades, without such a program. It also had unique capabilities that no other space program can accommodate for. It also opens the door for commercial spaceflight to take over some of its roles, such as supplying the space station. So it's a very significant and historic event for NASA, the U.S., international space programs, and commercial spaceflight in the future. A manned space program is certainly no small thing. Swarm X 10:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, STS-135 is the primary article regarding this and it's in the best shape by far. Swarm X 13:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

July 20, 2011 (2011-07-20) (Wednesday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Sport

Science
  • The 2011 Alzheimer's Association International Conference in Paris, France announces that Samantha Burnham and others at the Australian national science agency, CSIRO, working with several universities, have produced what may one day become a routine, valid blood test for nine hormones and proteins that, when too high, can serve as predictors of the presence of the hallmark beta amyloid plaques of Alzheimer's disease.

2011 Uzbekistan–Kyrgyzstan earthquake

Article: 2011 Fergana Valley earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An 6.1 magnitude earthquake kills 14 people in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, USGS
Credits:

Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 14:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Significant earthquake, toll could rise. ~AH1 (discuss!) 15:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 6.1 is at least lower than 10 of the earthquakes that have occurred this year. And the article is in poor shape. Might change to support if death toll rises significantly. Batjik Syutfu 17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The magnitude often doesn't matter, it's the Mercalli scale rating and the death and economic loss. In this case, I feel that those two contributing factors make the event worthy of appearing on Wikipedia's in the news section. Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 18:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I know. But without any details yet, the size of the earthquake is often a good proxy of its destruction. And even if we take the current death toll, it's far lower than many comparable earthquakes and other natural disasters. Batjik Syutfu 18:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment the title doesnt match with the blurb. has no one noticed?Lihaas (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that is explained in the first paragraph of the article. NW (Talk) 18:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query are there any rough estimates of Damage and scale of it? 6.1 can be quite powerful depending on its depth and building code in the particular country. This is two of the "Stans" over there so my knowledge is limited of the area. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Yao Ming Retires

Article: Yao Ming (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Chinese basketball player Yao Ming retires from the NBA (Post)
Credits:

I know we don't normally post sporting retirements but Yao Ming is unique. He is by several metrics China's most popular athlete ever. The article is FA class. The article does need an update. I'm open to suggestions on the blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This seems far too run-of-the-mill for my taste. A sports star retires... so what? Assertions of popularity seem to be based purely on sponsorship income and I would venture that these are nothing out of the ordinary for a figure of Yao's standing in the American NBA. The fact he is Chinese while making that money does not translate by necessity into popularity in China. It seems to me we have had several very strong ITN contenders in the last 24 hours or so after a comparatively threadbare few days. This is a minor side show in comparison. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose ^He is, actually, one of the two most popular athletes in China according to various surveys I've seen. But I don't think this is sufficiently newsworthy, considering that the retirement was expected since his last injury. Batjik Syutfu 16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - FA and special instance. Yao Ming has been the face Chinese basketball for years, as in, he's been the only driving force behind it. This is a pretty unique situation and inflates the importance of this retirement to much more than it normally would be. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for one it's an FA, that's a tremendous plus. Two, this is an extraordinary situation, for reasons outlined by Ed. Swarm X 17:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think for a sports retirement story the only way I could see one qualify is if it were a player who was considered the greatest (Jordan or Gretzky) or if it was a superstar who had to retire due to extremely notable circumstances. Ming's popularity in China aside, his retirement could be seen on the horizon for a very long time now. This is not so much news at this point as it is he is simply confirming what we all already knew. --PlasmaTwa2 17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support People might be surprised how Iconic a figure he is in China. He is "8 time NBA All-Star (2003–2009, 2011)" and has a Featured article. Any one of those on its own (or even two of those) would not always get the support in my book but combined... yeah lets post. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support the post rate has been pretty poor over the last few days with only one story and one sticky posted since Monday. This seems notable enough, and better than most of the other stories nominated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note I was prepared to post this, until I noticed the update consists of one sentence only. We need a paragraph or so... Courcelles 21:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Support as well, mostly because he is a very skilled player getting much attention for his retirement. He's got a very strong base in China and, although this "isn't unexpected", the article is in an excellent shape and provides lots of background information as to why it is unexpected. The update needs a bit more work though. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the update is only one sentence is a good indicator of the lack of significance. It has been expected for months, and Yao Ming hasn't been a serious player for years (a total of 5 games in 3 seasons). Yes, he still has a huge support base in China (being Chinese, I know this quite well), but so do many other retired or semi-retired players. Sports-related news should be kept to sports; I feel that this is crossing the line into celebrity news. Batjik Syutfu 22:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He may have been the face of basketball in China, but I believe there has to be extraordinary success at the highest level (in this case the NBA) for an athlete's retirement to be posted. The fact is he never won an MVP, never received All-NBA first team honors, and never won a championship. Truthsort (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article and am marking 'ready'. I'll add that Yao Ming's move to the NBA resulted in 2-3 hundred million people in China watching his games.1.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Posted There is sufficient, if rough support, and that it is an FA tips the balance towards posting this. Courcelles 03:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please take this down. There is no consensus to post. Truthsort (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose his relevance and popularity has slipped in the last few years. Even in China, he's losing popularity to players like Kobe and LeBron. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we're really going to post whenever somewhat major sports figures retire now? Duly noted.. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Leave up per Ed, Anthropologist. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although we don't have a strict law of precedent, it would be naive to believe that this will not be cited. There is nothing obviously unique, or even outstanding among his generation, in his achievements. The sport had a long and fairly successful history in China before him. By definition, every sport in every nation has a most popular practitioner of that sport in that country, and often many pretenders to that title. Kevin McE (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really think complaining about nominations after they have been posted is really inappropriate, and makes it far too difficult for admins to make good decisions about content - there is already far far too much vote counting by admins when they post, asking for items to be pulled after they have been posted isn't reasonable, and should require a clear WP:NOTVOTE consensus in opposition (including the !votes before) before it is done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not going to ask for this to be pulled, but there was absolutely no consensus for posting (5 supports 4 opposes, with 3 more opposes after the posting; no discussion between votes). If the administrators feel that this is an acceptable standard for posting, then fine. But many other items are not posted even though they have far greater support in either relative or absolute terms. This decision seems to me highly arbitrary. Batjik Syutfu 08:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uhh, I see 6 supports in total and 6 opposes. Truthsort's comment was not an oppose. But I agree, there wasn't a strong enough consensus for a sports item. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consensus ≠ vote tallying. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, but what sign of consensus is there? Nearly half of the people disagree, and there has been no response to any of the disagreements. If all the oppose votes were one-liners with no rationale I'd agree with you, but that's not the case here. In fact, all the support votes noted that the article was FA-class, but none noted that the actual update was only three sentences long and had absolutely no context (at the time of posting). That would not even pass the basis criterion for a nomination.Batjik Syutfu 10:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
while this is dubious, goran hadzic below has unanimous supportLihaas (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4th moon for Pluto

Article: P4 (moon) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ NASA's Hubble Space Telescope discovers a fourth moon orbiting Pluto. (Post)
News source(s): NASA
Credits:
  • Support, as nominator. Rehman 14:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but please expand the article! Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 15:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caution urged What we have here is insufficient for the IAU to formally recognise the discovery - there are no orbital elements for example. Until that time this is the claim of one scientific team based on one week's photos. I'm not against this going up - I'm marginally in favour, in fact - but we need to be careful as to presentation. I would be reluctant to describe this as a "discovery" for example since in the absence of further confirmation it may yet be dismissed or retracted - it has happened many times before. Yes, that article does need work but available data seems to be very limited at this time. If our article is sketchy but that is a genuine summary of what is known about the new body I don't think that should be an automatic bar on it going up. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when named. This dwarf planet discovery is important, but it would make a better story when the name goes public. ~AH1 (discuss!) 15:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That will only happen with formal IAU recognition. That could take years. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The existence of this planet is verified - is that not enough? Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 16:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a re-reporting of the same findings, not an independent verification. It's not enough for the IAU, who are the worldwide authority on this matter, have seen it all before, and have defined procedures in place to prevent the formal discovery of non-existent object - claims of discoveries of this nature that turn out to be erroneous are surprisingly common, even by teams of professionals. Without orbital elements it is difficult to show definitively that it is even in orbit around Pluto. It is an interesting development and again, I think this is worthy of posting something about. We just need to be careful as to what that is. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'd suggest the blurb "The discovery of a fourth moon orbiting Pluto is announced" (or reported). This would make it clear that it's not yet officially confirmed. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's more along the lines I would be happy with, although a HST mention may be warranted. I'm aware that this whole thing may sound like a pedantic point but the IAU haven't adopted their current procedures on a whim. One other point about the original blurb - the HST is a joint project, not a NASA one. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose An un-named, un-verified, assumption is not front page news. It will take years for the IAU to verify this, as it should be. Follow due process. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Three or Four years ago I would have given an unconditional support but Pluto is not even cataloged as planet any more so its really not all that important. If there are interesting feature about it I will listen but it's oh another asteroid in orbit situation. Given the Caveats in addition to that I cannot support right now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - while I think such a discovery can generally be considered credible enough to be posted before official verification, I'm going to have to oppose quite simply because the only reason this discovery has any significance is because Pluto used to be considered one of the planets in our solar system. Swarm X 06:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: @Swarm: Even as a "degraded planet", Pluto remains well-known to the public, and is one of only 5 acknowledged dwarf planets (two of which are moonless). And it is the only known example of a minor planet with 3+ moons. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Stickied] News International phone hacking sticky

Seems to me that this story has enough daily developments to a level we would not want to cover daily, but enough for us to sticky it. Thoughts? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose its just 1 issue so we can always bump/update per consensyusLihaas (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
need consensus for that. cant unilaterally pull it.Lihaas (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reason we can't have two stickies. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
cant have 2? says who? + no reason for consensus? since when. just reread it
anyways see below...(weve also had 2 before thi s year itself)Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Definitely. Along with the Arab Spring one. Batjik Syutfu 11:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Batjik Syutfu -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry quick question, usually when someone uses the "per" argument, they are referring to a rational by another editor. I don't really see Batjik offering any rational. Can you clarify that for me? Thanks...RxS (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rationale ;) And you're right, it's used to repeat a rationale said by someone else, so Egyptian didn't use it right, but it's fine. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • hmmm....is it fine? At the time of posting there were no actual justification behind the supports. It was posted purely by bolded vote counting. I don't think that's fine, do you? RxS (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's not what I meant. I meant that the usage of "per" was not semantically correct (i.e., the word was used wrong because he was referring to Batjik's post, which had no substance... therefore he was referring to "nothing"), but we understood what he wrote, so "it's fine". Whether or not the support should have been accounted for was not what I was addressing. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ask the admin who posted it. I was quite busy with another article at the time and did not have the time to explain my rationale, so yes, there's less substance in my vote than I'd like it to have. I'm not sure what The Egyptian Liberal is referring to, but I suspect he might mean that he agrees with this being posted along with the Arab Spring sticky rather than replacing it. Batjik Syutfu 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't have a question for the admin who posted it. It's posted and there's no point in dwelling on it. I was responding to Ericleb01 who may or may not think that pure bolded vote counting is ok. Though, in your case, how much weight do you think your support should have given a lack of any rationale? RxS (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I haven't been editing or even visiting WP much lately, and I was surprised not to see this story featured on the front page. Let's have it up there!. __meco (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I understand it's a big story, but it's not that big, Japan earthquake, Arab Spring big..RxS (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot believe this is now stickied. I'm not necessarily blaming you, HJ, as there is a wave of support already, but putting this item as a sticky has seriously lowered the standards of what gets stickied. Put things in perspective guys: Olympics, World Cup, protests in the Arab world, Japanese earthquake -- all stories that have been very prominently in the news with international interest and contributions. But, this? C'mon; folks. This is an example of systematic bias, if ever I've seen it. The nominator made no mention of the developments that he (or she?) found so noteworthy, developments that would have otherwise been posted on ITN on their own. It sounds like we just put this up because our British and, to a lesser degree, American readers have been bombarded with play-by-plays of this not-so-important story during this slow news month. I am very disappointed. -- tariqabjotu 16:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm Chinese, User:The Egyptian Liberal is Egyptian, User:Strange Passerby is Singaporian, User:Meco is Norwegian. Why would you think we have a British/American bias?
    • I'm also somewhat confused as to the purpose of this comment. Isn't the role of an admin to determine consensus, not to complain about it? You posted an item below that had barely a majority of supports (which I have no complaints about), and yet you complain about another admin's decision to post something that had overwhelming support? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you feel so opposed to this posting, couldn't you have offered your opinion during the discussion instead of complaining about it afterwards? Batjik Syutfu 16:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not complain about HJ's decision to post the sticky. Read what I said. And please don't tell me about "posting during discussion". This was up for a mere six hours; that's not a particularly long time. If one looks at my contributions, one sees the meager contributions I made during that time frame because, believe it or not, some people have other things they need to do.
      I'm not one of those people who gets blue in the face when something they don't want posted gets posted. It's not important to me, despite the time I spend on ITN. The purpose of the comment was to... well, if you read it... do exactly what I said: lodge my disappointment that the standards for what gets stickied has been lowered. It's similar to lodging my disappointment over a paragraph break in TFA; I mean, if that's the way forward, if that's what people want, fine, but I don't have to like it and I will say so. -- tariqabjotu 16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with much of this. If we want to lower the standards by which we add stickys that's fine, but we need to explicitly understand that's what we are doing. RxS (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I find this event much more deserving of a sticky than Arab Spring, though I supported both. I really don't agree that this is a lowering of standard - it is IMO at least more important than two of the stickies that Tariq mentioned. We definitely have a different assessment of its significance here, which won't be changed by a few back-and-forths. Maybe we should end this debate? Batjik Syutfu 17:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you underestimate the significance of the scandal, Tariq. It's one of the biggest political scandals in the UK (affecting a media conglomerate with interests in the US and Australia as well as the UK) for a decade at least. Arguably more so, even, than the "cash for honours" business. Parliament has held an emergency session to discuss the matter for the first time since the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, there are allegations of police corruption, political cover-ups etc. It's not just the media inventing stories for silly season. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the UK -- tariqabjotu 16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country." Swarm X 17:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your point? On September 11, all the planes struck on US soil—being confined to the boundaries of a particular state does not, in itself, diminish the significance of an event. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've ever used the expression "flabbergasted" before, but I can only describe myself as flabbergasted as to how Tariq can post things like Harry Potter and netball while complaining about our low standards regarding things like high level political scandals. It's just way beyond me. Swarm X 17:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    HJ, this is not 9/11. Swarm, neither Harry Potter nor Netball were sticked, and the posting of those were based on my judgments of consensus, not on my judgment of their significance (and I explicitly said the latter was not significant at all). I'm not going to waste my time further on futile discussions that involve nonsense comparisons like these. My disappointment has been lodged, and all I needed to say has been said. This is certainly not worth the further stress from replies, like the preceding three, that completely fail to address the matter at hand. -- tariqabjotu 18:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the sticky and agree this is a massive story with legs. Every day this week has seen a new headline several of which would have been ITN candidates in their own right. It's affecting the entire Murdoch media empire which is influential all over the world. It's dominating news talk shows in the US. Last week I listened to the New Yorker political scene weekly news roundup and the entire show was on the NotW fallout.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the fact strong support for the sticky, in fact I was going to propose this. Major scandal for an immensely powerful and influential international media empire that's already affected high level officials in the UK. It's been going on for some time, and it's already starting to spread into the United States; it's not likely to 'go away' IRL or at ITN anytime soon. It could probably be argued that this is more significant than the World Cup or the Olympics. Swarm X 16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • post-posting support because there are new developments everyday. And it's very notable. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm placing my support behind the sticky as well. It may seem like a small-scale saga, but it's highly covered in the media and there seems to be new notable developments every day now. It's a convenient solution. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-sticky Oppose I am lodging my opposition on the record to this. I fully accept that the story is significant. I do not accept that it is somehow important *enough* for the status it has been awarded. The momentum this story has is already slowing down. It has not spread to other countries outside English speaking ones, which should say a lot (whereas, if we use 9/11, the consequences most certainly did). I suggest, with all respect due, that Recentism and Bias have creeped in here. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering that all four of the original supports (not counting the nominator) were from people who live in non-English-speaking countries, isn't it quite ludicrous to say that this scandal is limited to English-speaking countries? I know what I read every day, and I'm the last person to have an British/American bias. Batjik Syutfu 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the story itself is narrowly defined. Rupert Murdoch said as much in his evidence - NoTW makes up 1% of his Corporations incomings. His dealings are essentially confided to the USA. This story only involves English language media in 2, predominately English speaking countries. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suggest that you check where Rupert came from, and his dealings there. Another perspective on this is that it's the media talking about the media, perhaps trying to tell us how bad Murdoch is, from a non-impartial position. This is a case where media emphasis is a very poor guide to significance. We need to judge really carefully for ourselves how important this really is. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • News Corp owns most of the international media where I grew up, and it was not an English-speaking country. Batjik Syutfu 20:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, your claim that this only involves English-speaking media in the US and UK is quite simply not true. You obviously are unfamiliar with Murdoch's media empire, but I assure you it goes beyond "2 English speaking countries", LOL. Swarm X 20:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Don't treat me as though I have dragged myself from under a rock on this. My objection from the first post is about the status of the story, not the man himself. This scandal, such as it is, involves just the US and the UK (and the former only just, for now). Has any other event featuring an English speaking country been stickied? Recentism over reason. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Review this decision** I would like to suggest that we officially review this decision elsewhere, to get a project-wide consensus. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously? That seems totally overblown.
    • FWIW Support this seems perfectly sensible given the level of coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you read my comment above saying that level of coverage in this case could be a very poor indicator? If you were part of the non-Murdoch media, you would be making a huge fuss over this, wouldn't you, just to show how evil Rupert is. So be very careful with that measure for this topic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Matters involving ITN postings — content, mind — should be discussed here, at ITN. It's downright crazy to suggest we need to "officially review this decision elsewhere" when what this amounts to is disagreement on content within a WikiProject, which happens so often that if everyone felt the need to get an "official review" with "project-wide consensus" every time, we'd never produce any content. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there are commonly very harsh disagreements about things that do or don't get posted and the griping can continue for days after an admin has made a decision. However, calling for an "official review" with a community-wide discussion is a bit out of line. HJ made a reasonable decision and did not act out of line with accepted practices in any way. The support for the sticky has clearly outweighed the opposition, and there's no grounds for a review of the decision. Swarm X 02:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Things seem to have got overheated here of late. From my observation things seems to go on a downward spiral initially in the Harry Potter noms but could be the real origin was slightly earlier. I don't think having a couple of days with few if any decent nominations helped. Everyone needs to chill out. Ultimately nothing we decide here really matters - it'll be gone in a few days. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Things have been in a downward spiral long before the HP nomination. ITN has been dysfunctional for quite a while... us contributors have very polarised points of view and it's for that reason that discussion often gets out of hand. We lack proper guidelines for submissions and therefore the same arguments and dilemmas continue to appear over and over again. There was WP:ITN3.0 but that only ended with the addition of section tags... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 South China Sea dispute agreement

Article: Territorial disputes in the South China Sea#2011 agreement (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The People's Republic of China and 5 Southeast Asian countries agreed on set of preliminary guidelines over long-running territorial disputes in the South China Sea. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, Voice of America, China Daily
Credits:

Article updated
wait until its implemented, no issue yet that this will hold or themetings wasnt a talk shopLihaas (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from the reuters article "But a broader accord on which country owns what in waters believed to be rich in gas and oil remains as far off as ever." Until that time, it's not main page worthy. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Goran Hadzic

Article: Goran Hadžić (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The last of 161 indicted fugitives and former President of the Republic of Serbian Krajina Goran Hadžić is arrested. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, NY Times
Credits:

Article updated

Posted. Although there are only two comments, we have posted the arrest of other ICTY-indicted war criminals, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume a pre-existing consensus, especially when this is the last one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

blurb here suggests "fugitives." if the others are arrested then they cant be the last indicted fugitives.
though i agree the non-consensual ITN blurb is well off the mark and uncitedLihaas (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] UN declares famine in southern Somalia

Article: 2011 Horn of Africa famine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Nations declares that a famine is now occurring in southern Somalia, amidst an ongoing food crisis in the Horn of Africa region. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News Telegraph Bloomberg CNN Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: An older version of the article was posted previously as the "2011 Horn of Africa drought". However, a declaration of famine by the United Nations is a major development, indicating that the situation has deteriorated significantly and that a large number of deaths may soon occur. Support as nom. Batjik Syutfu 06:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Droughts and floods seem worse in recent years. This particular crisis is part of a drought that has already affected over 10 million people in one of the world's most impoverished regions. An indirect link exists between the famine and the ongoing food price spike and MENA protests. ~AH1 (discuss!) 15:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A declaration of famine does not necessarily indicate a significant deterioration since the term has an official definition and something "becoming" a famine simply indicates that threshold has been crossed. However it is a significant indicator of the severity of the situation and does cause aid efforts to be ramped up. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Posted. The blurb is bare bones, but I'm open to suggestions for improvement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not the second sentence of the blurb above?
    • Some other suggestions (one of these should suffice): First time a famine has been declared since 1984-1985; 3.7 million people in need of food aid in Somalia; over 11 million people in need of food aid in the entire region; worst drought in sixty years; severe lack of international aid according to Oxfam ($800 million urgently needed according to Oxfam; $300 million in Somalia according to other sources). Batjik Syutfu 16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post Post Support This is a definitive statement authoritative body on the issues there. We have been waiting for such statement for awhile on this issue. Worst Since 1984 as some are reporting which is also substantial. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

July 19, 2011 (2011-07-19) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Religion

Science

Sport

Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion

The Cypriot Foreign Minister has just resigned, making him the second cabinet minister to resign in the aftermath of the massive explosion which killed 12 people, including the head of the Cyprus Navy. I know we've already posted it once, but the article is of good quality and it's not every day that two cabinet ministers resign over one incident. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - A number of minor reasons here. First, the main incident was already posted, so this would only be about one minister. Second, the death toll is quite small and it seems mostly to be an accident, although it could have been avoided. Third, two cabinet ministers resigning from a country of less than one million is not really a big deal. For comparison, a few days ago 13 cabinet ministers were replaced in Egypt, a country of 80 million, and it was not posted on ITN. Batjik Syutfu 20:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We didn't post Egypt because it's stickied to the front page! As to the story, I'll have to think about it. I agree with HJ, but I'm not entirely sure whether this is politically significant enough to feature it a second time. Swarm X 01:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murdochs testify before parliament

Article: News_of_the_World_phone_hacking_affair#Murdochs_and_Brooks_summonsed_to_Parliament (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Credits:

The Murdoch's testimony before parliament has gotten extraordinary coverage, even though their denials were not shocking. CNN covered their testimony live (I only caught a 15 minutes, but they may have covered all of it). It is currently the lead story for the NY Times (despite the debt ceiling crisis), Le Monde, El Pais, and of course the BBC. I think the news coverage is there, but I do not know whether a denial is significant enough to post. Thoughts?--Chaser2 (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "testify" is the right word, since British select committees are not courts and don't have the kind of power that Senate committees do in the States. Oh, and Parliament consists of about 800 people. It seems that journalists are using it as shorthand for the Culture, Media and Sport select committee. I'm inclined to support just for the comedy value of the "shaving foam pie" attack! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm using my American vocabulary. Please re-phrase as necessary.--Chaser2 (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tummalapalle Uranium mine

Article: Tummalapalle Uranium mine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ According recent studies Tummalapalle Uranium mine might have one of the largest reserves of uranium in the world. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, Times Of India, Reuters
Credits:
support worls dlargest is a notable event.
brilliant! and sell it to Iran, thatll be notable and a NAM boost ;)Lihaas (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Significance? It might have one of the largest Uranium reserves? That's really questionable, but even if it was confirmed- so what? Is Uranium particularly rare? I wouldn't suspect so, based on its seemingly common usage. Swarm X 15:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uranium is actually quite valuable. It is not extremely rare when you count all the deposits around the world, but the problem is that the deposits tend to be concentrated in a few specific countries. None of the countries in Western Europe, the Middle-East or North Africa have an extractable amount of uranium reserves, which makes it an extremely valuable strategic resource (since countries who do possess it can then export it to any country they like - such as Iran or Israel). However, India does already have uranium reserves and in fact it has long ago developed nuclear weapons and a nuclear energy industry, so this might not significantly change the geopolitical situation in South Asia. Also, there is no confirmation that it is the world's largest yet, so it might be premature to post this. All in all, a weak oppose. Batjik Syutfu 19:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I never said international news coverage is a criterion for posting on ITN. I only posted those links in that other section (where I did not vote) because you and Chaser2 were engaged in a pointless back-and-forth. Batjik Syutfu 21:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, analysts are saying that the deposit isn't even sufficient to meet India's nuclear energy needs. This discovery certainly won't change the geopolitical situation, and it won't even really change India's energy situation. If it turns out to be the largest reserve, that seems like a significant discovery to I might consider supporting then. Swarm X 01:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe they are still doing the analysis, may be once it is complete, we can may be post the story. The notability would have to be on the volume of the uranium deposit and not on the impact on Indian energy sector, as India would still need to import uranium given that India proposes to build 30 more nuclear reactors (as I understand from BBC news). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syria recognises Palestine

Article: State of Palestine#Planned_2011_United_Nations_recognition_vote (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Syria formally recognises the State of Palestine based on the 1967 borders, becoming the last Arab state to do so. (Post)
News source(s): Haaretz, Daily Star, AFP
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Won't be the last of all, but it's a significant and unexpected moment in a developing story. Nightw 11:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Check though. The Arab League was the pressure, so the leadup is a substantial part of it. It's a country article so five sentences just on Syrian recognition would be undue. An alternative article is Foreign relations of Palestine. Nightw 13:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support significant development in one of the world's largest IR issues. Swarm X 15:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I also think it's important to emphasize that this is a concession from its decade-long policy of full liberation. For those who are unfamiliar with the issue, they might mistakenly think that they were against Palestinian statehood in the past. Batjik Syutfu 19:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see a bit more elaboration about what this means. People here are, for example, implying (if not saying) that Syria's original perspective was that what is currently Israel proper should be part of a Palestinian state, but that is not clearly mentioned in the article. On another note, why is the update under a section about the upcoming vote in the UN? -- tariqabjotu 19:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article explains some of the background. "Syria has always been calling for the liberation of Palestine from Israeli occupation and ambitions. The latest stance, however, shows that [Syria] has given up on a national policy that has spanned several decades." It's under the section about the vote because this recognition was made in response to Palestinian efforts to become recognized. According to this article: "In a statement to SANA, Abdulhadi said this recognition constitutes a great support to the Palestinian cause and the efforts of the Palestinian people to attain UN recognition of the Palestinian state in September." Batjik Syutfu 20:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Syria does not recognise the state of Israel. It considered it (until yesterday) all as "Palestine". Until this point, its policies regarding Palestine were simply liberation from Israeli control with the possibility of it subsequently becoming part of Syria. See Pipes and Rabinovich. The update is where it is because the development is part of the Arab League's recent push to get Palestine into the UN as a state in September. Nightw 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware Syria doesn't recognize Israel, and I'm quite certain that even after recognizing Palestine, they still don't recognize Israel (like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc., who recognize Palestine but not Israel). But the conclusion that Syria would like to see all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza as part of a State of Palestine, or as part of a Greater Syrian state, is not for-gone, and not necessarily changed because of this recognition of Palestine on 1967 borders. If the belief is that this recognition changes that policy, I believe it should be mentioned in the article sourced by more neutral sources than Pipes. It's not essential to getting the item on the Main Page, but with an update of merely two sentences, something needs to be added, and I think this is a key piece of information that could complete the update. -- tariqabjotu 08:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the shift in policy may simply be on paper to help the current agenda. All of this is merely speculative at this stage. I think the comments from Hoss are enough to represent those speculations. That aside, the blurb sticks to the simple facts (i.e., that it's made the decision and that it's the last Arab state to do so), so readers can read into it however they want. If it's decided that this is not notable enough then I understand. Nightw 10:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
markign ready as its got the suppots and the updaet is with adequate prose/reactionLihaas (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to remove [Ready] again, but, in my opinion, it's not ready. There are two sentences (including an extended quote) in the State of Palestine article (the nominated article) about this happening. That's not enough, and I provided an example of what could be added. If people don't think what I suggested is important / relevant, fine, but something else needs to be there to make the update more wholesome. And it should not be particularly difficult to do that. -- tariqabjotu 10:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the tag, I agree the update is below what we'd generally expect in terms of length. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll withdraw the nomination. The article is long enough, I simply can't add anything more about this one development. Nightw 12:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I gave you an idea what to add... -- tariqabjotu 14:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I'm strapped for ideas on additions, as I said, it's that adding anymore about this one moment in history to that article would be like adding a section on the latest development of the Don't ask, don't tell policy to the United States article. Nightw 05:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Launch of RadioAstron

Article: RadioAstron (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ RadioAstron, the largest space observatory in orbit, is launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan. (Post)
Credits:

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

We haven't yet posted such launch as I remember, though it's a really important news in the space technology development. The article is in poor shape, but I hope this won't shadow the nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm very supportive of this in principle. It is an ITNR event and it seems to me that if it was a NASA project it would be a shoe-in even if not. However, the article is not in shape and that is something we cannot overlook. Sure, it's been greatly expanded today but the five sentence update guide is best thought of as meaningful sentences that refer specifically to the updated element, in this case, the launch. In this case I see plenty of padding that adds no real value to the article (e.g. "The massive space traveling telescope promises to unveil numerous mysteries of deep space" and some awkward turns of phrase (e.g. "space-borne").
We are also lacking some basic details of the scope - we don't even have its aperture listed, for example, although it is given in at least one of the sources. The core rationale of the mission appears to be obtaining an unusually large separation for very-long baseline interferometry, much further than would be possible even on a pair of antipodes. If that is the case we could probably do with explaining that too since it is core to the very rationale of the mission. These comments should be regarded as exemplary rather than a comprehensive critique, since no doubt other stuff should be in there too that does not spring immediately to mind. Overall then, it is a tentative and reluctant oppose based on the quality of the article. I'd love to spend a couple of hours knocking this in to shape but I doubt I'm going to get the opportunity today. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Of course this needs times more work than usual, but I hope the news as such is sufficient to warrant inclusion, despite of the technical issues that could be easily met. The blurb also will be reworded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually looking a lot better now then when I first looked at it. I'll give it a little attention now too. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done what was screaming at me, but credit is due to BIT1982 for the bulk of the work. There still isn't actually that much said about the actual launch though the article as a whole is unrecognisable from what was a few sentences 48 hours ago - it's almost a new article. As such I'm now inclined to support, although I could understand if people argue a further update is needed. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I've also asserted ITNR in the template although I had already highlighted that in my initial comments. I would like to see this posted reasonably speedily since it is likely to only have a short run on the template anyway: it is more or less inconceivable that the last shuttle landing due tomorrow will not be posted and I don't anticipate the appetite for two space articles up at once, although more input is probably needed: two supports plus the nomination is pretty thin. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph begins with what has to be a machine translation from the Russian source (it's not really coherent), and the rest of the paragraph is evidently plagiarized from the sixth source (just needs to be converted into a paraphrasing). Other than that, I'd like to see this posted before the shuttle landing as well. Swarm X 21:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I re-worked that paragraph and a few other bits and pieces too. I've also adjusted the blurb above to better reflect the notability of this mission - it is the largest space telescope, after all. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Support in principle as well. The article needs development, but if I or someone else can get around to improving it, it's definitely ITN worthy. I agree that it would be a shoe-in if this were NASA. Swarm X 15:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. The article is in fairly rough shape still, it's still pretty stub-ish, some awkward phrasing and overly technical language. There's also still some PR sounding text as well. Normally I'd support this type of subject but at this point I'm not comfortable with the quality, I think we need to take a fairly strong stand as to article quality at ITN. RxS (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition of Ivo Sanader

Article: Ivo Sanader (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The former Prime Minister of Croatia Ivo Sanader is extradited from Austria to Croatia. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

The trial has begun in December 2010, when he was suspected for criminal charges after he fled to Austria. An international warrant to arrest him was immediately issued, and he's finally extradited to Croatia where the trial will continue.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

July 18, 2011 (2011-07-18) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

Sports

Death of Sean Hoare

A former News of the World journalist who made phone-hacking allegations against the paper has been found dead. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising development. Here are some sources The Guardian, The Guardian 2, Daily Mail. Death is treated as "unsuspicious" but some say suicide. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we need to wait for more details to emerge to be able to assess this properly. My initial view is that the continued coverage of the NotW fallout is rapidly descending into running commentary. A confirmed suicide would be significant and may be grounds for an update, possibly even a bump, but right now this seems too speculative to be ITN worthy. We also need to have one eye on the Select Committee tomorrow - there's a good chance of something substantial coming out of that. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • This does seem significant, but I think we should wait for more details, if its a coincidence it probably isn't worthy of posting. Crispmuncher puts it well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Self important "journalist" puts hundreds of colleagues out of work, kills oldest and most broadly circulating British tabloid, is the cause of many arrests, none of which are of the state apparatchiks who actually violated their oaths of office, and is found dead of...? What's not to like? Do we have to wait for the same bureaucracy which enabled this fiasco to happen to pronounce this a suicide before we post? μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Could just be a regular death. No confirmation on anything. A death of a mediocre journalist is no ITN matter.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, generally for the reasons outlined by Crispmuncher and BabbaQ. There are bigger developments happening right now; the suicide of an otherwise non-notable journalist isn't news. StrPby (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A few more details have been reported now. This is an individual with drink and drugs issues with reports of increasingly paranoid behaviour of late. It is tempting to read this as another David Kelly affair but at present it appears more like a "routine" tale of self-destruction, with ultimately only a tangential relationship to the ongoing controversy. As I noted in my comment above, more details are needed and this oppose is not set in stone but it appears to me that we could easily overplay the significance of this. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose for now, unless there is anything to indicate foul play (by indicate I mean a top police officer coming out and saying so, and not media speculation). Mtking (edits) 00:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sadly the otherwise non-notable journalist is an accurate evaluation. I personally think this entire thing stinks to high heaven and reeks of targeted killing and and a staged suicide but my own suspicions are frankly irrelevant. This is worth keeping an eye on but right now lacks substance for ITN posting. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it looks bad, but the Parliamentary Committee hearing later is likely to be more news worthy, as way of an indication it is being carried live on Australian TV. Mtking (edits) 02:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong support for the bump. more notable than the idio t who resigned. possible repercussions wjhen News Corp is under fire.Lihaas (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nice ;)Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] Egyptian Government

Article: Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Supreme Council of the Armed Forces#July (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ TBA (Post)
News source(s): CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera 1, Al Jazeera 2, Al Jazeera 3, Bloomberg
Credits:

Article updated
Support: as the nominator. Egypt's PM appoints 14 new ministers while keeping 13 ministers in their current positions including the highly contested ministers of interior and justice in an attempt to stop the protests against his government and the SCAF -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is particularly more notable than the rest of what has been happening in the Middle-East (particularly Syria/Jordan), so I'll reaffirm my support for a sticky instead (see below). Batjik Syutfu (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weve got FIVE supports (+nom. ) vs. 2 opposes for the MENA sticky below...Lihaas (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now that the sticky is posted. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the sticky has been posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

July 17, 2011 (2011-07-17) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and entertainment

Disasters

Jan Mohammed Khan assassinated

Article: Jan Mohammed Khan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Orūzgān Governor Jan Mohammed Khan, special advisor to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, is assassinated less than a week after the murder of fellow politician Ahmed Wali Karzai, the President's half-brother. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg
Credits:

Article updated
Oppose Never heard of him. Four years of governing a province with a population of 300,000 (smaller than about a hundred cities in the U.S.) Doesn't seem remotely close to ITN-worthy given that his entire article without the assassination is only two paragraphs. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You basically used three of the worst arguments in usage in ITN. You never hearing of him is irrelevant; if the head of the African Union was assassinated, you wouldn't oppose this for the same reason... because I doubt you've ever heard of him. Comparing the size of the province to a US city is not much of an argument either... if at all. And then you look at a Wikipedia article's length to determine worthiness, which really doesn't give you any insight whatsoever.
But I'm only weakly supporting neutral for this, because I don't see the level of interest and coverage seen in Ahmed Wali Karzai's assassination. However, I'm beginning to see a trend of assassinations following the recent withdrawl of Canadian troops from the region of Kandahar Province. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I did not state three arguments against posting this. What I wrote was an informal way of saying that the event is not significant; and yes, the fact that I've never heard of him, that he is not a significant government official, and that the article is was a stub are all indicators of the lack of significance. Yes, it's completely personal opinion - and so is yours. "I'm beginning to see a trend" - original research. "I doubt you've ever heard of him." - original research again. "I don't see the level of interest and coverage" - basically another way of phrasing "Never heard of him".
We can either be assholes picking apart one another's comments, or we can respect each other's opinions and make our own case. Can we be nice? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, OR =/= personal opinion; it's OR. It can be biased research but it's not an opinion, and definitely not in this case. And "I don't see the level of interest and coverage", as far as I know, means that I don't see the same level of interest and coverage. I don't know how you extracted "Never heard of him" from that. And what I said is true, because media that covered the Ahmed Karzai assassination aren't doing so as extensively as they are now, if at all. The Karzai story was on the front page of many newspapers and news sources worldwide, whereas this news hasn't even made the front of the BBC. Although I agree my argument isn't strong either, so I've changed to neutral, as I simply don't care if it goes up or not. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My point was that we would all have plenty to say if we were to list out everything that we disagreed with in our interpretation of another person's vote. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. That's fine by me. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I think the oppose above was fairly well thought through and reasonable, if all opposes were of the standard of Batjik's here we'd be in a much better place. I think I saw this as the top story for a while on the BBC, but it isn't there now, so I'd be inclined to weakly support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm going to remove my vote. Now that I've read the significantly expanded article as well as the new sources, it seems that my initial assessment of his significance was off by quite a bit. Clearly not just a former governor of a small province, but someone with deep connections to Karzai. On the fence for this one. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Casey Anthony released

Article: Death of Caylee Anthony (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Casey Anthony was released today after her July 5, 2011 acquittal for the death and suspected murder of her daughter Caylee Anthony in 2008 in Florida, USA. (Post)
News source(s): Source for story,Source for story,source for story,source for story
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Support - as nom. Most media covered murder trial since OJ simpson. Her release has been covered in every single major media outlet. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

This whole discussion is getting nowhere, closing this before any tension further escalates Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Don't beat a dead horse. As we saw with the nomination of the trial, barely last week, this isn't going to get anywhere. Let's not disrupt ITN further. (Oppose, for the record, for the exact same reason as last time.) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we should actually be grown up enough to post items of clear widespread interest that aren't primarily of interest to the intellectual elite. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want this on ITN, you need to at least make a case as to why this is more important than her acquittal, which did not get consensus to post. Otherwise, this is just going to attract unneeded drama. -- tariqabjotu 14:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually her release and her acquittal has reached the same amount of high media attention and recognition so really there is no need for the supporters here to justify our stance to support this news story. Because it is infact major news so its not even a question in my mind that this newspiece should be included on ITN. Also the first ITN suggestion on her acquittal was not posted only because the opposes !votes was only made out of the usual "news on murders should not be included and thats it, no matter how notable it is end of story."--BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, for the same reasons as before. We already rejected the verdict, and there's no way this is more important. This nomination smacks of forum shopping, given the earlier discussion. Modest Genius talk 15:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not forum shopping as in the same place. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps forum shopping is the wrong term in a technical sense, what I meant was repeated nominations until the desired outcome is obtained. Modest Genius talk 15:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its a different event and the previous nomination isn't on the page to continue. Noone has had an objection with the continued nominations per say about the News International issues, and they could have been followed up in the same thread. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Modest Genius meant is that the previous nomination of this story was already opposed by a significant number of people, so it makes no sense now to nominate a similar (and less significant) event. The News Corp scandal is nominated for numerous times because 1. major developments keep coming; 2. they weren't opposed by a significant number of people every time. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like users here are turning a blind eye to notability guidelines when it fits their own purpose for example not posting "crime related ITNs". Sorry to say.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about commenting on the issues and not the people? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She was released? Well, given that we had a report here that she was found not guilty, that seems unsurprising. Is there anything changed to make this less a tabloid story than it was a few days ago when it was rejected? Kevin McE (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you really never noticed other media following a tabloid agenda? It is a pure tabloid story, that other media will report because they don't want to be accused of elitism. For ITN, I would far rather that we be accused of elitism than that we feature such low-brow "human interest" satories. Amazing how unattractive, minority, or male murders and disappearances, or those occurring elsewhere in the world, are so much less "important" Kevin McE (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When its being covered internationally by reliable sources, and outside a section purely covering entertainment news no. The reason this case gets coverage is that its a particularly interesting case for a number of reasons. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead, has right its not a legitimate claim when a single persons release itself is covered by a ton ton of reliable non-tabloid sources. seems like users here are turning a blind eye to notability guidelines when it fits and then slams the notaiblity guidelines to users in their face when it fits.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What notability guideline is this? No-one here is trying to set up an AfD. That sort of accusation of duplicity requires a high level of evidence, or retraction and apology. Kevin McE (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines for ITN - things like our purpose which states that we should post items of wide interest to our readers - I cannot fathom how a million page views a day fails to meet that criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that one of the purposes is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". There also happen to be a completely opposite purpose: "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them". Unless you're saying that they are contradictory, the "purposes" are not meant to be necessary and sufficient conditions. There are only two main criteria at present, which is significance and quality. In any case, this discussion is completely pointless; we rejected the acquittal, which is by any standard much more notable than this one. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an extraordinary claim. Charlie Sheen's "problems" were reported in other countries, Beckhams' baby is reported in other countries, countless affairs are mentioned in multiple countries... Kevin McE (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sheen should have been posted, the others its highly doubtful you could get a suitable update for them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Eraserhead is right again. These arguments can be twisted around to fit anyones agenda. Totally turning a blind eye to the notaiblity of this ITN piece. Anthony has recieved sufficient amount of press worldwide even today to justify inclusion on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, and suggest closing the discussion. We didn't post the acquittal; it makes no sense to post this one, which is in every way a direct result of the acquittal. I didn't oppose posting the previous one, but posting this after the previous consensus against posting the acquittal is just extremely inconsistent. A lot of the support votes here seem to be attempts to reignite the previous discussion, which is a waste of everyone's time. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously there are users that disagrees with that notion of closing. And the previous discussion has nothing to do with this one. Giving that as a reason to oppose is taking the easy way out, isntead of giving a honest reason to why it shouldnt be posted. The ITN nomination should not be closed, this is not North Korea or Burma. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest a warning to BabbaQ for intentionally reigniting a heated discussion and disrupting ITN, and now personally attacking numerous users who disagree with him. I happen to have grown up in a communist country and I find your comment about "North Korea or Burma" extremely insulting. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are seriously not considering that suggesting a closing of a non-consensus ITN is wrong? Please dont make this more personal then it already is, suggesting warnings etc etc.. that is simply like stating "ok BabbaQ is telling his/hers personal opinion, then lets warn him/her for it so BabbaQ doesnt do it again ever" that feels infact very much so like North Korea. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus, from two weeks ago. Every single one of the opposes from that nomination would apply here. You admitted this yourself: "Also the first ITN suggestion on her acquittal was not posted only because the opposes !votes was only made out of the usual "news on murders should not be included and thats it, no matter how notable it is end of story."" You were not satisfied with that, so you took the chance to bring this up again and try to get this non-story posted. That is intentional disruption and hence why this discussion needs to be closed.
Please also refrain from your repetitive personal remarks. Comparing me to Kim Jong-il will not in the slightest bit convince me or other users of your intention to contribute constructively to this discussion. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you "strongly oppose" posting this makes it entirely out of line for you to call for suppression of the discussion, and even more so to call for warnings against BabbaQ. That's not how we work anywhere on Wikipedia, and unless a discussion turns into an unbridled flame war, there's no reason to close any of them. Swarm X 20:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested closing the discussion because, at its current state, it is an exact duplicate of one we had two weeks ago. I didn't know that was inappropriate for an involved user, so apologies for that. As for how I responded to BabbaQ's remarks, they are completely appropriate given that he accused me of being the equivalent of a communist mass murderer.Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd clarify that I'm familiar with mediation processes on Wikipedia and was not in any way suggesting that an admin take immediate action against BabbaQ for his personal attacks; it was merely an informal suggestion for concerned users to look into his pattern of personal attacks on numerous users and intentionally disruptive behavior.Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support this isn't just "tabloid fodder", and it can't be compared to 'entertainment news'. This is one of the largest recent news stories we could put on the front page; it's been followed by millions of people and reported around the world, and we'd be showcasing a GA, which is really the primary purpose of ITN! I mean, we're talking millions and millions of people who this is of interest to, which I would venture to say is more than netball's three fans can say, but, no, we actually have to avert consensus to plaster that on the main page. Swarm X 18:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The acquittal was notable, but what I completely fail to understand is how her release from prison is. It was expected since the acquittal. If the acquittal didn't make the ITN section, why should this? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anything this is infact even more so notable. As this news is the end result of this story if anything should be published on ITN with crime-related material it is this story. Because when it all comes down to it, this is about anti-crime story articles amongst Wikipedians in general.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely, absolutely disagree with the implication that the story is a result of recentism. The level of media coverage was unusually significant and indicative of a major cultural event, similar to the O.J. trial. The story was not simply overblown as a result of recentism on the part of Wikipedia editors. If you can substantiate that HLN experienced a permanent "rise", it's a different issue, but I doubt that's the case. Swarm X 20:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose NO global notability, whos even head of them outside amrica?Lihaas (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just wow. You deserve a trout for that one. Seriously, that's probably the least thought out comment I've ever read. This has been covered globally, and BabbaQ even provided numerous non-American sources. There were Japanese television reporters, reporting this story from Orlando. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but if you're going to leave unhelpful and unlearned comments like that you're better off not contributing here. Swarm X 20:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you can wow it till the cows come home. justb/c some online source says doesntmean its intl? do you live/travel abroad?
Japanese America? but anyways, youre better off refraining from NPA AND ofucisng on the issue at hand' more productive,Lihaas (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, if "some online source" means "major international news agencies", then yes, that absolutely does make it internationally notable. And no, "Japanese reporter" does not mean "Japanese-American reporter", it means "reporter from Japan". Swarm X 21:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Someone found not guilty earlier has been released? That is not even news. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well except that it is as its being reported worldwide, pretty strange that something that is "not even news" is being reported worldwide. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood bimbos having babies gets reported worldwide, for some sad reason. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because people like human interest stories - that doesn't make them "not news". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We've been here before. For the same reasons, oppose again. This strikes me as a pointy attempt to re-open the earlier debate. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, she wasn't even paroled or pardoned or her conviction overthrown--she had simply served her sentence. "Released" is an Orwellian equivocation. What other criminal have we featured in ITN because his sentence was completed? μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
International significance is not a requirement for posting - this has been covered worldwide so there is clear international interest. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose for all of the reasons noted already- absolutely not of national or international significance. To add to the discussion above, no matter how widely this is covered, it's still tabloid fodder. It's still one woman (who was not notable before) and one (unfortunately) dead child. -- Mike (Kicking222) 21:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that its being covered internationally, thus refuting your argument. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a strange idea of what refute means. James Tate being banned from attending the Sheldon High School prom was covered internationally. What of it? You might have my support for this when some outraged Frenchman takes vengeance on that creature. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah James Tate is being covered internationally. By the Daily Mail (a non RS and non serious source) - and the top hit on Google News for James Tate is a four day old article (also the Daily Mail) about a horse racer. The coverage isn't remotely similar this case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is arguing that the James Tate story of May is current news?μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do you have any evidence that the James Tate case was covered internationally by reliable sources? Or that it would be remotely possible to write enough content about it to warrant an encyclopaedia article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Joining the sea of opposes - A criminal finished serving a sentence. Explain to me how this qualifies as anything of even remote significance. (Not that this matters, it won't be long until this is marked as [Ready] anyway.)--WaltCip (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because its being covered worldwide by reliable sources and we have a good article on the subject and there is widespread interest from our readers. You know our purpose, of which this item meets 3 out of the four points. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So where exactly is all this high profile international attention you keep talking about? Absent from front page of Die Welt, Le Monde, El País, JapanTimes, The Australian, and the BBC. Searching for "Anthony" on half of those pages does however yield coverage of the breakup of Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony, so it is good to know that, by Eraserhead's principle, that is not a gossipy tabloid style of story. Kevin McE (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a ton of coverage internationally last time around and BabbaQ has found quite a bit above.
With regards to Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony splitting up that its being covered by reliable sources means its not tabloid fodder, Jennifer Lopez is an extremely famous actress and singer - I suspect that the story would be sunk on the ITN criteria by the simple fact that it would notFtate be possible to write a suitable update for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right Eraserhead. Its always amusing to see how the Opposing side always have an answer to why they are opposing without ever touching the subjects actual notability. Anthony is actually one of the most notable and newsworthy people covered on this Wikipedia right now. The opposing side as always turns a blind eye to all facts pointing to ITN inclusion as expected, when they know they are wrong. amusing to say the least.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last time around??? Sorry, this is not In Last Week's News. And at least where I live, it had no profile in the news last week either. Once again, some strange appeal to notability, which is not remotely the issue here. Kevin McE (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously live in a very strange place if it wasn't covered at her acquittal. I saw it on the front page of Xinhua days later, and I read about it at the time from the front page of the BBC.
Besides if notability isn't the issue here what possible reason is there not to post it. The article views have been higher than a decent proportion of ITN items each day since the acquittal, we have a good article and its in the news. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have pointed out many times, the BBC tailors its front page based on IP geolocation. Just because it's on the front page for you, does not mean it is on the front page anywhere else in the world. Now can you please let it go? Modest Genius talk 00:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So ignore the front page thing. The story was still covered by a huge number of reliable sources and attracted massive readership. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are coming very close to accusing me of lying there, which is not appreciated. You have made your contribution to this discussion: allow others to make theirs without harrying them. Kevin McE (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Kevin McE, but to be fair you are actually accusing Eraserhead of lying to. So I suggest you both take a step back. But I have to wonder were you live if you havent heard anything about this case? hmm.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that BabbaQ has been repeatedly asked to either justify or retract this accusation, but has failed to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that Kevin McE refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing on his part. Actually twisting the argument around. Just for the record. If we should do it in this childish level.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if BabbaQ refuses to explain where I am believed to have accused Eraserhead of lying, I cannot comment on it. If he uncovers evidence of such activity on my part, I will be only too happy to apologise for it. On the other hand, if he cannot provide the justification for his accusation against me, the ball lies in his court in terms of acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Kevin McE (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - woman found not guilty, jailed for a lesser crime, released. Ignore the original plea - people are released from jail all the time. Lying to the police is a serious crime, but it's not as if she was freed after a guilty verdict for murder.  ƒox  00:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is nothing but tabloid fodder, just as everyone else says. A woman who was found not guilty of a crime got released from prison. That's not exactly news, even if everyone is following it. People followed Paris Hilton when she got released. Should we have put that up because people in Nigeria were reading about it? --PlasmaTwa2 02:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it tabloid fodder? If Paris Hilton is so well known that reliable sources are talking about her prison sentence worldwide and someone can write a suitable update then it should be posted. Given that Paris Hilton went to jail back in 2007 makes it quite clear that the event has vast significance in your mind because you still remember it. I doubt in four years you'll remember the assassination of Ahmed Wali Karzai, or in three years the winner of the women's world cup.
    • Tabloid fodder is truly stories like this. But no serious source would cover that, and no-one could possibly write an encyclopaedic update, so I really don't see what all the fuss is about. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Plasma's well phrased comment. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's really sad about the whole thing is that this item is so "tabloid fodder" and so "non news" and so on that a group of people have basically written a GA on the subject. Trying to claim an event is "not significant" when it has enough meat to write a GA (and therefore in due time an FA) seems like a very strange line of reasoning to have been taken by so many people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this madness. Some people won't accept any reason, no matter how wonderfully crafted. It would've been bedlam anyway if this was posted, so I don't see the reason in continuing the discussion, aside from generating more drama. –HTD 14:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Rebekah Brooks arrested

Article: News International phone hacking scandal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Rebekah Brooks has been arrested over the phone hacking scandal (Post)

In the ongoing News International saga Rebekah Brooks has now been arrested. Maybe this should be a sticky instead? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support either sticky or update. Clearly a major development, and the latest of many. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because a blurb is already there, it's probably no harm to simply update it and keep it where it is, but ITN does not need to have a blow-by-blow of this scandal. And this story most certainly does not deserve a sticky because it is nothing compared to the other stickied stories (Olympics, World Cup, Middle East protests, Japanese tsunami) which had sustained (often above-the-fold) international interest, and especially importance, for days to weeks on end. At the end of the day, this is primarily a UK story. Please let this drop off ITN, as, as of now, there hasn't been a non-hacking-scandal story posted in almost four days. Please devote your attention to other stories if, for nothing else, in the interest of diversity. -- tariqabjotu 13:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sticky or bump, I understand the international scope of this story but it's not such a huge story to justify this blow by blow we're falling into. Updating the blurb is a good alternative. RxS (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a bump, but we could update the existing blurb. Modest Genius talk 15:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Modest Genius. Mocctur (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update the Current Blurb and reset the clock for its removal from the template. An extremely significant development in the case. Very few corporate leaders are ever arrested in the Western word. On a speculative note.... does this mean she had direct knowledge of the crimes? Or even have ordered them? This development puts more questions in my mind than it answers. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Can we keep Les Hinton on the blurb? It happened only yesterday and he's probably the most notable resignation in this scandal up to now. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, the Metropolitan Police commissioner is far more notable a resignation. Mtking (edits) 23:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't he just the commissioner of one city? Resignation of the CEO of Dow Jones & Company (publisher of largest newspaper in the U.S.) seems to me somewhat more notable. But anyway, I think all three should be on there. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not just the commissioner of a city force but a huge force with policing responsibility's outside just London. If you look at the number of staff in the force 52k then compare that to the 60k offers and staff employed by ALL the state forces in Australia or take NYPD and the LAPD combined at 47k you see the size of the force. Mtking (edits) 02:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The resignation of the London Police commish, in these circumstances, is pretty major.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Women's World Cup

Article: 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Japan win the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup final becoming the first Asian team to win the FIFA Women's World Cup. (Post)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
That comment was unhelpful. Modest Genius talk 15:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But oh so representative of most of the opinions here. Grsz 11 21:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need for support, on ITNR. However, we should use our standard ENGVAR-neutral phrasing:
The article on the final is a decent start, but will need a proper prose update on the game itself and/or some reaction. Modest Genius talk 15:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the US wins, can we use the better sounding "In soccer, the United States wins the 2011 FIFA Womens' World Cup." Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That standard phrasing has been developed to avoid complaints on WP:ERRORS about the phrasing, which is plagued with defeat/defeats, win/wins etc. ENGVAR problems. We could certainly add 'in association football' to the blurb, but not 'soccer'. Modest Genius talk 19:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Darren Clarke wins Open Championship

Article: 2011 Open Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Darren Clarke of Northern Ireland wins the 2011 Open Championship (Post)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
I've marked as ready. The update seems sufficient. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One dramatic improvement might be to mention which country's "Open" it is. The article doesn't tell us. (I have raised that matter on its Talk page.) The article doesn't even tell us which sport t is! At least we've done that in the blurb above. Why do editors make such unthinking assumptions about the importance of a subject to their readers? HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to add anything to the blurb, it is in line with others such as the 2011 Masters Tournament see it's posting here. (BTW Support posting)Mtking (edits) 02:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what "it is in line with". There is valuable information missing. Don't you want readers to know? In its current form, I must Oppose posting. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Open Championship is its official and common name. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC) it does no harm (and would help readers a lot) to simply title it that[reply]
Yeah but I think HiLo makes a point here. These issues should be quick to fix anyway. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common name? I really don't think so. Every time I see it or hear it mentioned in Australia, it's as the British Open. Surely that could be used in the blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I also in Australia heard it refereed to as "the Open" on the radio this morning. Mtking (edits) 11:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian (I think that's from Australia) calls it the British Open. US media universally do. The Canadian Globe and Mail calls it the British Open. Let's call it the British Open. I think we should expect a full paragraph with 3+ references on the final round and I don't see that now so I oppose posting until the update's improved a wee bit.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, ESPN which aired it in the US universally referred to it as the Open Championship. Its The Open Championship. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 13:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Official title is The Open Championship which is what should be used. I don't hear a clamour for the descriptor American when the Academy Awards comes up each year.yorkshiresky (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the ready. There seems to be some dispute about the blurb and the article here.
I'll also oppose the article at its current state. Somewhat of a mess. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is ITNR listed as "The Open Championship", not "British Open", nor any other Bowdlerised attempt at internationalisation, just as the PGA is listed as the PGA and not the U.S. PGA. The article seems fine to me so that's a support from me. I personally don't think disputing the name is grounds for delay here - there is no doubt as to the official name of the tournament and the ITNR listing is evidence of precisely what the existing consensus is for. As such I'm re-marking ready. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The article is not ready, the updated content is largely unreferenced and it's more of a list than an article. Needs some work yet. RxS (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It's possible to use Darren Clarke, which is already updated, as the headlined article. This is a solution we've implemented in the past if the tournament page does not meet reviewers' standards. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin go ahead and post it then? There's one, really bad, confusing section in the 'Open Championship' article that will very likely prevent this from being posted at all. Featuring Darren Clarke as the headlined article instead is clearly the common sense alternative. At least until the Open article is cleaned up, but if that doesn't happen, this would be better than nothing. Swarm X 17:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't someone here just clean up the article real fast? I would myself but I know nothing about golf. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to go, the most important points are well referenced. I'm not sure which paragraph 'Swarm' is referring to but as that is a pipe from the lead article I don't see why the lead shouldn't be posted.yorkshiresky (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You stubborn fools. It's just stupid for the blurb about a major sports event in a country to not name the country. (I am not discussing the name of the event.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I don't think that's commonly mentioned. Sometimes it is but, for example, Wimbledon blurbs never mention what country the tournament is in. I thought mentioning the golf course was enough to establish locale; even if one has never heard of the golf course, its name alone suggests it's probably in the UK (and, of course [no pun intended], one could click on the article). And I really didn't want to put "Sandwich, Kent, England" up there. -- tariqabjotu 20:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Potter breaks opening day record

Article: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows - Part 2 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The final Harry Potter movie Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows - Part 2 breaks the opening day record worldwide (Post)
Article updated

200k+ readers for the various articles, tens of thousands of Google news hits, biggest selling book series, biggest grossing film series. No possible reason to justify that this isn't news, no possible justification that this isn't of encyclopaedic interest and no good reason to continue to wait. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence I used is the list provided above. I looked through the dates. Is the record broken every year? --candle•wicke 09:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well I went through the list. Number two is "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" and this happened in 2009. This would have beaten the record that had stood since 2008 (number four: "The Dark Knight") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2007 (number seven: "Spider-Man 3") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2006 (number nine: "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2005 (number eleven: "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2004 (number seventeen: "Spider-Man 2") and so on. --candle•wicke 09:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment "opening day record of..." important to mention it (former recorD) or its weekend gross total.
sad, sad people watching the idio t box ;)Lihaas (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. --candle•wicke 09:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we should list the record fihure it broke.Lihaas (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would that not count as a statistic? Like the scores in sport? --candle•wicke 10:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this record seems to be broken as often as Apa Sherpa's record. --candle•wicke 09:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is being done not because the record is necessarily the most amazing thing ever, but because the film in question quite blatantly is highly, highly notable. Apa Sherpa's record doesn't attract tens of thousands of Google News hits each time he does it. There are plenty more reasons to get this posted now listed in my opening statement that have nothing to do with the record. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia isn't Google. Why Google? What does Google have to do with the ITN section of Wikipedia? Apa Sherpa not attracting tens of thousands of Google News hits each time he does it doesn't make his achievements any less notable. --candle•wicke 10:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can go with our own article hit counts, or that the film series is the highest grossing ever, the vast cultural impact of the book/film series etc. etc. If you wish just taking the common sense approach that clearly people are interested in this topic, for which we have good articles. That should be reason enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sources are just not clear enough, and frankly know one can no for sure what the number is, it has the feeling of trying to jump the gun. There is no rush here, lets wait till the full worldwide opening weekend results are in then post that if we must. Mtking (edits) 10:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ITN covers news. People quite quickly move on to the next story so there is always a rush to get stuff posted. And its quite clear that there is clear sourced information about this particular record if you actually read through the information presented here rather than knee-jerking in opposition. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not that I should have to defend myself, I did look, and came up with the same issues that HiLo48 did since opening days are different. As I said in my original post, there seems to be a rush here to get something out, not just here but on the "movie" websites. I think it is prudent to wait, till Monday or Tuesday when proper audited numbers are made available and we can write a proper blurb that is correct and does not need to be amended or added to as the week goes on. Mtking (edits) 10:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • At that point far less people will care. Its quite clear this movie is significant and attempting to force us to wait is deliberately damaging the section further by preventing us from posting obvious stories.
        • Your opposition is like saying with the Japanese earthquake that we have to wait for the magnitude numbers to be verified before we post it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Firstly, and I cannot stress this enough - In the news is not a news ticker. Secondly, I think we did.  ƒox  11:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Firstly we need to post events that people are interested in. Posting events late after interest has moved on is counterproductive to the sections future. There are lots of comments in the Main page RFC complaining about ITN being slow. The only good reasons to wait are article quality and where the event might not be notable without confirmation - neither apply here. Secondly we posted the Japanese earthquake promptly and didn't wait for confirmation of all the details as you can see from the extended discussion below the items posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Procedural Remove of "[Ready]" as it was placed there by the nominator Eraserhead1, in contravention of the clear notice at the top of the page. (see here) Mtking (edits) 11:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you dont change consensus unilateralluy. if you want to (as is your right) you take it to talk.
for the record i oppose as these are all too ferquent and we dont posts otehr FISRTS.Lihaas (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So is this further evidence that ITN is entirely dysfunctional and should be pulled from the main page, or are you also failing to read the section through properly - there is far more in favour of this item than the record itself. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what Lihaas is trying to say, but I'm guessing that what he means by consensus is the rule that the nominator does not add the "Ready" tag. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I guess. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support BUT I still think waiting until the weekend's over is the better idea. I don't give a shite if Wikipedia looks to be "trailing behind" professional news sites, but I don't really give a shite that we post this every year, either. I'm not too bothered if this is posted sooner than that, though (but please make it "worldwide" rather than "in the US").  ƒox  11:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any claim of a record based only on US/US + Canada data. It is not an American film, it is not based on an American book by an American author, and it does not have an American cast. Global figures, or the whole thing is just systemic bias. Kevin McE (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely: let's make sure that the blurb, if agreed, reflects that. Kevin McE (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the opening weekend record. Modest Genius talk 15:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not update it via WP:ERRORS once its gone live? What's the possible harm in that? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The only film gross record that is significant enough is Avatar's. Courcelles 15:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? You are completely failing to address all the other significance reasons that go with it. I have to nominate it for something, but there is a huge amount of significance around the event such as its cultural significance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do we have? Guesses? I mean, the day is barely starting, and we're already assuming the movie will take 33 million today domestically. Besides, with inflation and ticket prices being what they have been, all these so-called records don't mean a hill of beans. The only objective record there is, total tickets sold, not even Avatar sniffed. Putting this on our main page is nothing more than a free quarter-million dollars of publicity for the film studio. 17:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE Biggest opening weekend ever in the US and Canada confirmed just a few minutes ago [20]. Now just we need to wait for the worldwide opening weekend record. The article is List of biggest opening weekends. Theleftorium (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Harry Potter breaks opening weekend record worldwide and in the US/Canada
Articles: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (talk · history · tag) and List of biggest opening weekends (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, the last installment in the Harry Potter film series, breaks the records for highest-grossing opening weekend worldwide and opening weekend in the United States and Canada. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-report-harry-potter-212332
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Let's start this over, now that we have the opening weekend numbers. Theleftorium (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but without the last part about United States and Canada. Makes the blurb too long and is kind of redundant. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, significant theatrical record. Agree with Batjik though, the US and Canada part should be removed to simplify and shorten the blurb. Swarm X 18:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to oppose. Looking at the list, I realized that that the previous "record holder" was another Harry Potter film, two years ago. Yeah, it sounds like a "significant theatrical record", but 9 out of the top 10 "records" have occurred in the past 5 years! So I'm definitely inclined to believe that this is really not a big deal in the grand scheme of film history. Swarm X 20:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the sentiment here, but would like to note that this film broke three records, and in each case the previous record-holder was different. Its margin for the worldwide weekend opening is also nearly seven times larger than the previous margin. So it is kind of a rare event, even though I generally don't like "record"-related stats. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm, you realise that Harry Potter is one of the most significant cultural events of the past 20 years? Obviously its pretty likely to beat another earlier film with a later record. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really address my point though. Your argument in favor of posting this relies very heavily on the fact that "it's Harry Potter" and it's culturally significant. Yes, Harry Potter's culturally significant. However, we've already determined that it's not significant enough to post simply for being Harry Potter. We're talking about the film's records now. And I believe, as I said above, that this record isn't significant enough for an ITN blurb. "Biggest opening ever" isn't really that significant if it happens every few years. Swarm X 16:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this blurb instead of the above one, for reasons I stated in the original discussion. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is Hollywood self-congratulatory nonsense at its worst. We get new all-time records every few years. That is inevitable so long as they continue to ignore the effect of inflation. The fact that they choose to ignore crucial factors for the purposes of PR and marketing hyperbole, which is all this is, does not mean we should consider ourselves bound by the same ultimately meaningless metrics. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
So let's just never post any records related to film. Hey, while we're at it, let's not post sport records either, because it's quite obvious that it's a PR stunt for the organisation in question. You know what? Records in general serve no purpose whatsoever and change way too often for ITN standards, so let's just not post them at all. Because, you know, our standards are so high. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every sport record is "self congratulatory nonsense", arguably even things like the Beijing Shanghai railway and all the spin the Chinese setup beforehand for journalists was self congratulatory nonsense. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument isn't valid because even when adjusted for inflation, it is still the highest-grossing opening weekend. Theleftorium (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only person to have to have asserted this. Therefore I await your reliable source with interest. Without that your argument lacks any credibility whatsoever. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose Rather meaningless "record" compared to either Avatar's or Gone with the Wind's. Posting this would be little more than giving the studio free advertising. Courcelles 19:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Two film records in 100 years is the rate which ITN should be posting them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your near constant stream of badgering and sarcasm does not help. Note we post MANY film stories, the Oscars, the BAFTAs, at least three film festivals... The records, however, are inflation and high-ticket price invented news. Courcelles 22:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If people should have the right to post whatever comments they like here other people should have the right to counter their arguments. That's only fair.
        • Regardless of inflation I would have thought posting the final film from the most profitable film series of all time, and one based on a book series which has sold more copies than any other in history would be notable enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Opening weekend record is due to inflation, let's wait til it has biggest adjusted gross sales ever. μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, and what was the reason for not posting the film in the first place? The reason given then was "gotta wait for the record, gotta wait for the record", and then when the record comes along everyone goes and says that the only notable film ever made was Gone with the Wind - so basically saying that we should only post one film record every 100 years. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your blatancy here is blatant. There is simply no way yet to show this compares with actual blockbusters like Star Wars, ET, Titanic, Avatar. The need for patience and calm here is blatant. It's blatant, I tell you. μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • But we already know that this is the final film of the biggest grossing film series ever, on that alone its clearly notable. If we wait until we know whether its verified to be biggest than other films on an individual basis we'll never post anything. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, Medeis's comment is plainly wrong; the opening weekend record is NOT due to inflation, as the list can show you. The reason that inflation is so prominent for total gross but not weekend gross is that, until relatively recently, a film was mostly spread through word-of-mouth and not huge advertising before its opening, which flattens out the earnings curve over a long period of time. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wheres the source for this assertion when adjusted for inflation? ITN does not deal with what people assert to be true. None of the links given here or in the articles make this assertion so where has is come from? Without a source any assertion of this nature is meaningless and should be discounted immediately. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Oppose This is the THIRD attempt to get this listed, the first closed with "re-nominated when final opening weekend revenues are released"; the second (still open) has a significant number of Oppose's this one started with the words "Let's start this over". I am just not convinced with all the numbers being thrown about that any of them can be believed at such an early point, take this it was written at a little before 1pm on Sunday, with at least 11 hours still to go of the weekend. It is like publishing the election results with the polls still open, it can be nothing more than a educated guess, also what is the source of the numbers ?. The fact that the box office numbers are not adjusted for price and inflation also is of an issue and devalues the record, it would be like moving the starting line for the 100m sprint 10cm closer to the finishing line every year; what would be more impressive is the "bums on seats" count. I am willing to change my mind on this, once some audited numbers are made available and it clearly shows record numbers of viewers worldwide and the blurb focuses on the world as a whole and not singling out one area for special mention. Mtking (edits) 23:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the time you wrote this comment you could've read this part of the blurb "highest-grossing opening weekend worldwide" ("singling out one area of special mention"?); calculated the gross for inflation and realized that it is indeed record-breaking even when adjusted for inflation; and also found about the source used in the article, namely this. Seriously, treat your vote with some respect and don't lash out when you haven't read the article or even the blurb. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You forgot to read the last part of the blurb when it says "opening weekend in the United States and Canada." is that not singling out one area of special mention ? I have read the article, and I still ask the question, this time of this report, what is the source for the numbers they are reporting ? As I type now there is still just a little under 7 hours of the weekend to go in LA so I ask again how can the US numbers for the weekend be anything more than a guess ? Mtking (edits) 00:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as a note: I did a rough count and there appear to be 9 votes support and 5 votes oppose after merging the two discussions and neglecting repeated votes. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The film series neither beats out LotR for revnue per film or budget and does not beat out other individual films for gross revenue. All we have is a statistically regular next highest grossing weekend for a sequel, a predictable, common, yearly event.
You're absolutely right, for even if there were a small in favor majority it would still fail consensus. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Protest a) There does not appear to be consensus to post, and b) issues relating to the accuracy and sources of the numbers have Not been addressed. This should be Pulled until these have been addressed. Mtking (edits) 01:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a) Over the three discussions, those opposing have (generally) given the impression they would be willing for this blurb to go up as opposed to the advert-y other one; b) the numbers are not what matter with this intentionally vague blurb.  ƒox  01:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not under any of the three discussions nor in total was there ever a majority, let alone a consensus in favor of this. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without wanting to dampen your italics..  ƒox  01:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty to pull this for now. I'm a sucker for BOLD ALL CAPS SHOUTING, how did you know?!  ƒox  01:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, I mean what I said, I want to understand how weekend numbers can be arrived at with (assuming we included Friday) one sixth still to happen, who is the ultimate source for the numbers ? is it the studio ? It is like posting the US Election results at 3 PM on polling day; something just does not feel right about it. Mtking (edits) 01:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have redacted mine to initial caps, but one does shout not when voting but when trying to get immediate attention.
I am staunchly opposed to this even if it were a record pull. (A fair blurb might be "HP7B biggest hit ever on audience pocket") Looking into the statistics, Average U.S. ticket prices for 2008 when Batman Whateverth premiered were $7.18 while they were $7.86 in the first quarter of 2011. At that rate Harry Potter would have to have topped $173M to be a record adjusted for inflation. That does not include the fact that sources are crediting the numerical record to 3D ticket prices, not the number of warm arses in sticky seats: "3D ticket prices help Harry Potter beat Batman record". A random check of prices shows $7.50 children under 12, $10.50 Adult, at AMC Newport, Kentucky, (not an upscale market), giving a fair average of $9 a ticket. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More, in most locations I've heard of/visited. $11 for a 3D movie here in Salina, Kansas was the lowest I'd heard of until you mentioned that $10.50. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I saw the movie for $5 in 2D. 3D would have been $8. Grsz 11 02:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3D by me is £10.50 adult, £8.50 child. That's why I posted Kentucky price.μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to post something, but given the issues with sourcing of numbers, ticket price inflation, the effect of 3D on the revenue, it really needs to be of the form "A record xx million worldwide got to watch HP7B in it's opening weekend" with the number clearly sourced to an independent source (not just some website repeating what they have been told without disclosing who told them). Mtking (edits) 02:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, what a mess. Article posted, pulled. All this fuss over ticket prices in Kentucky seems hardly important to me. Anyway, we posted Avatar breaking records and its sales were also boosted by 3d sales. I don't know; one of the major complaints about ITN is that we don't post enough stories. We've got a decent article here with proven reader interest (interest which has nothing to do with box office records), certainly 'in the news', and people staunchly objecting because they don't think that 'type' of news is suitable here. There've been three separate discussions on this now. I can't remember if I !voted here but support anyway.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Johnsemlak votes THREE (bold caps intentional) times in support of this topic with the excuse that he "can't remember" whether he's voted here before? μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the three times. In fact I see one vote in the above section and one vote here, which is what many users have done. You might also want to read up on WP:NPA. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I get 3157 Google News hits in the last 24 hours on opening record "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows". Not all of them are about the same record but both the record and the opening itself is big news, and the article has around 200000 hits per day. That's more than all the currently bolded ITN articles together. We shouldn't reject the story because of record criteria news sources usually don't care about. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm tired of this drama here, but I'd just like to note that Medeis and Mtking are very much wrong when they said that there is no majority in support for the post. Medeis claimed that there were ten opposes. This is false. Here are all the users who have opposed by the time of posting: Candlewickle, Mtking, Courcelles, Swarm, Crispmuncher, Medeis. (There was an earlier oppose by Kevin McE, but it said that he opposes "any claim of a record based only on US/US + Canada data", which is not the case for this new blurb.) I haven't counted the number of supports in detail, but there are more than ten. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. Fox said he based his decision on support shown over the various discussions and there were ten opposes to eight supports in the non-closed sections above my comment. And even if you counted only the opposes in the third section they still outweighed the supports in the third section! This entire process is highly irregular, claims of "significance" (versus "popularity) are absurd, and the discussion should be closed down. μηδείς (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You just accused someone of lying for voting in two sections and now you're counting all the oppose votes from both sections, three of which are repeated? I don't really give a damn about this post or whatever happened during the discussions, but you are being extremely dishonest here. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I nowhere said lying, and you obviously have a problem with the plain meaning of English words. But you do have my sympathy for your obvious distress. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that Johnsemlak used a false "excuse" to do something that would be clearly against the rules. That is plainly an accusation of lying. I have no interest in getting into whatever dispute you might have had with him; the only reason I brought it up is because you lashed out at Johnsemlak for doing the exact same thing you just condoned, namely voting in multiple sections. As for my English ability, it is just fine, thank you. You're taking this discussion way too seriously, and I suggest you cool down lest you ruin your reputation with another silly personal attack like the preceding comment. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we are actually being honest about it there was very little opposition because most of the arguments made in opposition were refuted and Wikipedia is not a democracy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A follow up to a post you disagree with does not nuke the original position. In this particular case, myself and others have questioned the significance of unadjusted figures. The response was a simple assertion that it was still a record breaker even on that basis. If thta is shown to be true I would probably move positions. So I asked for a source, twice, and none has been forthcoming. If that is a sourced statement why not? If there is no source and it was made up on the spot then there is no rebuttal of any significance whatsoever. So where are these counter-arguments that neutralise the arguments you disagree with? They are not on this page. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
AP for starters. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try again. That doesn't even mention inflation adjustment. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
If your going to argue that then the only film that's ever going to meet the criteria is Gone with the Wind. Box Office Mojo only have non-inflation adjusted stats for the opening weekends. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is the assertion that has been made, so I am asking for evidence of it. It isn't an insurmountable burden since we are talking about opening rather than overall figures. We have more screens and screenings, with the 3D premium, and many more prints than in times gone by - the age of prints starting in the major cities, then being passed to large towns before ending up in the smaller towns a couple of months later are behind us. Films are released simultaneously in many more locales than previously to combat piracy. These are all factors that have arisen over periods varying from the last couple of years to perhaps the last 25, which collectively conspire to make for a much stronger opening. The fact we still can't find a real-terms record speaks volumes as to the real significance of the release. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Posted I am far from happy with this discussion, and I considered refraining from posting this item simply because of the unnecessary, abrasive comments, primarily from Eraserhead and Batjik Syutfu. And Medeis, in opposing this item, wasn't substantially better. As someone who doesn't participate in ITN/C discussions (and, to be honest, I actually don't), this discussion would be a deterrent for one to participate. I would like to point out to the sharks here that your respective opinions were made clear the first time you posted and, further, not a single person has changed his or her position on account of you hounding your opponents. So, perhaps for future discussions, instead of wasting your time and energy futilely ratcheting up the temperature in here, how about you work on finding and improving some other up and coming article?
With that being said, I think there actually is clear consensus that this should go up once it was clear Harry Potter broke the record. The precise record-breaking figure is not mentioned in the blurb on the Main Page and the item is not limited to US/Canada earnings, so opposes on those grounds seem irrelevant. There is no debate whether the film broke the record; it's just by how much. And I must say, I don't find it particularly savory that by halfway through the weekend, there was an almost unanimous decision to post the film on Monday at the latest. And then, when that time came, suddenly there were objections that could have been made before the film even came out. I honestly think some of you are setting the bar to high for inclusion of film items on ITN, but regardless, there seems enough support for this item to post with a well-written update to back it up. That's good enough. -- tariqabjotu 19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tariq, for your well-reasoned posting statement. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your criticism is uncalled-for, Tariq. I provided arguments based on available sources that the film does not set a record for seats filled, just for cost to the consumer. The 20087 and 2011 average US ticket prices are widely published. I pointed out the oddness of having three separate listed support votes by one person when the posting editor was citing overall support from different threads--but presumably should have stayed silent in face of the hysterical accusations of my calling people liars (where) or in face of false accusation against me of lying about the total numbers of votes over various sections?

It is quite obvious there is no consensus in favor of posting this item. If consensus means majority, we should say majority--and tally the votes. Where has this been done?

Worst of all, intentionally making the blurb vague so that its claims of "record setting" has no verifiable meaning is the sort of thing one expects from tabloids, not encyclopedias. Which this is. In case you have forgotten.

μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tariqabjotu fulfilled the role of admin here which is judging the debate and finding a consensus. We need more of that rather than less and I for one thank him, regardless of how I feel about this issue. I also think that once an admin makes a call, everyone should move on. If anyone has questions about how an admin came to a decision, it's probably best to take it to the talk page, or for that matter the admins talk page. RxS (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to move on as well, but given that Medeis just accused me of being hysterical, I'd like to clarify two points. First, what Medeis described as "point[ing] out the oddness of having three separate listed support votes" is this comment: "Wow, Johnsemlak votes THREE (bold caps intentional) times in support of this topic with the excuse that he "can't remember" whether he's voted here before?". I found this an inappropriate remark directed at another user, but obviously Medeis did not think it was. Fine, point settled.
Second, I did not accuse Medeis of lying. What I said was that he counted six "oppose" votes coming from three users (in two sections), right after he lashed out at another user for voting in different sections, and this seems to me quite bizarre. That is all that I said, and I apologize if anyone found this "unnecessary" and "abrasive" as Tariq did. For that matter, I did ask Tariq on his talk page about which comment of mine he referred to, but he chose not to respond. I'll respect his privacy. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, "lashed out". Pointing out factually that Johnsemlak was either disingenuous or incompetent for voting three times while saying he "couldn't remember" whether he had voted or not is a sin on my part. Of course.
If this were something important, like impeaching Barack Obama for his illegal war in Libya, I could understand your placing POV above factual accuracy and common decency. But go ahead, accuse me of crimes against humanity for protesting that Harry Pottery is not a reason for debasing Wikipedia to the sensationalist level of the New York Post and the News of the World. As for you 'administrators'--the ones who pass this nonsense, and the ones who let it stand--Shame on you. μηδείς (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there wasn't a debate about whether the film broke the record; the debate was whether the record was significant. And Tariq, finding a way to discount some of the opposers, obviously couldn't do so with the supporters who utterly failed to answer the argument that the record isn't significant. On top of that, I don't see how he could have interpreted a "clear consensus" based on only 53% support of the first blurb and 34% support of the second blurb. Yet he somehow managed to, providing a weak posting statement complete with a paragraph dedicated to personal attacks. IMO, this discussion definitely didn't yield a "clear consensus" and is the second instance of terrible judgement on the part of Tariq in the past few days. Swarm X 15:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Critising tariq. I don't think his complaint was so out of line to warrant any complaints on my part. I have taken it on board and so should you. With regards to significance it was pointed out several times that the opposition on that was too fussy as it'd mean we'd never post a film record.

With regards to "fan lobby" yes I have read the books but I haven't seen this movie yet and I've only seen about 2 of the previous ones (and yeah I do go to the cinema every couple of months) -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] MENA sticky

Issues hotting up: [21]/[22] Syria + Libya/[23] + Egypt/[24]/[25]/[26] + Bahrain/[27]/[28]/[29] + Jordan/[30] + Yemen/[31]/[32]/[33] + Iraq + UAE + TnusuaLihaas (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, surprise: Middle Eastern news agencies (less Xinhua) covering... Middle Eastern news! There are no actual newsworthy rolling developments to justify a sticky. Oppose. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Updates are too slow. This is obviously important. How can the entire Middle East be dismissed as just being the Middle East? 340 million people? --candle•wicke 08:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see the new issues i just added for libya, syria, yemen and bahrain. more bomigs, takeover of town, takeover of town with rival tribes and withdrawal fro natl dialogueLihaas (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lokon erupts

Article: Mount Lokon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In North Sulawesi, five thousand people are evacuated as Mount Lokon erupts. (Post)
News source(s): AsiaOne, Voice of American, CNN

Nom. --bender235 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Just one of several eruptions since Thursday night. There's two million people in that province and only 5,200 had to be evacuated. No reported casualties, and its smoke may disrupt flights. Unless it causes major casualties, property damage, or some type of major societal disruption (e.g. the Icelandic eruptions), it doesn't seem to be too major. Swarm X 18:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with your stance, I must object to your second sentence. Evacuated population vs. provincial population has no relevance in this story. North Sulawesi is a much more rural area compared to Java, which is the location of the highly reported 2010 eruptions of Mount Merapi. No population size in the outer islands of Indonesia will ever come close in comparison to the population density of Java. I ask that you don't simply dismiss them as "only" 5200 people. That is ground for systemic bias. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've struck it. Swarm X 19:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

July 16, 2011 (2011-07-16) (Saturday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Politics and elections

Sport

Vladimir Putin award row and retraction

Vladimir Putin
Vladimir Putin
Article: Quadriga (award) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Quadriga awarded to Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin (pictured) is retracted by organisers and the entire ceremony cancelled following protests against the decision by previous winners, including Václav Havel and Olafur Eliasson. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Deutsche Welle The New York Times Reuters The Washington Post

*Support Important international story that has already received wide attention in Germany, Russia and few other countries, and I hope so to be interesting for the readers of the English Wikipedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Seems like the whole discussion is heading in the wrong way and I don't like to be a victim of it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support seems very worthwhile - this sort of thing doesn't often happen. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning support. I dunno. I'm somewhat skeptical about this; I feel that if Jimmy hadn't been on the Board of Trustees (or whatever) for Quadriga and that fact hadn't been posted to foundation-l, this would have never crossed our sights. The news articles seem pretty short filler-style ones, but they are largely written by staff as opposed to news agencies. I would definitely oppose such a long blurb though; that seems to be giving it undue proportion in importance. NW (Talk) 23:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I support anything anti-russian regime news.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure yet Still trying to get my head around the significance of the Quadriga (award). Never heard of it, but that's OR. Very few sources from outside Germany in the article, and a lot are primary sources. Obviously not in the class of the Nobel Prize, yet, but if they really have been able to get those recipients (it's an impressive list) to turn up to receive their awards, they're getting there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the instructions above it says the nominator shouldn't mark an item as ready. As such I've removed it. Hot Stop (t) 03:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Quadriga award appears to be fairly obscure. NYT calls it "the relatively little-known accolade" and says that "The confusion stems from the fact that many here do not seem to know quite what the Quadriga prize is meant to represent"[34]. While this is an interesting story in terms of highlighting European attitudes towards Putin, the event itself isn't really going to have any significant policy implications, nationally or internationally. Does not seem to be ITN worthy to me. Nsk92 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same could apply to the Nobel Peace Prize... nobody really seems to know what it represents anymore, and claims as to what it does represent are generally nullified by a recipient's actions subsequent to receiving the award. Still a big deal regardless.--WaltCip (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was going to support given that it involves a prime minister and former president of Russia. But I'm a little cautious if that is the case. Nightw 07:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Dawn arrives at Vesta

Article: Dawn (spacecraft) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Dawn enters an orbit around asteroid 4 Vesta. (Post)
News source(s): NASA, BBC News, Washington Post

Nom. Will occur around 06:00 (UTC). --bender235 (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support at this time. I have two main concerns. Firstly the blurb needs some work. In particular we need to be explicit that Dawn is a deep space mission, we are not referring the the everyday sense of the term. It also needs to be re-written in the present tense. Secondly, it hasn't happened yet. As a result, if you want us to consider the update then no it is not ready. We need actual confirmation that the probe is in orbit and some decent updated content in the light of that: things that were not available before it entered orbit. I realise scientific results will take time but there will be other things to post: quotes from the team behind it, reaction, that sort of thing. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Support Several firsts here. (Editors should read Dawn (spacecraft)). Vesta is a BIG asteroid, the kind that fiction writers love, although behaving much better than most of those in fiction, and maybe that's the point. This IS educational stuff. For anyone who wants to argue "no impact on me", maybe THAT'S the point too. ;-) Both articles are in very good condition, Dawn (spacecraft) just needing update for the actual arrival. Very important scientific achievement HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per HiLo. Scientifically significant event. Swarm X 07:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested blurb: "NASA's unmanned Dawn spacecraft arrives at the asteroid Vesta." I've named the organisation responsible for the spacecraft, included the word spacecraft, made clear it is unmanned, and reduced the links to two (the spacecraft and the destination). Changed 'orbit' to 'arrives' as I'm not clear on what sort of orbit it will achieve. Also, I've piped 'Vesta' to the full name. Article update will still be needed, but if that happens, I would support this being posted. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, due to the high scientific value of the project. It's also the first time a spacecraft enters an orbit, de-orbits, and then heads toward another body. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 14:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support when it occurs, per Hilo48 and Ericleb01. Preferrably post a (new) photo of Vesta too, for illustration. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If story x is getting more than 10x more google news hits than story y and we have a suitable article for x we probably should post it as well as y as its clearly of interest to our readers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dawn has entered orbit around Vesta. (NASA) (NASA JPL tweet) I'll try to put something together now. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 12:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now it should be ready. There's also a note in the update explaining why we won't know the exact insertion time for some time until Vesta is studied more. We should have additional information from the Dawn team over the next few days once we get out of the weekend. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 12:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

July 15, 2011 (2011-07-15) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Indian troops report three deaths in Maidanpora, Kupwara, Kashmir. (BBC)
  • International campaigners against the drone attacks, carried out by the United States in Pakistan, launch their attempt to have former CIA legal chief John A. Rizzo arrested and charged with the murders of hundreds of people after his admission in Newsweek that he approved attacks each month since 2004. (The Guardian)
  • Soldiers, air force bombers and helicopter gunships begin a major offensive in south-eastern Turkey as the country's prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan vows to seek vengeance on Kurdish rebels. (BBC)
  • 2011 Syrian uprising: At least 14 people are killed in the latests attacks by regime forces on demonstrations in cities nationwide. More than 10,000 people are held in prisons by the regime. The demonstrations are reported to be among the largest yet in the ongoing effort to topple the government. (BBC)
  • 13 July 2011 Mumbai bombings: Indian investigators check CCTV footage in their search for clues into Wednesday's triple bombing in Mumbai. (BBC)

Arts and culture

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is released in theaters as the final installment of the famous Harry Potter franchise.

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Intragalactic relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
  • Italian MPs in the lower house approve tough budget cuts with 314 votes in favour and 280 against. (BBC)

Major offensive launched after deadliest attack in three years

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​ The Turkish government launches a major military offensive against Kurdish rebels after an ambush that proved to be the most fatal in three years. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

$16 million fine for bribing UN official

Article: Armor Holdings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ U.S. body armour manufacturer Armor Holdings pays a $16 million fine to settle charges of bribing a United Nations official between 2001 and 2006. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Support. I fail to see the relevance of tank liveries to the importance of this subject. While I don't agree that the UN is somehow automatically notable either $16m is chunky money. I would like to see some reference to BAE Systems in the blurb though, or at least not describe it as a US manufacturer when it is now in foreign hands. However, I do notice that the article needs a substantial update: the current coverage of this is too slight to be considered. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Just saying that if anyone was put at risk it was because of defective tanks and not body armor. Also $16 million is chump change in military terms. Marcus Qwertyus 01:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there isn't so much as a hint anywhere that the goods supplied were at all defective, just that the contract was awarded following improper inducements. And a multi-million dollar fine is still not small change even for defence multinationals, especially on a contract that was only worth a fraction of that to begin with. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Factoring inflation makes it a slap on the wrist. BAE spent more just on graphically modeling the U.S. Army's GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle and that is still years from completion. Marcus Qwertyus 03:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you going on about? Whether or not the fine was "a lot of money" isn't the point, nor is "the UN drives uncamouflaged tanks". Swarm X 06:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support, but the article's in such condition that it's almost an empty gesture. According to BBC News, "Armor Holdings" is indeed paying a fine, but according to the article, "Armor Holdings" was renamed and/or reorganized years ago and is a former entity. Confusion much? That's not even to mention that the article makes no mention of this whatsoever, so pending some major work, I don't see this happening. Swarm X 06:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral This is a significant event, but the article is in pretty bad shape. Someone needs to work on it - I would if I had the time. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bribes to a UN busybody (or letting them rape you in exchange for food, or whatever) are just a dirty daily fact of business in the worst parts of the world. I support this when the bribed officials get life sentences for corruption of office. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Rebekah Brooks resigns

Articles: News International phone hacking scandal (talk · history · tag) and Rebekah Brooks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International, resigns during the political controversy surrounding News International. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Blurb is awful I know; I just quickly tossed it together. To replace the current phone hacking scandal blurb. NW (Talk) 10:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose already posted this twice, no need to ost every single event. we dontdo that for olitics (taht affects the world) certainly not for some fringe co. (yes it is fringe)Lihaas (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You oppose valid items and support some ridiculous ones. That's pretty unhelpful to this section. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Really her resignation isnt interesting for anyone outside the UK. Neither is really the news that NOTW has been cancelled for good, that being on ITN only proves the Wikipedia English/american news bias.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A thoroughly unhelpful oppose alleging more "bias". A lot of recent discussion on the talk page focuses around the very matter of such opposes based on non-existent biases, and you only go and compound it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why there aren't rules forbidding users who are known to have used multiple sockpuppets to stack votes from participating in ITN? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but we do have rules against ad hominems and personal attacks, so you might like to strike that comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was not intended to be a personal attack, but I do see why it is inappropriate. Done. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (see below for comment on revised blurb) The News Corp scandal is probably the single most important political event to happen in the last few years, and this might very well be its apex. I completely disagree with BabbaQ's comment - this is hugely important around the world. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you honestly saying that had it been a for example slovenian newspaper in the same situation we would have published it on ITN? I highly doubt it, this is typical English/American bias. How is the phone hacking and cancelling of a newspaper in the UK relevant for the entire world. No im not buying it at all.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The News Corp scandal is probably the single most important political event to happen in the last few years (in the UK perhaps but not in the entire world. Its quite insignificant outside UK boarders.)--BabbaQ (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This whining about U.S. bias or anti-U.S. bias is tiresome. I've been accused plenty of times of both. Please stop with the condescending accusations - you're not the only person who pays attention to news.
I suggest you read the News Corp article to understand exactly how this is important on a global scale. Murdoch has a global media empire that has meddled in political activities for decades, from China to the United States. The vast majorities of movies you've watched, the vast majority of television shows you enjoy - they are all under the control of the same corporation. The fact that this corporation is being crippled by a once-in-a-decade scandal could very well result in important changes throughout the world. Comparing News Corp to a "slovenian newspaper" is simply ridiculous. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, it doesnt change the fact that had this been a slovenian /bulgarian or whatever newspaper of corp then it wouldnt have been a huge deal. This is basic American/english-news bias, just because it is a UK news doesnt make it worldwide important. And by the way, it is really ridiculous of you personally to bash someone for expressing their opinion calling them ridiculous. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call you ridiculous, I called your comment ridiculous, which it is. Now if a Slovenian newspaper also happen to be one of the main services provided by the second-largest media corporation in the world then yes, it would have been a huge deal. This has nothing to do with it being in the UK. I'm an ethnic Chinese currently living in Indonesia, having grew up in two other countries. Are you really accusing me of having UK bias? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support bump Significant event not only in US/UK but also here in Aus. Mtking (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure if it replaces the current blurb or is incorporated into it. No reason we can't be flexible as a story changes. No bump however. I am, however, thoroughly tired of claims of American (and/or UK) bias. If we ever do an arguments to avoid that'll be number one with a bullet. RxS (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm wondering if this is on the same level as the other previous posts. I suspect not but I'm not going to call it one way or another since there is at least a potential for coI - it would naturally displace the BSkyB blurb that I nominated. It appears to me that if ITN is not to devolve into running commentary of stories we need to isolate the significance of the specific story being considered from the significance of the wider frame story. It appears to me that without the wider scandal an executive of Brooks's stature resigning under a cloud would not be considered ITN material.

    The fact this is largely a domestic story here in the UK weighs in too. Yes, that is a valid consideration: while there is no requirement for a story to be of international importance the geographical scope of an article (national or by extension even sub-national) is fundamental to determining the relative significance of a story. To argue otherwise and that geographical scope is an irrelevance is to argue that a big story that only affects a small village of say 500 people is more significant than a lesser story of multinational proportions. We're discussing this story here and it is not shoe-in nor a SNOW. Does the closure of e.g. an individual primary school rank ahead of this story on the basis that that story is more significant to the one square mile or whatever that school serves? Crispmuncher (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
You might have a mistaken impression that it is a domestic story because you're in the UK. This has gotten HUGE responses in Asia, where I live. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without the wider scandal it wouldn't make it to ITN, but that's not the situation here. It's part of the larger story and that's what's carrying this forward and making it something suitable for ITN. This is not a domestic story. It's being covered globally and is having real world consequences far outside the UK. RxS (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plus Brazil. --candle•wicke 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'* Strong support clear worldwide interest given the whole story. Am happy to justify this tomorrow. But it's Friday night and pub o clock. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support bumping the existing blurb. Major development in a significant ongoing story. Modest Genius talk 19:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CEO of the company that runs the Wall Street Journal? Definitely. Better blurb proposed below. I'm assuming there is already an update.
  • NW (Talk) 23:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unmarked [Ready]: revised blurb and in particular fresh bold targets warrant further discussion. I'm also firming up to an oppose in respect of of NuclearWarfare's proposed blurb simply because that would be highlighting News International phone hacking scandal for a second time in nine days. I would suggest getting Les Hinton properly updated and leading with the individuals instead, but adding Hinton at this stage still needs more evidence of consensus. Finally, I also note that neither were at News Corp itself but subsidiaries. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • The Les Hinton development is a big surprise, and makes it relevant to the US. There may be more to come. There will be adverts in all the newspapers this weekend with 'apologies to the nation' for what happened here. One thing, though - I wouldn't call this a 'political controversy'. It is more than just politics, as it involves an independent public inquiry headed by a judge, with wide-ranging powers, and it involves possible police corruption as well. As they say, this story has legs. Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is headline news in the non-Murdoch media in Australia. (Not so big in his papers, for some inexplicable reason.) Rupert has even apologised to his mum, who still lives here near Melbourne. Yes, he IS old, but she's 102! I'd be interested to know what she thought. News Corp has a big slice of the Oz media, so it matters. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I definitely support the revised blurb, and I don't think it requires further discussion. Brooks' resignation was notable enough to post and Hinton's on top of that is even bigger news. This is MAJOR news worldwide and we ought to post this ASAP. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Articles both updated marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does not require further discussion? Marking ready? When it has already been pointed out that a last minute change to the blurb, after it had already been marked Ready once, is something that is clearly and uncategorically wrong? Again, neither of them were at News Corp. In any case, since when has one support and one oppose amounted to consensus here? Crispmuncher (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
          • You didn't oppose the new change; what you opposed was the original blurb as well, in which case there was overwhelming consensus to post.
          • The last minute change was made to reflect the clearly much more notable news that Hinton resigned. Given that the original blurb already has a consensus to post, and then we have another even more notable event on top of that, there is little need for another exhaustive discussion.
          • In any case, clearly there's more than one person supporting the update here. Eraserhead was the one who marked ready, not me, and I'd like to note that he and I has barely agreed on anything during my short history of contributing to ITN discussions.Batjik Syutfu (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please-read my original comments: there is no point engaging in straw man arguments when what I wrote is still on this very page. I did not call the original blurb one way or another but was explicitly against the revised one. Who decided this is "clearly much more notable"? You? Why do we even bother with these discussions then - we can just wait to see what you think. The Hinton story got on ITN with minimal scrutiny by hanging on the coat tails of another story and changing its scope completely right at the last minute. It also does not change the fact the blurb posted was factually incorrect. That alone is evidence that it did not receive sufficient scrutiny. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Posted bump with the Hinton developments.  ƒox  09:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2 Opens World Wide

As an uninvolved editor in this discussion, I'm going to close this. There is no consensus here, but there is some general agreement (even amongst a number of opposers) that any revenue record should be re-nominated when final opening weekend revenues are released. Until then, this nomination is unlikely to gain consensus, and we should all stop beating a dead horse. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (talk · history · tag) and Harry Potter (film series) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2, the final film installment of the popular book series, opens in the World Wide (Post)
Both articles updated
Oppose Not news. It's expected, and it really has no significance in society beyond its role as entertainment.
=> Neutral, in consideration of the record-breaking gross. I personally don't believe breaking a box office record is a reason to post, but I can see why some would. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support final movie in a massive series of worldwide notability. Clearly vastly worthy of posting. Don't really see how you can justify not posting it (same as the above story really). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The final movie in an 8-movie series in one of the most dominant franchises in decades.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The end of Era, No sequels, remakes, or reboots will be made for decades... if ever. $2 billion grossed for just the movies and cultural icon to a generation. (Bit biased here since its my generation) The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I try not to make accusation of US bias, although I am aware that many do, but this is a very crass example of such a bias in proposal. It has been released in (according to its article here) Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, UK, Puerto Rico and "several other countries" before its release in the US, but we are expected to make a headline out of its US release??? Kevin McE (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our article says it was released world wide on July 15, I have rephrased the blurb appropriatelyThe Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We can mend the blurb to reflect on the worldwide release, but it's no one's fault that it wasn't nominated two days ago. It's not US bias... well, maybe the blurb. I support posting the release in general, in any case, as it's the closing chapter in the highest-grossing film series of all time -- not adjusted for inflation of course. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that talking about the American release only is folly but why not just change the blurb to the film's release--period? Honesly... Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose if no major records are broken...support otherwise. simple as that -- Ashish-g55 17:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The movie has already broken one record, although I'm not sure how significant it is: It's made the most money ever in midnight ticket sales, $43.5 million or so, if Warner Bros is to believed. source Again, I'm not sure how significant it is in the long run or if it merits a posting on ITN, but seeing as how the timer has been red for like a day and a half... --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 17:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We put up a blurb noting the release of the final book when it came out under the argument that the Harry Potter series is a cultural phenomenon and therefore the end of the series is a major deal. To any comments that claimed we were advertising a product, the reply was that an item on ITN was not going to convince anyone to go out and buy a book. --PlasmaTwa2 18:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose unless it breaks a major record. Modest Genius talk 19:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose a movie opening woop-dee. didnt [ost titatnic that was highexst grossing.Lihaas (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unless, as MG says, it breaks some sort of box-office record. And it's technically old news, since it was first released two days ago. Nightw 20:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it did for opening night tickets sales it shattered the previous midnight showing by getting 43 million where the previous was 30 million The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a major record. I was thinking total revenue or total audience. How widespread are midnight openings anyway? Isn't that a fairly recent thing? Modest Genius talk 21:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a major record, and it's one record that is broken pretty much once every two months... Maddox (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this is cheap news, even by 'entertainment news' standards. Yes, it's a "blockbuster" movie, but in the grand scheme of things it's an utterly irrelevant event. Unless it tops Avatar, no way. Swarm X 03:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harry Potter is one of the most notable book series in the history of the world ever. The only books I would be confident to say outsold it are the Bible and the Koran and shit that's it. Its clearly vastly more notable than the 25th bomb in Pakistan to kill 50 people this year which would get posted without question.
    • This is the final movie made of the series, which as well as being one of the most popular book series it is one of the biggest cultural phenomenons of the past 20 years, it is therefore clearly vastly notable and vastly worthy of posting. We may as well give up on ITN completely if it isn't going to get stuff like this right.
    • Given all that marking [Ready], both articles look decent enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: No way in hell can we post this and not be accused of promoting the film(s).  ƒox  08:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you oppose the completion of the Sistine Chapel on the grounds that we shouldn't be promoting the Catholic Church? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny. You can't, in your right mind, expect Wikipedia to retain any neutrality by posting "XYZ film is opening today", especially one like this.  ƒox  09:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - it isn't just "any film". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor would anybody be convinced to go watch it just by seeing it here. Grsz 11 02:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any event of any significance has PR, for example the Beijing Shanghai railway certainly did. What counts is that its getting massive media coverage now, and that its one of the biggest cultural events of the past 20 years, and is the final movie of the biggest selling book series ever. According to the Wikipedia article the first book additionally has sold over 100 million copies, which puts it up there with the Lord of the Rings etc - unfortunately it isn't sourced - but if the series has sold 450 million its certainly plausible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, the first book. Which one's this film based on..? No amount of "but we posted..." is going to change my mind here.  ƒox  09:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this is the last movie in the series, which is the biggest selling book series of all time. Arguing that a book only released in 2007 has to beat the Tale of Two Cities which has been out for 150 years in sales to be notable is absurd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Um, guys... This is going to break the worldwide opening weekend record, the opening weekend record in the US and Canada, and the opening day record in the US and Canada. However we need to wait until after the weekend when this is officially confirmed. Theleftorium (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is something I could see myself supporting. It actually achieving something. Mtking (edits) 10:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need to post the record for the movie. Posting Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2, the final film installment of the best selling book series ever opens worldwide. is clearly basically as notable as a cultural event can possibly be. I cannot fathom how anyone can consider this item worthy of opposing as it stands unless they have been living under a rock since 1997.
  • I mean Jesus Christ I probably won't even go and see this movie at all, but I can see that the final movie of a half billion selling book series is kinda going to be notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the record confirmed? I'd support that also. Still opposed to just mentioning that it came out. Nightw 12:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds are you opposing it? WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't really enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering it's over the weekend, the earliest possible date for confirmation is the Monday. Although we'll likely have a pretty good idea by Sunday.  ƒox  12:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The record that its the biggest selling book series ever is confirmed yes. The inability of people here to judge a notable event in any other area than bombs going off is utterly disgusting, and a disgrace to the effort put in to make the section functional. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Part of editing Wikipedia means that people are inevitably going to disagree with you about what is important and what is not. You might not agree, but it is entirely valid to say think any number of these things:
  1. The posting of the movie releases as opposed to the book releases is not the same thing in terms of significance.
    Therefore, the book records should not have an impact on whether we post the movie or not.
  2. We would be better off linking it on the Main Page during the Oscars.
  3. We should only post the Harry Potter movies, or any movie, if and when they shatter a major record along the lines of Avatar.
I sense you're getting a little frustrated, and I'm going to ask that you step back and smell the roses a bit before you begin violating WP:NPA. NW (Talk) 14:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't the final movie you'd have more of a point, but it isn't and this one has got 32000 Google News hits as well. All of them ultimately come down to a total aversion to posting any kind of cultural event. Even ones which are clear cultural phenomenons.
If we aren't going to post Potter today I don't see honestly how one can view the section as worthwhile. There is no point in ITN if all it can manage to do is post bombs. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The film has now shattered the opening day record in the US/Canada with over $92 million (way above expectations). See [37]. That's 20 million more than the previous record! Opening weekend record is locked now. Theleftorium (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get that nominated in a new post under today's date, please? That's worth supporting, and this nomination has run its course. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to wait until Sunday because that's when we get the opening weekend estimates, both for US/Canada and worldwide. Theleftorium (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead, could you refrain from hounding everyone who !votes oppose? They're entitled to their opinions. At the moment it looks like you're on some sort of crusade to get this posted. If and when this breaks a major record (opening weekend revenue seems likely), it should be renominated, and I imagine will gain consensus easily. Modest Genius talk 23:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I share Eraserhead's frustration here. Yes people are entitled to their own opinions but when people argue 'opening record--woopdee' with no care as to whether our readers are interested in it is distressing. The article has 200k views--that's very strong reader interest. This is the end of a fantasy franchise which began 14 years ago with the publication of the first HP novel--it's not just any movie. There seems to be a paranoia against posting 'commercial stories' which I can't understand. Wikipedia pages are not advertisements; they are written from NPOV and they often contain criticism of the article's subject. I can't understand why people think the Wikipedia's main page's content should be dictated by misguided fears that we might be promoting a film. Eraserhead and other editors here aren't arguing out of COI. Fisnally, the same story is being covered by all sorts of mainstream media outlets--are the BBC, the Guardian, and NPR being paid off by Rowling to increase movie sales?--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now. The opening raised the record for biggest "domestic" (USA+Canada) box office day from $72,703,754 to $92,100,000.[38] World wide numbers are harder to collect and compare but it's also a huge international success and probably had the biggest world wide day on July 15. I get 17400 Google News hits on "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" in the last 24 hours. The opening of a huge film is the big news. By the time opening weekend is calculated it is already smaller news, and it takes weeks or months after that to compete for biggest total. Ending the highest-grossing film series is also important. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support posting now. This is notable. Period. Anybody arguing otherwise is either kidding themselves, or just stupid. Grsz 11 01:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, tending to oppose Anything that attracts "votes" like that ^ is problematical. Wikipedia needs to have some standards. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Honestly, meh. Just meh. I spent nearly the entirety of the last three days at a college orientation (Boomer!) where it seems like this was one of the hot topics of conversation, so I apologize if I'm a little burnt out on this. I love this series and its accomplishments are certainly noteworthy, but honestly, I don't consider it "news" in the strictest sense. I'm fine if it goes up and I'm fine if it doesn't. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 14

July 14, 2011 (2011-07-14) (Thursday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture
  • The poet Liao Yiwu tells the BBC of how he fled China via Vietnam and other countries and arrived in Germany after his struggles with Chinese authorities who have spent decades suppressing his work and imprisoning him. (BBC)
  • A rare manuscript of an unfinished Jane Austen novel has sold for £993,250 (US$1.6m) in London. The work, The Watsons, was sold at Sotheby's for three times its estimated price. (BBC)

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

Kidnapped Estonian cyclists released

Article: 2011 Estonian cyclists abduction (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ After four months in captivity, seven Estonian cyclists are released in Lebanon. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Jul-15/Estonians-set-free-but-hunt-for-captors-persists.ashx#axzz1S9y6MtUw
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Widely covered all over the place and deserves a mention at ITN. —Biosketch (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak support if updated. beleive weposted the kidnappings, so the release should follow. were also over 24 hours with a red warning aboveLihaas (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're over 24 hours with a red warning is not a good argument for posting anything; and if you did use that as a criteria, surely that would count in the above nomination regarding Rebekah Brooks. More proof of disruption... For the record, we did not post the kidnapping. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
my opinion not uours. your disrptuion as an attack rather than a support provides NOTHING. i dont brooks is as worthy ()see above first__) if you want to use that arguement than about half the arguemnts here "per above dont mean crap all!!! dont tell me about hypfrisyLihaas (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, it would be much easier for all of us if you ran a spell-check on your comments before posting. They require significant effort to decipher. Modest Genius talk 21:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Former Argentine officers are convicted of torture and murder

Article: Dirty War (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Two former Argentine officers are convicted for kidnapping, murder, and torture. (Post)
News source(s): [39]

9/11 phone hacking investigation to start

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​ The FBI starts an investigation into allegations that 9/11 victims were subject to phone hacking (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14162545

Possibly to replace the current phone hacking blurb but this starting a new investigation into hacking on 9/11 victims seems highly notable in its own right. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Investigations can be started at the drop of a hat. If there are criminal charges, that's another matter. Would prefer to wait for those, if they actually end up happening. NW (Talk) 20:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Overall, this is one of those huge stories that is always developing more and more. We simply can't post every new development, so we should only stick to major ones, such as (as NW said) criminal charges, etc. Swarm X 23:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Lost rainbow toad rediscovered

Article: Ansonia latidisca (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The lost rainbow toad is rediscovered in Borneo and photographed for the first time by scientists from Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS). (Post)
News source(s): BBC
  • Support. I was thinking about nominating this, a species thought extinct seems like a ITN worthy item. I think the article - Ansonia latidisca - needs some work first though. - JuneGloom Talk 19:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Meh. Definitely interesting, but it wasn't 'thought extinct', and its conservation status is only 'endangered'. It was just "lost". I have absolutely no idea how significant a rediscovery of a "lost species" is, so I'm opposing based on the fact that it doesn't seem to be a major event in the grand scheme of things. Swarm X 23:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems like an interesting animal and animals don't get rediscovered that often, besides the timer is red. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Off beat story that's still of interest. Especially given how long it's been since it's been seen. RxS (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unusual and interesting science story. We often post the discovery of new species (at least of large animals), and rediscovering one which hadn't been seen for so long seems comparable. Article is short, but passes the criteria. Marking as ready. Modest Genius talk 19:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to be rude, but I can't fathom how we deliberated for forty hours and the only article we posted happens to have two relevant sentences. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily removing. There are only 2 paragraphs, each of which is not even 5 sentences long! I'm very willing to repost when the article is expanded more. SpencerT♦C 02:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2 paras of 5 sentences works on the VAST majority of ITN articles. get consensus befoer unilateral censorshioLihaas (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless properly updated. The article (not just the update, the whole article) would have to be 2.5x expanded to even qualify for DYK; I see no reason why ITN should adopt looser standards than DYK. NW (Talk) 19:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New record in Sumo

Article: Kaiō Hiroyuki (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In sumo, ōzeki Kaiō Hiroyuki earns 1,046th career win, breaks Chiyonofuji Mitsugu's record for most career victories. (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post

 --61.245.25.7 (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While an interesting story, this goes under sport statistics in my opinion and I am not in favour of those. The article is in a pretty good shape, though. --Tone 15:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT AS A record first.Lihaas (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Tone. "Interesting" or "record" sports stats are like once-in-a-lifetime astronomical occurrences - there's simply that many of them that they are common when considered collectively. The vast majority are completely non-notable and only the most exceptional gain widespread attention. I don't see this as being one of those cases. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose. Previous consensus has been almost uniformly opposed to stories based on sports statistics only, and I don't see any reason to change that. Modest Genius talk 19:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explosions in Abadan, Turkmenistan

Article: Abadan, Turkmenistan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Massive explosions in an ammunition depot in Abadan, Turkmenistan reportedly caused over 1,300 deaths. (Post)
News source(s): EuroAsiaNet, Radio Free Europe, Fergana News (Russian)
"Breaking" in the sense that it was originally thought to be a fireworks depot, not an arms dump (Turkmenistan government still claims it is), and the death toll was originally thought to be no higher than 15, but since yesterday opposition groups report more than 1,300 deaths. --bender235 (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If it is only being reported now we could not have known last week. There's a big difference between -15 and 1,300+. --candle•wicke 18:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose wishy washy deals no surety as to whqatis hapeenins g . opp grouos just want to oppose govt action anywhere,Lihaas (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty safe this isn't a story made up by the Turkmeni opposition. At least in my eyes this doesn't look like a fireworks warehouse. BTW: were you typing with your feet, or what? --bender235 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though the blurb should be cleaned up a bit (i.e. no "possibles"). However, over 1,000 deaths is astounding and definitely significant. Swarm X 23:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support very large number of deaths. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This seems to be a significant event, but the section at its current state consists of two sentences with little more information than the blurb; and there seems to be significant controversy over the death toll. Will support if some reliable sources can back this up. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A number of German media outlets picked the story up (Tagesschau, Zeit), but they're only relying on the sources mentioned above. --bender235 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm concerned at the lack of confirmation from major Western news agencies. Is there convincing evidence for that number of deaths? If so it would be clearly notable, but at present how is anyone to know? Also, the article is nowhere near sufficient. Modest Genius talk 19:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan joins UN

Article: South Sudan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously votes to admit South Sudan as a member of the United Nations. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14151390

Sorry if I haven't formatted this properly or if I haven't followed some sort of procedure; I hardly ever venture over this way, and consent to any changes necessary. A new country officially coming into being struck me as being main page worthy. —WFC— 18:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The country's coming into being appeared in the ITN section last week. --candle•wicke 18:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If this were a country like Switzerland joining after years of being a neutral country, or a country like Taiwan being given a seat, I'd support. But I don't see anything special here. Hot Stop (t) 19:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm inclined to oppose on the grounds that we posted it last week. On the other hand the article did get massive hits last week (260k) so possibly it is worth posting again. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It would only be worth posting it again if South Sudan refused to join the UN. NW (Talk) 20:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose South Sudan joins African Union, South Sudan joins IOC, South Sudan joins Arab League, etc. etc. All of them would happen only for one reason: South Sudan is a new country. This is expected and is not news. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is just the business of forming a new State, the news was the creation, and that was posted. Mtking (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is simply another element of statehood. What's the real difference between this and e.g. the country starting to issue passports, printing its own currency, forming bilateral diplomatic relations, or even getting its own dialing code? Ultimately these are all natural (and to a greater or lesser extent inevitable) consequences of the story we have already reported. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support Perhaps a futile support, but joining UN is a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Joining the UN is indeed a Very Big Thing, and if a country was doing so after a period of years outside the organisation, I would support. But we featured the independence last week. This is just part of the independence process, not a major new shift in foreign policy. Modest Genius talk 20:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

July 13, 2011 (2011-07-13) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

Sports

[Posted] Somalia drought

Article: 2011 Horn of Africa drought (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls on countries worldwide to urgently support the work of UN agencies in the Horn of Africa drought. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC News

Nominator's comments: the situation in drought-hit Somalia is the "worst humanitarian disaster" in the world --93.137.222.204 (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Not ready. Article is too short imo, and much of what is there is padding. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just expanded the article. It is now, by my count, around twenty times longer than the frog article you just posted. Can we post this now? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] News Corp kills BskyB bid

Article: BSkyB#News_Corporation_takeover_proposal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ News Corporation abandons its bid for full ownership of BSkyB following political pressure amid the ongoing phone hacking controversy. (Post)
News source(s): [40][41]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: We've has a few nominations relating to this story over the last few days including at least one that was more "running commentary" than substantive new developments. I think this one is significant enough it its own right for a posting. Minority topic asserted as a business story, albeit one with heavy political dimensions. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This story has been the #1 news story in the UK for a week, the USA for the last couple of days, and today much of the English speaking world. It's now conspicuous by its absence from the main page. Fig (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS wikilink "hacking controversy" to News_of_the_World_phone_hacking_affair in the blurb Fig (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support top story on the BBC earlier today, which warranted a special banner. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment what is the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was intentionally vague at nomination, mostly to get the ball rolling as articles are updated - blurbs can be tweaked as things evolve. I suspect BSkyB is the main bold article for this one. It's debatable whether the update criteria are satisfied: the coverage of today's events is probably insufficient but in the wider context we have a solid and well referenced couple of paragraphs of events over the last couple of days as they relate specifically to the proposed blurb. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK I've tightened up the blurb and got 4 sentences on the latest incident as well as a significant amount of further background. Marking [Ready] given the lack of opposition. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.per Eraserhead--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. It's a bump, but it seems to be of global interest given the consensus. (This does however mean we've put two up in a very short space of time...)  ƒox  22:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a huge fan of this, but I suppose it provides a nice contrast to the rest of the articles on ITN: terrorist attack, assasination, explosion, naval disaster, and...netball. I will look forward to see how this posting of "Murdoch backs down from making a business deal under political pressure" will compare with the eventual ITN discussion of "US Government decides not to hit its debt ceiling" (hopefully it's that discussion, and not "well, the entire global economy is screwed now"). NW (Talk) 01:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why minority topics are given preferential treatment - to throw a bit of variety into the mix. "Shit happened, x dead", "Major cock-up, y dead", "Monumental incompetence, z dead" gets a bit samey after a while. I'm the first to oppose too easy a ride for any story here, but if the whole format gets too dry and predictable, posting only stories that fit some criterion that would ultimately prove very narrow, then we quickly lose interest and with it front page status. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

[Posted] Blasts in Mumbai

Article: 13 July 2011 Mumbai bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 21 reported killed, 113 injured in 3 coordinated bomb blasts in Mumbai, India. (Post)
News source(s): IBN, The Guardian CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: News still sketchy, as the blasts occured just 15 minutes ago. Lynch7 13:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might change to 'support' when more details arrive. Mar4d (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in light of recent developments. Mar4d (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, news may be updated later, but should be on main page as fast as possible.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support when the articles been expanded to at least the minimum quality. It's not close at this point, right now it reads like a news flash. RxS (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

potential for nuclear war???? i was willing ot go to kulfi centre right now as i write. (liquor store closed though...oitherwise i could have got pics for the WP page.)Lihaas (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as soon as the article is in decent shape. This is making news everywhere. So far we have 10 confirmed casualties. @Wikireader41: I haven't heard ISI being referred to in NDTV, IBN or Times Now although LeT and the IM have been named by the media (not the police) as prime suspects - the Mumbai police officer who spoke to the media just a while ago confirmed 3 IEDs and said they are collecting forensic evidencce. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it was on Sahara Samay. IM is considered to have strong ties to ISI by many in India and elsewhere just like LeT. Obviously this is media speculation but many people believe that. Especially in light of where the investigation of 2008 Mumbai attacks went.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Home Ministry confirms terrorist attack. Lynch7 16:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, its in a decent enough shape and we can always flesh it out as more details come to light. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no biggie, we have it all the time and there arent even the nakabandis on the road. Sure Haji Ali may be closed but thats not barometer. the club was open and EMPTY. lets see if we have a bandh tomorrowLihaas (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Thue | talk 18:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

July 12, 2011 (2011-07-12) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

Sports

Egypt

Article: Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Supreme Council of the Armed Forces#July (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Three former Egyptian ministers are sentenced to jail as the country's deputy prime minister Yehia El-Gamal resigns on the fifth day of a sit-in by demonstrators at Tahrir Square. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera News 24 BBC News
Article needs updating
At the bottom. It would naturally replace itself. :-) --candle•wicke 01:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated: Yesterday there was a big protest, the SCAF made a statement regarding the ongoing sit-in that made the protesters even more angry. Another huge protest is gonna take place this Friday were demands might be getting rid of the SCAF. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A first ever

Article: Richard Parks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Wales rugby union international Richard Parks becomes the first person to complete the Explorers Grand Slam in a single calendar year. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/143809.html?e=headline
Richard Parks becomes the first person to complete the Explorers Grand Slam in a single calendar year.  ? --candle•wicke 00:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be better. A) We all know that Scots and Welshmen who do well in sport are "British", but they're "Scottish" or "Welsh" when they lose! ;) And B) his rugby playing isn't really relevant to this feat. The article needs work, anyway. This Grand Slam thing isn't covered in any great detail. Probably because you'd have to be insane to want to do that... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support as a firstt, should thr article be adequately updated.Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, while this is rather impressive, it falls into the "sports trivia" category. Why is it particularly important that he did it within a single calendar year? Many others did this, although it took them longer. And this formulation may be inaccurate, as he begun in December 2010. --Tone 12:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sports trivia. Thue | talk 13:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Trivia of low notability. A Google news search of "Richard Parks" in the last week gives 7 relevant results: 3 from the same Welsh site, 1 other Welsh hit, 1 from BBC and a single German. Several people have climbed the Seven Summits in less than 7 months but I guess most climbers are uninterested in the Poles. "Explorers Grand Slam" is a cool sounding name but a think few people care about this combination. And there is no competition like much better known Grand Slams so doing it in a calendar year sounds more like a question of spending the time and money than doing something others couldn't have done. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for similar reasons to PrimeHunter hints at. I question how widely regarded this particular "grand slam" is. It strikes me as the kind of thing a single person can advance in a magazine article or whatever, and then is completely ignored until someone does it. when all of a sudden it's hugely significant. The more artificial the criteria the less notable the achievement. In this case in this case we have an achievement of questionable notability to begin with that to become a "first" has to be done within a year. Presumably that isn't good enough so it needs to be further narrowed down to a calendar year. Each time the scope is narrowed down the story becomes less and less notable. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose per PrimeHunter, Crispmuncher et al. Mocctur (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune

Article: Neptune (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Neptune completes its first orbit since its discovery in 1846 by Johann Galle. (Post)
News source(s): [42],
Credits:

Article needs updating

 Everyone Dies In the End 18:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's an interesting fact, but I'm not sure it's ITN material. It would've been cool to have it as the FA today, but I guess it's already appeared on the main page (Neutral fyi). Hot Stop (c) 18:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
150+ years for 1 year, wow! im so young. definate support. can you imagine when im a rockign teen  ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Highly interesting, and there is only a small number of planets in our Solar System. Mocctur (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would this not be more appropriate for OTD? Somehow... ? --Tone 19:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK candidate instead? Nightw 05:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's sad that the world no longer cares about astronomy. It's what led us to the moon on the first place. I think it's because most of the population now lives in overlit cities and can no longer see the stars. Pity. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Space exploration took us to the Moon, which is NOT astronomy. Besides, astronomy gets more stories on ITN than, say, chemistry or physics. Modest Genius talk 20:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. ITN is too Milky Way centric. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I seriously considered nominating this myself but ultimately decided against it. It is notable enough in my view but the problem is the update: what new can we say? Most news reports I looked at used it as a frame story for reviewing the progress of scientific understanding: there are no actual events of note and anything we wedge in to satisfy short-term update criteria will eventually be bounced out on recentism grounds. Remember that ITN is not (nor is it intended to be) a news source and does cover any story purely on its own merits, no matter how significant or interesting. Rather, its raison d'être is to highlight new or updated content. In the absence of substantive new content there is nothing to consider regardless of the intrinsic merits of the story. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's a little different and it's so far away. It is also unlikely to happen again this century (unless something even more significant and ITNworthy happens to cause it to do so). --candle•wicke 00:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an interesting item, but I can't see how an event like this gets more than a single sentence in the article. The event doesn't deserve more than a single sentence, and that would fail ITN update criteria. (And no, a full paragraph with quotes commemorating Galle and information about celebrations wouldn't really add to the article either). So I'm forced to weak oppose. SpencerT♦C 01:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I feel that there are far too few science-related articles on ITN, but this seems to me completely trivial. Would be more willing to support if someone can find actual responses to this event, e.g. some scientists decide to hold a celebration or a talk. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, basically per Batjik Syutfu. I also would like to see more Science stories in ITN, but this one does not really cut it - there is no scientific discovery or advance documented here, or a record/observation of a previously unknown/unseen cosmological event. Nsk92 (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News International Hacking Scandal

Article: News of the World phone hacking affair (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ UK newspaper hacking scandal spreads to other News International publications (Post)
News source(s): (BBC), (CNN), (ABC Australia)
Credits:

Article needs updating
  • Oppose per NW. Mocctur (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until there are significant new developments, which there almost certainly will be. Swarm X 19:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I actually do think that there have been significant developments since the closure of News of the World, just that they have been happening with such frequency that it's hard to pinpoint some exact watershed moments. For example, it's certainly notable that the Murdochs have been called to testify before the Parliament; and its borderline-noteworthy as well that Gordon Brown made such strong accusations against the newspapers. This should be on ITN somehow, but perhaps with a different blurb. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Ahmad Wali Karzai

Article: Ahmad Wali Karzai#Death (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ahmad Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, is assassinated in Kandahar, Afghanistan (Post)
News source(s): (Haaretz), (Los Angeles Times), Washington Post
Credits:

Article needs updating
Support when updated: Big news; Taliban claiming Ahmad Wali Karzai death as big achievement. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An important person, who has regularly been mentioned in western news. Thue | talk 10:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs some work first. At the moment, it's just about controversies about him, not about his life and work. --Tone 11:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the death section needs more references. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose How about let's reserve death notices on ITN to folks that more than a handful of readers may have heard of? Merely "notable" deaths can be listed on the Recent Deaths page.212.139.252.232 (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is the relatively unknown brother of a President (of a small country) really important enough? We just decided not to post the death of Betty Ford. The article is short and with very few interwikis (3, Ford's article had ten times more). Mocctur (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on his death being front page news around the world, you mean? Obviously someone of no importance at all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And he was consistently described as one of the most powerful people in Afghanistan. Swarm X 19:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major news topic, significant assassination. Swarm X 19:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle as the death has obvious and significant effects on current events. It would be helpful for the biography to be more of a biography though. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I'm not so concerned about the article any more. I've added a brief section to the article on his political career. Otherwise, all his obituaries are focusing on corruption allegations and CIA connections, so it's not unreasonable that our article gives those two matters significant weight as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All the news-coverage uniformly describes him as a prominent and controversial political figure in Afghanistan (to quote BBC, "A high-profile half-brother of Afghan President "[49]) who played a crucial role in Afghanistan's security system . His assassination is significant in several ways: is a high-profile victory for the Taliban and it will also likely to have serious effect on the security situation in the country. As NPR puts it "The assassination of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's influential brother leaves a power vacuum in the country's south just as stability seemed to be returning in the region that once served as the Taliban capital"[50]. The article seems to be in reasonable shape now. Nsk92 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

July 11, 2011 (2011-07-11) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

[Posted] Cyprus explosion

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​ An explosion at a Cyprus Navy base kills 12 people including the country's navy chief, triggering the resignation of defence minister Costas Papacostas. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Cyprus Mail, AFP/Reuters via ABC

Nominator's comments: Low number of casualties, but given the importance of the victims and the fact that the country's defence minister has quit over the blast, it seems a fair chance a good article could be created for this. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

July 10, 2011 (2011-07-10) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics

Sports

Kalka Mail Accident

Article: Kalka Mail Accident (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 35 are killed in a train derailment near Kanpur, India (Post)
News source(s): indiatimes.com, Associated Press, nytimes.com, cnn.com
Credits:

Article needs updating

54 people have been killed in a train crash in India. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, article? NW (Talk) 21:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article would be Kalka Mail Accident.[51]--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Train accident with 35 dead. We just decided not to post the Hewa Bora Airways Flight 952 accident with 127 dead. Mocctur (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please quit being WP:POINTy. The accident had 70 deaths and, as I said below, some contributors will flat out oppose aviation accidents as a whole; the reason why it was probably struck down. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please stop making false allegations. I opposed the Hewa Bora Airways Flight 952 accident, and I'm going to continue opposing non-notable train and aviation accidents. The article, which is also merely a stub, does not support your claim of 70 dead and said 35 dead at the time I wrote my comment. The only argument I've seen in this discussion for posting this is "Significant death toll". The other discussion established that a death toll of 127 was not in itself significant enough. There's nothing special about the train accident, it was not a terrorist attack or unique in any way. Incidents with death tolls like this happen regularly across the world. Mocctur (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The accident" referred to the Hewa Bora accident, which you wrongly and repeatedly referred to as having caused 127 deaths, when in fact it caused 70 deaths. An accident does not have to be "unique". An accident is an accident. The fact that an accident is different than another accident does not make it suddenly notable. I also agree that terrorist attacks are very notable, but that does not mean that we should be completely ignorant of every other major accident in the world. Terrorist attacks are not as commonplace as you seem to think. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • At the time we discussed the aviation accident, the article said 127 dead, and that was the number used in the discussion as well. So the discussion determined that a death toll of 127 dead was not enough in itself. If the death toll has changed afterwards, it only makes the accident even less notable than assumed previously. It doesn't change the fact that a death toll of 127 was not found to be significant enough in itself. Where did I say terrorist attacks are "commonplace"? They belong on the main page exactly because they are not commonplace. 155,000 people or so die each day. Mocctur (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]
            • I realise that the discussion used the wrong numbers (which is odd, because news reports at that time were reporting "50 to 127 deaths"). I'm not making any claim as to the notability of that particular accident, just over the use of the bad data in your argument (an IP was the first to point this out below). But yes, I misinterpreted your view on terrorist attacks. However, your "155,000 people or so die each day" argument is very lacking. It's not even an argument. It's like saying that the September 11th attacks are not notable because "152,000 other people died that day" or "98% of the people who died that day did not die at the WTC". So what? There was a collective loss of life at one specific moment which makes it tragic and notable in both the 9/11 attacks and the Kalka Mail accident. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • 11 September was a highly spectacular terrorist attack. The Kalka Mail accident was a traffic accident. While traffic accidents are tragic, there are thousands of traffic accidents every day. The death toll of this particular traffic accident was higher than most traffic accidents, but not spectacularly higher, and there were no other spectacular circumstances, it was only an accident, initially with 35 reported deaths. There is also a difference between a few thousand and 35 or 68 deaths. 11 September has had a huge impact on political developments globally. Is the Kalka Mail accident likely to have an impact on anything? Mocctur (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Note that my main point is not to compare 9/11 to the Kalka Mail accident (which really serves no purpose). I'm using 9/11 to show you how lacking "155,000 other people died that day" is as an argument to further your point. Something you haven't addressed. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Please stop trolling. You know very well what he is trying to say. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Excuse me? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't agree anyone was trolling. I do see his point regarding the 155,000 argument, but this is not my main reason for opposing this, rather the lack of impact the incident is likely to have and the lack of spectacular circumstances; it was not that unusual from a global perspective and will probably not have any significant impact even in India. If it, for example, had some serious political impact (e.g., the responsible government minister resigning, the company dissolved (News of the World)) etc., that would be a different matter. I supported posting the blasts in Mumbai with less casualties because this was an unusual incident. Similarly, 11 September was important because it was so unusual and because of the huge potential and actual impact the incident had. Mocctur (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Despite my reservations on significance grounds, there seems to be something of a consensus here. However, the article is still too short, imo. The only thing worse (again, imo) than ITN being stale is ITN linking to articles that don't give the reader any more information than they could have got from the blurb. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At the risk of complicating this, there's several reason why I'd oppose this. First, as mentioned elsewhere the article is no where near the state it needs to be for the front page. In addition, I have the same opinion here as I did on the Hewa Bora Airways Flight 952 nomination. I don't think our readers will be looking for information on this topic, it's a little headline news newsy, and I don't see any possibility that it's a significant enough story to support expansion into an in-depth article. As I said on Flight 952, if there's something about this that sets it apart from a headline news type of listing I'd reconsider. RxS (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Bulgaria (ship)

100 people are missing after a ship capsizes in Tatarstan, Russia.- EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how is that a stub? And the death toll is not the most important criteria for accidents.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 09:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because it was an extremely short article at the time I wrote my comment? Mocctur (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when updated large amount of casualties. Mocctur's argument that English readers will not be looking for information on this is not credible as English-language bias in ITN has never been allowed. The article leaves some to be desired, but when/if it is updated I think this is important enough to be posted. Not everyday does a ship carrying 100 people sink. --PlasmaTwa2 20:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hewa Bora 70 dead not 127 --93.137.150.76 (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indian train crash is much more notable? It is rather usual for India, and the last major river shipwreck occured 30 years ago!--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 17:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can not agree more, Untifler.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 09:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Same reason as the train accident above. Also, article needs an update. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. According to WSJ[53], this was Russia's "worst marine accident in 25 years." Apart from the significant death toll (which is likely to rise even further), it is already clear that this accident will have political ramifications in Russia and has put considerable pressure on the government. A major riverboat catastrophe is also a pretty unusual event for Europe and the world in general, much more rare than major plane and train crashes. Nsk92 (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Nsk92 and the fact that the death toll could climb. Tragic accident. Also I'd like to repeat the fact that the Hewa Bora crash had 70 deaths, not 127. Besides, ITN seems to hate any aviation accident where not everyone dies. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is worst accident in 3 decades hence it makes it rare. does not happen too often in this part of the world. Quite a lot dead too. Article also looks decent now, i see updates and refs. -- Ashish-g55 22:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support; over a hundred people believed dead makes this a major incident, quite uncommon. I've expanded the article to the point where I think it's okay to get posted. C628 (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Note that the article's numbers were last updated a few hours after the incident, two days ago. If no English-speaking contributor cares, then I doubt it meets the important criteria. Mamyles (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - A day of mourning has been declared in Russia. More people died than in the recent air crash near Petrozavodsk and that air crach was in ITN!

Olegwiki (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to post soon. Can you suggest a good blurb? A sinking of the ship leaves x people dead or missing? --Tone 07:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

129 people are feared dead after the sinking of cruise ship Bulgaria in Tatarstan, Russia on the Volga River. Olegwiki (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] World Netball Championships

Article: 2011 World Netball Championships (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Australia's national netball team defeats New Zealand 58—57 to win the 2011 World Netball Championships (Post)
News source(s): Channel News Asia
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Co-nominated with Howard the Duck. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Netball was added in the very early days of the ITNR page and was put in as an attempt to get more women's sports.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and you hope that would make a difference to people who oppose American sports nominations ;)--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BabbaQ and for the exact same reason as cited by Jayron32. The vast majority of the readers are not interested in sports at all, sports items posted here should at the very least be of supreme importance in the sports world and widely known internationally. Sports only played in certain countries don't belong here. Mocctur (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Only a major sport in very small corners of the world -- I believe every single team in the tournament is a Commonwealth country. The national broadcaster of the country at the head of the Commonwealth doesn't seem to care. Despite what ITN/R says, ITN/R shouldn't bind us to support events. ITN/R is a much-less trafficked forum than this. Consensus here should drive ITN/R, not the other way around. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same kind of traffic stats would apply to talk pages of most policies on WP. should we ignore those also ;)--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably :) --Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's ITNR. Yes, I've made multiple support posts, entirely to balance the stupid, misplaced Oppose posts. (Can people not read?) This is my genuine Support post, for the obvious reason that it's ITNR. Take it up there if you want to oppose on grounds of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er how many supports are you planning to cast HiLo48. I can already see 5 here. we should probably start a discussion to remove this from ITN/R--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the extra supports with this edit as they are a clear violation of WP:POINT. I'll leave a note on HiLo48's talk page asking him not to do this again, and discussion of this should probably go there, not here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would have helped if people had actually read the reason for my multiple supports. They were to balance the multiple Opposes from editors who chose to ignore a very wise post above from Strange Passerby about this event being ITN/R. While those Opposes are still here, anyone looking at this topic will see an unethically unbalanced "vote". HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sorry, but don't we have ITN/R for a reason? It's already been accepted as important, so unless someone is opposing on grounds of article quality or lack of update I think, as the template says, challenges should go to the ITN/R talk page. Marking as ready. Nightw 22:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Also consider that WP:ITN/R (the page) was created in February 2008. I don't know if the list existed earlier, but it seems that this is the first time netball has come up as an ITN/R candidate (World Championships every four years). If ITR/R was really automatic, there would be no need to post here. My suspicion is that each ITN/R candidate still has to pass through here at least once before it can become an automatic addition, and if there is unexpected opposition the right thing to do is stop and discuss. Does anyone know if the 2007 result was posted? Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of ITNR is to have a list of items that have previously demonstrated their importance via consensus. The idea is that if the item is on ITNR, the discussion here doesn't have to show consensus to post--it's already been demonstrated. In practice and ITN item simply needs to be nominated and so long as there's a sufficient update there's no need for support !votes. However, consensus can change. Opposing an ITNR item isn't invalid, but it would be up to the opposers to demonstrate that consensus is for the item to NOT be posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Night w, are you going to ignore the fact that there is no consensus for posting this non major sport event story?. Clearly there is need for more discussions and opinions before even thinking about posting this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
obvious opposes are not noted here they need to be on TINR talk. when the article is updated it will and shoul dbe posted.Lihaas (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added some prose to the final section.[55] Let me know if/how much more needs to be done. On a side note it is a popular sport with well over 20 million people playing in more than 70 countries[56] (although admittedly it is dominated at an international level by two countries). It is predominately played by women and predominately played outside of the US, which may explain why it is not receiving much coverage. If we want to counteract systemic bias on Wikipedia then having this article on in the news is as good a way as any. Also it is the major championship for this sport (basically the world cup) and only occurs once every four year, so is hardly going to flood ITN. AIRcorn (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has indeed been improved. I'd say to meet ITN standards it should have at least a full paragraph (with three references) on the final. I've gone ahead and separated the text on the final into its own paragraph but it needs a wee bit more expansion. Even some of the most notable sporting events posted here, like the Super Bowl, are not posted until there's a prose update on the final so we're certainly not picking on Netball in that regard :).--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Super what? ;) Added some more and a couple of refs. Hope it doesn't read too much like a commentary. AIRcorn (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly now the update is sufficient. It's ITNR, and IMO the opposition here isn't sufficient at the moment to overturn its ITN status, so I will mark it 'READY'. And thanks for the contribution.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grr, I've rethought it and given the amount of opposition (excluding opposition based on the update), marking it ready may be premature and could be come an issue of debate in and of itself. I'll remove the 'ready' tag, though I still believe the article is ready for the reasons I stated above.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Posted The majority of supports here fail to address the notability of this event (which is questionable, to say the least), and were this item not on ITN/R, this would have about a snowball's chance in hell of making it on the Main Page. But, therein lies the point: ITN/R is just another useless page if people say it can be ignored and if people don't maintain it. If this item should be taken off ITN/R (and, frankly, I believe it should), that should be done first. But, as with any item on ITN/R (in order to avoid pointless debates like those that happen around the Super Bowl), provided the update is in order, the item should be posted. No amount of oppose here would have stopped me from posting it. Now, someone please get (consensus to get) this item off ITN/R, so it can be removed from the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 12:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
still that would be for NEXT year not this.Lihaas (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so you basically ignoring the will of the majority here Tariqabjotu and simply posting it no matter what. Then why are we having ITN disucssions if it doesnt matter what the users think?. Ridiculous.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an wp:ITN/R item. If you don't think it belongs start a discussion about removal. Otherwise, as I said in another thread...it doesn't make much sense to make an ITNR item go through a consensus check everytime it's nominated. RxS (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Removal_of_World_Netball_Championships; please participate. Mocctur (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Come on guys, this is a quadrennial event. It's not as if we'd be updated annually on the latest netball tournament we haven't heard of. We'd only have one netball blurb for four years. At most it'll stay there for 10 days. 10 days in a span of 4 years ain't that bad. –HTD 15:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignoring consensus? Really? Isn't this the fundamental purpose of WP:NOTBURO? "While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute ... Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." I'm fairly surprised by Tariqabjotu's position, as I thought every editor on Wikipedia knew that written rules never trump consensus. Saying, "it's written down at ITNR, if you don't like it, propose to remove it from that page" is nothing but bureaucratic bull. Very, very poor show. Swarm X 16:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ignored consensus. ITNR items have already gained consensus. Consensus against posting ITNR items needs to be really strong otherwise it will get posted. And judging by conversation above that is exactly what happened. -- Ashish-g55 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR items have already gained consensus So? WP:CCC. Consensus needs to be strong? According to the posting admin, this was a snowball clause situation, so I don't know where the hell you're getting the impression that it isn't a strong consensus. Swarm X 19:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I dont think this is a notable major sport as well, but I agree that if its in ITN/R then its notability is not open to debate here - the only ground you can challenge it on is that it has not been updated. If there is a consensus that this should not be in ITN main page, then the said consensus needs to be demonstrated at ITN/R and it should be removed from the ITN/R list. The ITN/R is there for a reason - to avoid discussions on notability every time a recurring event happens. So why dont all of you guys who feel so strongly head over there and make sure you dont have to discuss this during the next World Netball Championships. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removing (aka oppose) there is no consensus to post. Just because some people made a list of supposedly infallible items years back doesn't mean we can't use common sense. Hot Stop (c) 18:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ITNR events get discussed on the ITNR talk page. That has always been enforced recently to avoid the candidates page becoming totally messed up. If you oppose please take the discussion to that talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I think this whole episode has demonstrated that the concept of WP:ITN/R can violate WP:CCC (consensus can change) if it is not applied with common sense. What we have here is a consensus among only three people, and dating from 2007, over-riding a current and active consensus, among a greater number of editors, being formed in 2011. If you stop and think about it, that can't be right. I understand that WP:ITN/R was intended to avoid arguments like this, but it was most certainly not intended to allow a years-old consensus to over-ride a current consensus (or lack of consensus). At the very least, this shows that the less frequent items on ITN/R (remember that this is the first time netball has come up) should be debated every year (say), so that the consensus is at least more reccent than 3 or 4 years (in the case of quadrennial competitions). I'm tempted to mark WP:ITN/R as invalid until a new discussion decides whether any of the events there truly have current consensus, rather than an old and possibly outdated consensus. Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will strongly oppose removal even though i did not support/oppose the item. Once posted things should not be removed unless there is a very strong reasoning behind it. This was still ITNR and if you want to quote WP:CCC then do it on ITNR and have it removed for next time. -- Ashish-g55 22:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where you get the idea that there needs to be a "very strong reasoning" is beyond me. All we need is a consensus, and we have one. Swarm X 19:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 9

July 9, 2011 (2011-07-09) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Politics

Sport

2011 Super Rugby

Articles: 2011 Super Rugby season (talk · history · tag) and Queensland Reds (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2011 Super Rugby season concludes with the Queensland Reds defeating the Canterbury Crusaders in the final (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article hasn't been updated yet; the 2011 Super Rugby season article on the season is basically just a big table, so it might be easier to update the Queensland Reds article on the team. I don't have time to do an update myself right now Modest Genius talk 00:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be worse than GAA events -- only >2k views during the final? Heineken Cup is just as bad, too. –HTD 10:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the article for the 2010 version. It wasn't even nominated, despite ITNR status.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are sure? The final section has prose so it must've been nominated or else that was all for naught (if you're into shiney ITN medal/icons)... –HTD 15:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would've been an easy ITN blurb for whoever wrote the prose. :P –HTD 16:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how it looked on June 1, three days after the final. No prose update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well... maybe the person wrote it weeks/months after the final. Must've been a lot of motivation lol. Anyway, as this is an ITNR item, I won't oppose, but the lack of page views, ergo, interest, seems to be the problem. –HTD 16:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 FIFA Women's World Cup

Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should cover more women sports, put this was one of (I assume) four quarter finals. Mtking (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would we really be posting the result of a quarter final match, even at the men's world cup? Modest Genius talk 21:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it was similar story yes with historic significance for the sport. Unfortunatly its still a bit of "women sports arent important" bias here.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an historic event beyond this tournament itself in history, Germany hasnt lost a World Cup match since 1999 and it is the first time ever that they misses the semifinals. Historic event for womens football.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose the current blurb. Try again with the final; what matters is who wins, not what stage their opponents went out. Modest Genius talk 21:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that 'first losing match for Germany in the FIFA Women's World Cup since 1999' in the blurb in fact means that they didn't lose during the 2003 and 2007 tournaments (6 games in each), and in their first three games of this one. That's 15 games unbeaten, including games against such footballing powerhouses (sarcasm warning) as Japan, Canada and North Korea. Whilst certainly an achievement, that's not as impressive as the nomination made it sound. Modest Genius talk 22:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The three countries you mentioned there are perfectly respectable opponents in Women's football. The fact that their men's teams are weak (although Japan is on the up) shouldn't be confused with their women's prowess.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FIFA Women's World Rankings: Germany #2, Japan #4, Canada #6, North Korea #8. These four teams are women's football powerhouses. –HTD 13:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, though note that there are only 25 ranked teams. But that means Germany weren't even the world number 1... Modest Genius talk 18:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article only lists the Top 25 (as it should) -- there are 126 ranked teams, and while Germany wasn't the #1, they were only one of two nations to be the #1 team and they were the current defending champs. –HTD 18:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No doubt Germany not making the semi-finals on its home turf is significant within the context of the tournament. But I struggle to see how anything other than the tournament's winner is so significant as to be ITN worthy. It's not getting much international coverage. It's a very minor "headline" on BBC Football. Same goes for ESPN Soccernet. The lack of headline coverage even in international football media is fairly telling. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to Oppose I don't think this is exciting enough to warrant additional coverage beyond the final of the tournament. Its not India vs Pakistan in the Cricket World cup. I will support the final however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you basically changing your stance according to the majority instead of having your own opinion. Just pointing out no criticism.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet Post a link to an excellent article on the whole tournament once it's over, obviously highlighting Germany's demise as one of the surprises. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not only at this stage, but real doubts about scale of event being adequate for ITN. Apart from the matches involving the hosts, average attendance is 20,700, and stadia are only 70-80% full, even with tickets available from €10, which is about the price of entrance to level 6 matches in England. While it would be good to be able to feature more women's sport, it is not for us to give sports a profile that they do not have in the news, or among the paying public. Kevin McE (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most sports at the last Olympics were very poorly attended. Will we stop mentioning them too? HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Average attendance of 20000 isn't that unremarkable. Some of the matches have been over 70000. You can't compare it to a league match, where every match is a home match for one of the teams. Men's world cup matches often don't sell out.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The final result of the tournament is justifiably an INTR item. However this strikes me as sports stat trivia - every tournament has similar records broken, particularly when the tournament is of as comparatively recent origins as the women's world cup. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose. Just what is significant here? A team lost a quarter final. Get over it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this an interesting nomination as it at least provokes some discussion on the relative notability of women's sports, which rarely even get discussed here, let alone posted. Ultimately I feel that we have a pretty consistent policy of waiting until the final to post the results of sports tournaments barring exceptional circumstances and I don't see that here. It's not as if they went out in the first round. There are a number of possible analogies to men's sports. One could argue that this compares to Brazil losing in the quarterfinal in 2006, after having made the final in three straight world cups; however I don't think it was regarded as particularly notable outside of the context of the tournament.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not significant "in the grand scheme of things." Mocctur (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Facundo Cabral

Article: Facundo Cabral (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Argentinian singer Facundo Cabral is shot dead in Guatemala City at the age of 74. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Channel 24, France 24, CBC, Miami Herald

Well known singer in Latin America. Famous for No soy de aquí ni soy de allá, and was named Messenger of Peace by UNESCO in 1996. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would support if the article was in better shape... But at the moment, it needs lots of work first. --Tone 19:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering nominating this myself, then I saw the article. It needs serious work. Lots of POV; It needs references. I don't know how notable Cabral is, but the fact that he was shot in Guatemala (outside his home country) certainly adds his death's notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And his fame was based on his own achievements, rather than the misadventures of his spouses ex-boss and lending his name to institutions built on the expertise of others. Kevin McE (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support as notable law and order problem in guat./hond. less covered region + red timer + though wed need a good articleLihaas (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Insufficient stature. Mocctur (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please elaborate on this baseless and opinion-driven claim. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only 8 interwikis (a tell-tale sign of him not being terribly important), I've not seen any significant coverage of his death in English language newspapers, the article is fairly short and in a poor shape with several maintenance tags, lots of unsourced material and only four references, there is no separate article on his death, the bio article does not in any way demonstrate that he is sufficiently important for being posted on the main page ("Argentine singer and songwriter" [...] "enjoyed popularity in his home country during the early 1980s"), and quite frankly, I've never heard of him; he's no Michael Jackson. We just decided not to post Betty Ford (30 interwikis and much longer and better article, and more extensive English language media coverage), as pointed out. Mocctur (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • How many interwikis should an article get? Betty Ford has more than 10 (got lazy counting). And this guy's article has been viewed 269k+ times in the Spanish Wikipedia. That would've been in the top 40 most viewed articles there (In this list, the 34th most-viewed article had 271612 views in that month. –HTD 16:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say that, but i guessed that its his opinion/view that hes entitled too???Lihaas (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is entitled to an opinion, but it would be nice to have people back them up. We can't see inside their heads. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2011 Egyptian revolution

Article: Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Supreme Council of the Armed Forces#July (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hundreds of of thousands of protesters gathered in Suez, Alexandria and Tahrir Square in Cairo demanding immediate reforms and swifter prosecution of former officials (Post)
News source(s): AlJazeera, ABC, BBC, The Washington Post
Article updated
Support as nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Article has been updated. The blurb can be changed if necessary. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wait and see. So someone made a new Facebook page? Seriously though, I don't think a protest of this scale in the Middle East is significant enough "in the grand scheme of things". If it develops into something more than a Facebook page and a few thousand protesters, then maybe. Also, more coverage of the demonstration in question would be needed. Mocctur (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has not been updated yet; Im working on it. If you opened any of the sources, you would have known that hundreds of thousands of people protested in Tahrir while millions elsewhere in Egypt. Also today is the second day of the sit-in and major strikes that has started since friday :-) PS: The picture was taken on the 8th of July -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera just says "thousands". Which source says hundreds of thousands? Mocctur (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here Al-Ahram
support when updated definately in the news and its an extension of the revolution (2.0 as you internet kids call it ;)). could be the ouster of 2 regimes ina year.Lihaas (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Ford dies

Article: Betty Ford (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Co-founder of the Betty Ford Clinic and former First Lady of the United States Betty Ford dies (Post)
News source(s): BBC Daily Mail CBC Al jazeera Sky News Toronto Star
Credits:

 Hot Stop (c) 02:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Wives of politicians are not sufficiently important—she never held any office in her own right. (would we include the death of the wife of a former President of France, Italy or some other European country, or for that sake, India, China or Brazil?). Mocctur (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support There, I've fixed the blurb. Much less US-centric now and actually justifies this item. HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how "Co-founder of the Betty Ford Clinic" makes her sufficiently notable for the main page. She's the wife of a politician who was the co-founder of a hospital. That's all fine, but she's not globally important. Mocctur (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She was the wife of a president (saying politician is a clever way to belittle her) who's death is being reported worldwide. Hot Stop (c) 04:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silly, silly, silly. Especially because of the bad original blurb, that argument will get you nowhere. Stick to her non-wifely achievements and you will have a much stronger case! HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose even with the new wording (which is better) this is still two US-centric, HiLo48 point about the wife of any past PM or president outside the US would not get a mention does it for me. Mtking (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not of serious international importance. Owen (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To both of you: if the wife of a non-US head of state got as much coverage on her passing, I assume it'd get supported. And as for it not being of int'l importance, that's not a criteria (int'l interest is a criteria, which the sources I provided account for). Hot Stop (c) 04:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. Very little coverage internationally, contrary to claims above. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a ITN critria? RxS (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, but it contradicts what some supporters have said above.
Here are the criteria for deaths. Either she must have been in a high-ranking office of power, or she was an important figure in her field of expertise, or her death has a major international impact. Which one exactly do you think she fulfill? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an outrageous claim to say it isn't getting coverage abroad. In addition to the stories above, she's already on the German, Spanish, anf Norse wikipedia front pages (under recent death sections). As an aside some of those sites are much cooler looking. Hot Stop (c) 04:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely support her being on the Recent Deaths section if we have one. Meanwhile, tell me exactly which criterion she fulfills for the ITN section. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the page for Google News French. You won't be able to find any mention of Betty Ford anywhere in the front page. In fact, you have to search for it and then only four articles will turn up, two from Canada and one from Switzerland. The claim that this is worldwide news is simply false. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"International coverage" doesn't mean coverage in every country in the world. It's been established that this is getting coverage abroad. As for which ITN deaths criteria she meets, as teh founder of the Betty Ford Clinic, she may meet #2.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only used the French news as an example; she is not on German-language or Italian-language news either. Just because Al Jazeera wrote an article about it doesn't mean it's big news worldwide. As for the criteria, she has to be an important figure in her field of expertise. Co-founding a hospital using her fame is a great deed, but it has nothing to do with expertise, and it really is nowhere as important as thousands of similar acts that happen every day. How many hospitals are there in the world? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To refute "Very little coverage internationally, contrary to claims above" I offer Al Jazeera BBC Reuters The Sydney Morning Herald... need I go on? The statement is invalid. Jusdafax 05:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said very little, not none. About 1,000 articles are published every minute in the world online, and having four of them about one person's death in one day does not make it among the most important news in the world. Go to Google Italy, Google French or Google German. You will find about three to four times as many articles about the latest Ford vehicle than her death. The little international coverage she has received is simply not a valid reason for appearing on ITN. You'd have more credibility if you cited her acts for breast cancer awareness. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some more...there's no strict need for widespread international coverage here but this story is getting it none the less. [58][59][60][61][62][63][64] RxS (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a couple of articles is nowhere near widespread international coverage. The latest Ford vehicle has gotten at least 100 articles in German alone. If you insist on going through the international coverage route, then come back with that many articles about Ford's death in German. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insisting on it, my first comment was basically pointing out that widespread international coverage isn't a ITN criteria. You think it's important so I'm pointing out that there is indeed widespread international coverage. The fact that some other topic has more widespread international coverage doesn't disqualify this nomination. wp:Otherstuffexists etc...RxS (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. I was assuming that we can all agree that the latest Ford vehicle does not have widespread international coverage (I haven't even heard of it before I googled for Ford). And yet there are more articles about it than Betty Ford's death. That says something. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a couple of articles is nowhere near widespread international coverage. The latest Ford vehicle has gotten at least 100 articles in German alone. If you insist on going through the international coverage route, then come back with that many articles about Ford's death in German. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Her death has gotten well more than a couple of articles internationally. Since when is '100 articles in German' a benchmark of significance at ITN? (I'm currently getting [64). You're greatly exaggerating in saying the latest Ford model is getting 4 times more coverage 1.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Support (1) First Lady (2) Breast cancer awareness (3) Betty Ford Clinic. Note that none of the "not of serious importance" crowd is saying he hasn't heard of her, just that's she's only a Merican. μηδείς (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, please drop that first one. (Or move it to the end.) I am supporting this now, but it seems that some of you Americans will never get it. Stick to the arguments that have a chance of working internationally. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Support Arguably more well-known than her husband. The Betty Ford clinic is notable in its own right. N419BH 05:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support High profile figure that our readers will be interested in. Certainly known for more than her husband (as other have pointed out). Opposers that base their arguments soley on the fact that her husband was president are missing the point a little, she accomplished a lot outside of that part of her life. RxS (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was she known for before Gerald Ford became a successful politician? I'm sympathetic of what she did, but she is no Hillary Clinton; the only reason she got famous was because she was the wife of a notable politician who later became president. Using the fame of your family members to do something is not on its own notable, even though I very much appreciate her acts. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter how she was able to accomplish so many things? The fact is that she did. RxS (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I restate the ITN deaths criteria: "The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such." Fame is not expertise. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious oppose per precedence. not intl significant and large amount of WP english readers are outside the US.Lihaas (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very well known, connected to well known organizations. She was well more then just the wife of a president. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose She was one of very many people involved in the foundation of a 100 bed medical centre, and lent her name to that institution. Do those proposing the inclusion really think that she set this place up single handedly: she gave it some publicity, some impetus and some money, but no medical expertise, by no means enough funding for it to become entirely a charitable organisation, no contribution to whatever status it might or might not now have as a centre of excellence. There are untold clinics of similar size in the world: this might be better known than most (but not than all: will all the co-founders of the Priory centre be ITNworthy? My local hospital is several times bigger: the bureaucrats involved in setting that up should be a shoe-in), but not essentially different. So we have the widow of an accidental and unelected president, who had some role in the foundation of a small medical institution that has gained fame disproportional to its importance because of celebrity culture. Kevin McE (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update please The Betty Ford article has one sentence on her death. This needs more than that. -- tariqabjotu 10:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Kevin and per precedent. The fact that I've never heard of her aside, her article doesn't substantiate much notability except by association. Nightw 11:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support given large amount of international coverage of her death. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The clinic may be notable in its own right, but it's unlikely it would have been so had she not been first lady or the wife of another important politician. But more importantly, she was 93. As sad as it is that she's died, a death at 93 is far from unexpected, and the article says she was far from being in perfect health, and her death doesn't appear to be having a significant impact on current events. Whether The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such is open for debate, but that would be the only criterion she met if consensus judges that she was. This, although sad, just isn't that significant. If she was still first lady, I'd support, and I'd probably support if she was still an active public figure, but she wasn't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I've gone both ways on this and in the end I'm uncertain. I find HJ Mitchell's view above close to on the money for me. Though I would add that in addition to the clinic she was notable on several other fronts. I actually found her most interesting for the remarkably liberal stances she took publicly (and aggressively) on numerous social issues that went against the Republican Party. The lede section of the article cites historians who rank her as the second most important First Lady of the United States in the last 60 years (though I imagine Hillary Clinton will be reassessed as time passes). The US First Lady is a position of importance unique to the US I think--I don't believe the spouses of heads of state get the level of media attention, or influence, that the U.S. First Lady does. I would rank the US First Lady in importance as similar ot a very high-level British royal. Betty Ford inherited a position of significant power and was able to have a significant impact.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'll have to be neutral in this case as well. Being First Lady is not enough, I agree, while all her awareness work is significant. Actually, all has been said here already, not much to add... --Tone 13:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: (1) lack of international notability - there may have been a few news articles but no headlines; (2) HJ Mitchell's reasons. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - while this is covered nationally, I don't think it is worthy. It is not unexpected and she did not do anything new recently. Mamyles (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per HJ Mitchell a few points above: death not unexpected, has no impact on current events. More significant than most first ladies, but still not significant enough for ITN. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This woman is only famous because of who her husband was. Her own achievements were minor at best. Not significant enough to meet our death criteria. Modest Genius talk 21:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We posted the death of Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu who was "considered" the first lady of South Vietnam because she influenced their fashion. Opposes here are completely based on wishing to counter a perceived US-centrism, and are frankling complete bullshit. Grsz 11 02:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have opposed that too, if I had been involved in the discussion. Modest Genius talk 17:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such a silly post is tempting me to swing my vote away again. My earlier opposition had nothing to do with US-centrism (bad as it is here at times, usually due to ignorance). It was the fact that the blurb gave her claim to fame as simply being first lady. (Until I fixed it!) That's clearly not enough. And either you're far too young or haven't actually read Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu. (A bit silly, since you're using it as justification for your position.) She had a massive influence on the politics of Vietnam, pushing legislation of her own interest on many occasions. She just about ran the country at times. Much more than a typical American first lady. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • First Ladies in presidential systems seem to have a bigger profile than their parliamentary counterparts. I'd argue the first ladies in Latin America are more well known in their respective countries than the wife of prime ministers. (Evita, anyone?) So the U.S.-Australia comparison doesn't really hold. –HTD 03:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Evita? Also, like Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu, far more involved in her country's politics than Betty Ford ever was. Bad examples folks. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry. Evita Peron. You know, Madonna starred on her biopic? (And why is that disambiguated? ugh). The point still stands on the US-Aussie comparison doesn't hold. Ngo Dinh Nhu and Evita may be have been more influential than Ford, but simply dismissing Ford and comparing her to wives of prime ministers is gross oversimplification. –HTD 03:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic discussion Hot Stop (c) 14:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      • @HiLo48:I doubt he was talking to you specifically, other opposes here are based on an illusionary US-centric posting history here. RxS (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps then he should have used more cautious language than "Opposes here are completely based on..." Nah. Typical post of a paranoid American attacking any foreigner who dares to suggest that other perspectives are possible. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hilo48, your racist anti-Americanism is getting tiring.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not anti-American in the slightest. I love many things about the country and its people. But I have trouble with uninformed paranoia. Wise Americans should be proud enough to not need to be that way. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • another paranoid American; you Americans will never get it. That's just from this conversation. If 'American' were substituted with 'Jewish' there would be no argument.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Read them IN CONTEXT and my reasons for such language will be clear. I will attack poor logic and posts based on unacceptably poor knowledge no matter who they're from. Let's return to discussing the topic now please. HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, I won't return to the topic. Did you just call me a paranoid American? RxS (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • ??? Um, no. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Well then it was directed at Grsz 11 or HTD, in any case it's completely inappropriate. RxS (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I can't even recall who it was directed at, but I can recall getting sick of some American editors here accusing non-Americans of being anti-American or calling "US-centrism", when in fact what they were doing was suggesting that being a first lady alone did not make someone notable. This was made worse in this particular thread by an appalling start where the blurb originally claimed notability for Betty Ford purely on the basis of being a first lady. It was never going to be enough. In support of the claim, I ended up expanding the blurb (because nobody else would), to give Betty a chance of being noted here. Several editors behaved as if they believed that Americans were somehow being attacked when others suggested that being a first lady (in America maybe) is simply not enough for being listed here. That's what I described as paranoia. America is a great country. Being offended by a suggestion that American first ladies aren't all that notable globally is just a tad over-sensitive, and quite unnecessary. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Why was this discussion collapsed? Betty Ford was famous both for being quite an atypical First Lady and for the Betty Ford Clinic. I don't think that the age at which she died is relevant - what should matter is her notability - and I believe that anti-American bias demonstrated by quite a few of the opposes above should be discounted. Note that pagesviews for the Betty Ford article show 234K views on July 9. By comparison, the space shuttle article, STS-135, even though it is currently listed on main page, got 41K views on July 8 and 27K views on July 9. While pageviews aren't everything, they do indicate a degree of interest and importance that WP readers attach to a particular item and should be taken into account. Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some people here, particularly those who cite US-centrism as a reason to oppose, also won't accept those view stats. Heck Casey Anthony trial got one million and that is no closer than this on getting posted. –HTD 14:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, according to this counter[65], Casey Anthony got only 180K on the peak day (July 5, the day of the verdict), comapred to 234K for Betty Ford. IMO, pageviews stats are one factor (but not the only factor) to consider in such cases. I opposed inclusion of the Casey Anthony article into ITN because, in my view, the other factors were not present in that case - there were no inherent reasons, apart from the tabloid hype, for the story's importance. The Betty Ford case is different. She is popular not just because she was the First Lady, but because she was quite unusual and atypical in her role as the First Lady, in that she was an active and outspoken advocate for various controversial political causes while being the First Lady (such as her support for the Equal Rights amendment and for abortion rights). In this way she considerably influenced the public policy and public debate in her own right. She also made significant public impact for her work on the Betty Ford clinic. Such factors were absent in the Casey Anthony case. Nsk92 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Try Death of Caylee Anthony as that was the original title before it was moved. That registered 1 million hits. A redirect getting 250k "views" is a significant achievement in the lonely world of redirects.
  • I tried doing a head count -- valid oppose: 10, explicitly U.S. biaz oppose: 2, support: 7. Didn't include the neutrals or those that didn't put (strong) support/oppose words at the beginning. –HTD 15:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well since its not a vote head count doesnt matter either. In any case from beginning there was never really any consensus to post. Its way too late now anyways. -- Ashish-g55 16:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why's it too late? It's newer than at least four of the items currently on the template. Hot Stop (c) 16:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has any of the opposes been discredited? It's futile engaging the opposes anyway especially in blurbs relating to the U.S. The opposes seem convincing though, unlike the Casey Anthony one (such as it being a "domestic" issue has been thoroughly discredited after links of coverage outside the U.S.). –HTD 16:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Bersih rally, Malaysia

Article: 2011 Bersih 2.0 rally (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Malaysian police detain over 500 people amid protests in Kuala Lumpur. (Post)
News source(s): Just look at the bloody article.
Credits:

Article updated

Hundreds of thousands of people are expected in a rare protest in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, today. The comprehensive article explains just how significant this is and what it is all about. I don't propose putting it up now -- let's wait a few hours to see how many people turn out (it'll just be starting as I write). But it would be good to get an "in principle" feel for support/oppose and some attention to the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

July 8, 2011 (2011-07-08) (Friday)
Arts and culture
Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

Surgeons Perform World’s First Synthetic Organ Transplant

Article: Vertebrate trachea (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The first synthetic windpipe seeded with a patient's own stem cells is successfully implanted. (Post)
News source(s): http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/07/08/synthetic_organ_transplant_doctors_pull_of_world_s_first_synthet.html
Credits:

I don't have time to format this properly but it looks huge.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll need more of an update. Apart from the fluff, the current update is basically that it happened, but nothing else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I think a more appropriate article to update would be Organ Transplantation. Crnorizec (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The Vertebrate trachea article is tagged for lack of sources. However, Organ Transplantation has no mention of this operation.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with Mitchell. The article needs more material on this and it also needs to demonstrate the significance of it in terms comprehensible to the non-specialist readers. Mocctur (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you dont need to oppose for update... it wont go up without it. if anything put conditional support if you see merit in putting this up but article still needs update. you opposed below for similar reason, in future please avoid it. -- Ashish-g55 00:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word is implant, not transplant. This is a little more significant than that of an ear Pinna which happened a few years back. Obvious support unless you are in favor of throat cancer. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Check the definitions at implant and transplant. It reads like a transplant to me, since it is biological (implants are not), and the raw material originally taken from the patient's own body. I had written implant first in the blurb, but changed it to transplant later. Thue | talk 10:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the literature, it's always transplant. Narayanese (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hewa Bora Airways Flight 952

Article: Hewa Bora Airways Flight 952 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 127 people are killed in the crash of Hewa Bora Airways Flight 952 at Bangoka International Airport, Kisangani, Democratic Republic of the Congo. (Post)
News source(s): Aviation Safety Network, BBC, MSNBC, Reuters
Credits:

 Mjroots (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - 2nd worst accident in Congo - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 18:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support major commercial airline crash with significant casualties--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently 127 deaths now. Regardless, the article needs work. More information on the accident, as and when it becomes available, is needed and I left a [citation needed] tag. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about?! The nonminated article is the "suitable article". StrPby (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs more work, as pointed out. Mocctur (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's gradually getting better, but it still lacks enough detail to post. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] STS-135

Article: STS-135 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Space Shuttle Atlantis launches from Kennedy Space Center on flight STS-135, the last space shuttle mission. (Post)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Weather is currently "go" although no call has yet been made. Scheduled launch is 15:26 UTC. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but over twenty minutes after takeoff we have had zero in the way of a substantive update. All we have so far is changes in tense of old content. That does not fulfil our minimum update citeria. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Please update the article with information about the launch first. The usual minimum is five sentences of prose and three references. At the moment the only information about the launch is a line in a table. Modest Genius talk 15:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. What information can there be about a launch to cover five sentences? Core temperatures? Maximum velocity? I think we can make exceptions. The article is in a great shape and the lead sentence tells the reader it has launched. Its purpose, its goals, and literally every other aspect of the shuttle is there. Could we please post this? It's been under an hour now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's all kinds of stuff that could be posted in due time. Reaction to the launch, it reaching orbit successfully, new references. The fact that no fresh information is not available now does not mean that it will not be in the future. Rememebr the core purpose of ITN - to point users to newly updated content pertinent to what is in the news. It is has never been intended to be a news source in itself. There is little substantive new content yet and few additional references showing that it is even in the news. I am not disputing that it is, but the refs are what show that to be the case as per WP:V. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Go to any news site, and you'll find a report which says more than just 'it launched'. For a start, an explanation of the unscheduled hold at -31 seconds, and the clearing of the weather which had earlier made the launch look unlikely, should be added. I'm sure there are also various reaction statements that could be quoted. Modest Genius talk 16:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really surprised when I checked Wikipedia just now that the last ever shuttle launch wasn't mentioned on the main page. This and the independence of South Sudan are today's pre-eminent historical events (and I'd put South Sudan first by the way). I always remember Wikipedia being much more clued up about science and technology than the ignorant mass media, so what's happened? 82.32.186.24 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Absurd that this is not on the Main Page. Glacial pace on posting this story is inexplicable and inexcusable. Post the dang thing! Jusdafax 17:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • POST NOW. I've added another sentence and some references. The 5 sentence update is not a minimum; the criteria at WP:ITN says that 5 sentences is more than sufficient. I normally prefer a better update myself but given the strong consensus here and the historic nature of this moment, let's go ahead and post it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article is minimally updated. Not much, but just about enough for our purposes. Marking ready. Modest Genius talk 17:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also think more than one section is updated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attention administrators, we have a go for posting (can't resist).--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the grammar of current blurb is incorrect, it should be "Space Shuttle Atlantis is launched from Kennedy Space Center ..." (see STS-133's ITN nomination: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2011#STS-133)  Kenrick  Talk 12:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb is always in present tense. –HTD 13:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Is launched" would be present perfect tense, which is acceptable, but I think "launches" is fine and doesn't need changing. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing into "is launced" will change it into passive sentence.  Kenrick  Talk 15:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February_2011#STS-133 by User:Tony1:
Before STS-133 news posted.

Support—But "is launched from" is the right grammar. Launch is transitive. Tony (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

After posted: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenrick95 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's REALLY annoying: I bothered to correct the bad grammar, yet you post it up regardless. So I've looked it up in my online dictionary, which confirms what I said. Transitive. Can you tell me what the shuttle is launching then? Another shuttle?
launch 1 |lôn ch; län ch |
verb [ trans. ]
1 set (a boat) in motion by pushing it or allowing it to roll into the water : the town's lifeboat was launched to rescue the fishermen.
• set (a newly built ship or boat) afloat for the first time, typically as part of an official ceremony : King Gustav II Adolph of Sweden launched a huge new warship.
• send (a missile, satellite, or spacecraft) on its course or into orbit : they launched two Scud missiles.
• [ trans. ] hurl (something) forcefully : she launched a tortoiseshell comb.
• [with adverbial of direction ] ( launch oneself) (of a person) make a sudden energetic movement : I launched myself out of bed.
• utter (criticism or a threat) vehemently : scores of customers launched a volley of complaints.
2 start or set in motion (an activity or enterprise) : she was launching a campaign against ugly architecture.
• introduce (a new product or publication) to the public for the first time : the company has launched a software package specifically for the legal sector.
It's embarrassing on the main page. Not happy. Tony (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] South Sudanese independence

Article: South Sudan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ South Sudan secedes from Sudan, becoming the world's newest state. (Post)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: South Sudan will become independent at 2100 UTC today (midnight July 9 local time). As we've previously extensively discussed, this is a definite posting for ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use "state" at the end, and link to sovereign state or List of sovereign states? Nightw 11:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
obvious it should be ITNR. though remove "becoming the worlds newest nation" that pretty ovbv ious too. maybe wikilink secession?Lihaas (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
   The Republic of South Sudan secedes from Sudan, becoming the world's newest sovereign state.

? Fixman (talk!) 21:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MENA sticky

Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain still in the news. calls for a million man march in Cairo today. and also calls to continue democracy protests oin Morocco despite referendum.Lihaas (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lihaas makes a good case plus I got photos to back it up [68] [69] [70] -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What major new developments have there been? If there is a notable large march in Cairo, that should be nominated as a normal item. Otherwise I see no reason for another sticky - the last one was removed for good reasons. Modest Genius talk 16:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Grand Rapids, Michigan shooting spree

Article: 2011 Grand Rapids, Michigan shooting spree (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Seven people are killed by a shooter in Grand Rapids, Michigan before the suspect kills himself after taking three people hostage. (Post)
News source(s): Vancouver Sun, BBC News, New York Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Shooting made international headlines as shown above, being cited by media throughout the U.S., Canada, and the UK. Dough4872 05:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that this probably leads headlines in the US, but it's not something remotely ITN-worthy. Shooting sprees are common globally; that one particular one (almost always in the Western world) is picked up on by news media doesn't mean we need to give it coverage. Oppose. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the 2011 Tucson shooting and Alphen aan den Rijn shopping mall shooting both made ITN, and they were similar to what happened in Grand Rapids. Dough4872 05:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, for reference, I also opposed Alphen aan den Rijn. I would've supported Tucson because of Gabby Giffords, personally. Circumstances matter. And this shooting has nothing outstandingly newsworthy about it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, same reason as Strange Passerby. At this moment there is very little international coverage. I've checked French and Chinese news sources and neither of the country's media seems to consider this remotely close to being headline material. The 2011 Tuscon shooting, in contrast, did gain international attention very quickly. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Tragic, but not really notable in the grand scheme of things. Doubt it will get much international coverage. Grandmasterka 06:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support shit its on the front page of Xinhua. That well known American news source. Guess which other story I saw on the front page of Xinhua while I was looking Casey Anthony - several days after the event. There really is a lot of whining opposes going on at the moment. Its vastly reducing our flow and makes the section untenable. Editors who continually oppose every item nominated are basically being disruptive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that being on Xinhua.net = automatic ITN. There are literally dozens of articles on Xinhua at any moment. Here are a few examples: Harry Potter premiere held in London, U.S. obesity epidemic continues unabated...Do you think all these should be put on ITN?
Also, I don't have any empirical data here, but I highly doubt that the "flow" of news items onto the ITN has decreased in the past few years. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I checked the main version (i.e. simplified Chinese) of xinhua.net and the news about the shooting is nowhere near the headlines. It is in fact the 12th news item in the "international news" section. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

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

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics
Science

Movies


[Posted] News of the World to close

Article: News of the World phone hacking affair (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Following relevations about phone hacking, News International announces that this Sunday's News of the World will be its final edition.. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News UN News Centre Guardian
Article needs updating
Actually that isn't true - the Daily Sport closed just over three months ago, not that I think the whole "last time" thing is a particularly significant point to make. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Definitely, per above. Swarm X 19:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as previous respondents. I see no reason to wait til Sunday and indeed it would be undesirable to do so. ITN reflects items that are in the news, not things we believe may be regarded as historical events. It's in the news now so why wait? Crispmuncher (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Posted the above blurb but please suggest any changes that might improve it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggestion to amend wondering if the wording might be tweaked to something like "The closure of News of the World is announced amid allegations that the British newspaper engaged in phone hacking, police bribery and a cover up". The story is also developing to draw and implicate a wider group than just the notw which might be looked at too, but I'll just offer the above as my suggestion for now.--Joopercoopers (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UN calls for two trillion dollars to avert 'global catastrophe'

Article: United Nations Economic and Social Council (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Nations Economic and Social Council calls for a two trillion dollar expenditure in 'green technologies' to maintain sustainability and avert 'major planetary catastrophe'. (Post)
News source(s): Thaindian News UN News Centre shanghaidaily.com
  • Oppose "According to the study, $1.9 trillion per year will be needed over the next 40 years for incremental investments in green technologies, and at least $1.1 trillion of that will need to be made in developing countries to meet increasing food and energy demands." What's the major news here? That humanity is approaching a carrying capacity quite rapidly? That isn't really ITN-worthy news. Google News puts the number of articles reporting on this at ~20. NW (Talk) 12:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The news is that the United Nations is endorsing a two trillion dollar push toward green technologies to avert major planetary catastrophe. Didn't you read the blurb? That's plenty notable in my view. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What's news is that the UN and its Secretary General are saying so bluntly. Of course, a story about the UN urgently noting the need to avert planetary catastrophe may not sell as many newspapers as the latest sensational murder trial. But this story is in the news and it could be considered of importance, in my view. Jusdafax 12:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the UN is calling for spending more money. So what? I would support if a country or countries actually backed the initiative, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Hot Stop (c) 15:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; nothing groundbreaking and no new factual/scientific breakthroughs on the issue. Juliancolton (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a significant announcement by a significant organization. How to actually accomplish it is different chapter. --Kslotte (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The UN regularly makes calls for various good causes, and those calls are just as regularly mostly ignored by the public, the newsmedia and the politicians. Unless there is an indication of this particular story taking off (e.g. extensive international newscoverage or the political leaders actually acting on this plea by the UN), this item does not belong in the ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless that money is actually pledged. 'Calls for' isn't enough here, serious as the problem is (but then that's been known for decades). Modest Genius talk 19:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nothing groundbreaking, as noted. Mocctur (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No real action yet. UN has been involved in this for years. The IPCC won a Nobel Prize, this doesn't compare. — Yk3 talk ~ contrib 10:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Too late] Norway–Russia border

Article: Norway–Russia border (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A new maritime delineation treaty between Norway and Russia entered force on 7 July 2011, settling a long-term border dispute over an area of 175,000 km2 (68,000 sq mi). (Post)
News source(s): http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/arctic-treaty-with-norway-opens-fields/440178.html
Credits:

Article updated
  • Support. It's not too often now-a-days that international borders change. In this case, of course, it is just the settlement of a never-agreed-before sea border, but still - the sea border line will now be shown differently on Russian (and, presumably, Norwegian) maps from how it has been shown before. -- Vmenkov (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support border disputes are highly notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose, first off, the article is totally unsuited for being featured on the main page (it's a stub). Secondly, this treaty has been known for a year, and enters force as scheduled, nothing groundbreaking in that. It's not a real (land) border dispute, but a dispute over the marine border in some faraway place. Mocctur (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the WP:STUB tag. It clearly is not a stub anymore. The article isn't long but it certainly is long enough to feature on the front page. The update could be a bit more substantial though.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the article is clearly a stub, it's less than one page of text. The material on the marine border and the treaty from last year, which is the issue here, makes up only one short section. This is in no way sufficient for the main page, in order to be main page material the article would need significant expansion (10 times longer?), including significant expansion on the treaty in question (there is not a separate article on the treaty, just a short article on the Norway–Russia border. Most of the article's contents deal with the land border and are unrelated to the issue being discussed here.). Mocctur (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A WP:STUB is an article containing only a few sentences of text. 'One full page of text' is far more than needed for the article to not be a stub. Heck, new articles for ITN only require three paragraphs. Also, saying the article needs to be expanded 10 times longer is waaaaaaay over ITN standards. Again, three paragraphs is considered sufficient. The article here is well over that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a stub as far as ITN is concerned, and it's a stub because it's very, very lacking. There are less then ten sentences on this not-so-new treaty from last year. The rest of the contents have little (actually nothing) to do with neither the marine border nor the treaty. Three paragraphs are certainly not enough for an article to be featured on the main page. If there was an existing, in-depth article on the marine border and/or treaty in question, that would be a different matter. Most articles featured on the main page are indeed roughly ten times longer. Mocctur (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone who had had no contributions to this page until 5 July, you claim to know a lot about what is "a stub as far as ITN is concerned". As far as ITN is concerned, this article isn't a stub — 24 January 2011 Iraq bombings is shorter than this and was posted, because it met the requirements. If it meets the update requirements and has the support, it'll be posted. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Of interest and significant news. Jusdafax 01:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article needs more work on the section of the sea boarder, may be some art work. Having explained the two parties negotiating positions, no indication of the outcome is given. Mtking (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
obvious support coming into force of an international treaty, particularly to resolve an intl dispute. It should be ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

July 6, 2011 (2011-07-06) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

Death of Mani Kaul

Article: Mani Kaul (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Indian filmmaker Mani Kaul dies in Delhi. (Post)
News source(s): BBC The Times of India Economic Times The Telegraph

Death of Cy Twombly

Article: Cy Twombly (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American painter Cy Twombly dies in Rome. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Oppose. Tragic, but he was 83 and, according to the article He died in Rome after being hospitalized for several days, and had cancer for many years. Not exactly a household name and not a sudden or unexpected death, so not suitable for ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang

As it says in the instructions at the top of this page, Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot, creating them manually breaks this process. The last time someone did this it made a complete mess of the page. The correct place for this nomination would be WP:ITN/FE (where it has already been nominated); however for the moment I'll move it down to July 5 until the bot has been through. Modest Genius talk 22:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note 2018 Winter Olympics doesn't seem to mention that South Korea won the bidding process. The timer's red, so it would be nice to get this posted, but wee need an update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it does mention South Korea won the bid. GreyHood Talk 17:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the update here?--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

July 5, 2011 (2011-07-05) (Tuesday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Sport

Red Sea boat fire and sinking

Article: 2011 Red Sea boat sinking (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A boat carrying illegal migrants to Saudi Arabia catches fire and sinks in the Red Sea, killing nearly 200 people. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AFP/France24, AP/ABC

Nominator's comments: Obviously needs an article first, if it's decided to be notable enough. I'm concerned it may not be notable enough, but 200 deaths is pretty high, even for a boat sinking. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Anthony

Article: Death of Caylee Anthony (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Casey Anthony is found not guilty of murder, aggravated manslaughter, or aggravated child abuse in the death of her daughter Caylee Anthony. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News BBC The Guardian Calgary Herald New York TImes Irish Times Sydney Morning Herald Straits Times Malaysia Star El Mundo Reuters India Gulf Times China Daily
Credits:
  • Support I was reading about this on the BBC today, seems like a very high profile story with very high interest. Yes its overblown media hype, yes its "not notable" blah blah blah, but it is certainly of interest to our readers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go! :) Seriously though, 147.5 views on the day of the closing arguments, God knows how many people would go there now. –HTD 18:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article with three cleanup tags is not appropriate for the Main page. Even if this was not the case, the DSK story has bigger coverage and international significance as well, while the latter is not the case here. 147.5 k views or not. It's just a proof that people are able to get to the article even if it is not featured on the Main page. --Tone 19:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not all or nothing here. If there'll be half a million page views today, there's a strong case for this to be included. If it's less than 250k, not so much, and if less than 100k, close to nil. –HTD 20:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now as the article contains several tags as mentioned above. --candle•wicke 20:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Who? HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should limit ITM items to only those you've heard of? RxS (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Definitely not. Equally, we should ignore claims of the form "certainly of interest to readers". This "news" is tabloid sensationalism. The arguments in support are on the same level. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it has had 147,500 views today its obviously of interest to readers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tabloid media gets big ratings too. Doesn't make it newsworthy. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being discussed internationally by reliable sources does though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Than why did you have a one word oppose comment consisting of "who?". And by the way, topics "of interest to readers" is the reason why ITN exists. We are here to provide articles on topics people are interested and that are both updated and in the news. I have no idea why that concept is so hard to remember... RxS (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is tabloid fodder, and an item of little encyclopaedic or enduring interest which will be forgotten in a few years time. Page view statistics are irrelevant, since popularity does not indicate importance. Modest Genius talk 22:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds similar to the OJ Simpson case, which shit, is still being discussed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No its not, OJ Simpson was notable as football player before and after the case. This woman was not notable before the case and few will be discuss the case in months time. Media frenzy does not mean it is ITN material. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares about OJ Simpson's football playing now, and they certainly never cared outside the US. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC tailor's its front page based on IP geolocation. Just because it's on the front page in your country does not mean it is anywhere else. Seen from South Africa (where I am currently) it's nowhere to be found on the front page, not even in the 'US & Canada' section. Modest Genius talk 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's very good to know, thank you. I continue to support the inclusion of this item. It's not just the tabloids (though they've definitely had their sensationalist stories with this one). It's been all over cable news, national network news, and local network news here, as well as the mainstream papers. Perhaps the coverage internationally is more tabloid than mainstream. Here it's most definitely both. If anything, the entire case now speaks to the dangers of coming to premature conclusions, as most of the media, including mainstream media, seemed to decide the woman would be found guilty. This is more than just a story of a dead two year old. N419BH 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nowhere else in the world does a murder case get this much coverage. The fact that it's happened in the US and was covered by tabloids means that much of this global media coverage is simply hyped up and I'm not buying it. This is not ITN material. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In our place, the Vizconde massacre is in the news for 20 years now since it started in 1991. Twenty years. (The slow justice system also has to do with it, but still.) The U.S. is not the only place such events get coverage. As stated below, the Dutch politician was also posted with no opposition. If ITN only "temporarily" opposed that, why is it heavily, and with no good reason, opposing this one now? –HTD 05:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or there's the Soham murders, which still provoke extremely strong feelings today though it doesn't get much worse than murdering defenceless 10-year-olds, or the Murder of Milly Dowler or any number of other sickening crimes that people commit. I'm not !voting either way, but just thought I'd point out it's not just the American press (or even just the tabloids) that get themselves worked up about horrible murders (particularly those of middle-class, young white women). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes, media frenzy, and it seems the sensationalist tabloid media got it wrong anyway, pre-convicting someone later found not guilty. Please let's not feed that frenzy. It should be beneath us. I can only suspect that those supporting this have been swept up in the frenzy, and can see no harm in it. Frenzy is not news! HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You already opposed once. I would kindly ask you to remove the oppose vote from your comment. Truthsort (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As expected, a U.S.-centric item was bombarded by knee-jerk opposes. Where were you during the Dutch politician was adden in ITN? Doesn't mean that he's Dutch means it is more "international" which no longer is part our criteria. How about the Vizconde massacre? It's nomination only got one oppose, and "temporarily" if I may add. No one screamed "who?" there.
Seriously, U.S. items here aren't getting fair treatment. If this was an Irish girl we'd be screaming at the absence of admins.
One million views, that's more than the World Cup. It'll be an absolute travesty if the won't get posted unless someone comes up with a better reason why this should not be posted, aside from "who?", "it happened in the US", and "this is tabloid fodder" n(as it has been covered by serious media). –HTD 03:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media frenzies should be ignored wherever they're from. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't ignore media frenzies during sporting events or when they Dutch politician was acquitted. –HTD 04:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this Dutch politician you're obsessed with? HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. –HTD 04:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
????? HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I can't help you (LOL). All I know was that Dutch guy was also acquitted and the ITN/C nomination was never opposed. You just gotta trust me on this lol –HTD 04:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that I can't remember it nor you haven't screamed "Who?" at that nomination further reinforces my point. –HTD 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for not commenting on this hypothetical Dutch politician is almost certainly that I missed seeing it when this page dropped off my Watchlist for a few days. I have no idea of the merits or otherwise of his case. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change things. That guy got a free pass. This one, because it originated in the U.S., doesn't. –HTD 04:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons have nothing to do with the country of origin. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. This case has been oversimplified as "tabloid fodder" when it isn't. –HTD 05:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently HTD is referring to the Geert Wilders case. This was big news in the EU. The differences to this case are obvious: Geert Wilders is the leader of the third largest party in Holland, a member of the parliament and a well-recognized politician in Europe, and to some degree even worldwide. The general feeling was that the result of his trial had much wider political effects EU-wide than just dropping the criminal charges. This woman, meanwhile, is only known for being accused for the murder of her child. If you opposed the Geert Wilders nomination, why didn't you open your mouth back then? It is perfectly okay to comment on the nominations after their posting as well. --hydrox (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem we have is that the news today, widely reported in reliable sources, is that Casey Anthony has been found guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer, and nothing else. That is apparently major news because the tabloid media earlier effectively convicted her of murder. So, unfortunately, does our article. Now that she has been found not guilty of murder, a lot of that article can be seen as speculation, and possibly close to breaching our guidelines on WP:BLP. For example, why on earth mention garbage in the boot of her car that somebody thought smelt like a dead body? Given today's finding, the article is a disaster. HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that's something that can be remedied ("the article is a disaster") unlike the earlier point that you really can't do anything since it is the subject of the article. Well... it still is, but at least that can remedied. But we all know even if it's an FA (as stated by someone above), people would be still be opposing (LOL), so we'd need an admin that has the balls to post this once the article is cleaned up. –HTD 05:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I still oppose it on the basis that the claimed major news coverage is actually coverage of the fact that someone has been found guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. That's NOT notable. It's ONLY notable because of an earlier media frenzy that did not involve reputable major news services. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not in the criteria, and whether or not mainstream media did not care about this in the early part of the case is immaterial. What matters if if it's getting coverage now and if people are interested now. We don't have to be philosophical about it. That's the concern of the pundits. –HTD 05:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not understand as to how simply being a media frenzy disqualifies this on being placed on the front page. This has been building up since 2008 and the verdict made it even more notable. I would also like to comment that the article is in much better shape now. Truthsort (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • And last I checked the BBC, New York Times and other sources listed above are fairly reputable. Hot Stop (c) 06:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's getting as much attention as the DSK saga. Why it's getting that attention isn't our concern. Hot Stop (c) 05:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marking [Ready?], the article has now been cleaned up. The viewing figures are well over the point where the fact that its celebrity gossip counts against it, and it has been covered internationally by reliable sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Counting down before someone removes [Ready?] in 5... 4... 3... –HTD 06:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for ignoring what I have posted. The attention it's getting from reliable sources is that someone was found guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. That's NOT notable.
        • Oh, and re the DSK comparisons (is he the mystical "Dutch politician"?), surely he had a more significant role in world affairs than Casey Anthony, i.e. already notable without tabloid attention. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, he's not DSK. Everyone knows who DSK is when he got arrested. Nobody seem to remember who this Dutch guy even after he was acquitted. –HTD 06:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Geert Wilders is the Dutch politician. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • weeeeeeeeee –HTD 06:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • HiLO48: The attention it's getting from reliable sources is that someone was found guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. That's NOT notable. The charges of lying to an officer are not the notable charges in this trial, it is the other three charges that are more significant and have shown to be notable enough to receive international coverage. Truthsort (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Here is that discussion. For the record I would say getting acquitted of murder is more notable than beating hate speech chargers, which apparently you don't agree with TS. Hot Stop (c) 06:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The part of the comment I wrote in italics came from HiLo48 and if you see the part not in italics, that is my comment respoonding to him and arguing that this case is notable. Not sure you saw but I am the nominator of this. Truthsort (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Notice that there was zero opposition on that one too. Imagine if that was a U.S. politician who died that came from Massachusetts who was an assassinated president's brother.
                      • Hey can someone look at what's trending in Ireland on Twitter... –HTD 06:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • People get acquitted of murder quite often around the world, and, quite rightly, most cases don't appear here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • But a murder trial in Orlando usually doesn't trend in Ireland on Twitter, right? –HTD 06:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                            • And get international coverage around the world? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Screw international coverage. If it trended in Ireland it's something. :P –HTD 06:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                                • You guys really do struggle to get your heads around the two levels of activity here. First we had sensationalist tabloid media frenzy creating an expectation of an exciting murder trial with all sorts of soapie style action (something not relevant to ITN, or it would already have been here), then we had responsible journals reporting a not guilty verdict, reporting only made necessary by the earlier tripe. What the responsible journals have reported is not notable news. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The media in Malaysia and China don't have to follow a US tabloid frenzy... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As someone in the U.S. who usually supports news items solely on the basis of the amount of coverage, I feel obliged to morally oppose adding this per most of the opposes above. Grandmasterka 07:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't mind U.S.-centric items from time to time, and I occasionally enjoy reading tabloids, but I will have to agree with HiLo48. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Millions of people are following this story in America, Europe and Asia- yet it's dismissed as "U.S.-centric" and "media frenzy"? God forbid there's a royal wedding or a former crown prince dies, but actual international news? Hell no. Why would we post that shit? A Habsburg has died! Maybe someday we'll actually post news according to its professional coverage, rather than relying on a few people with nothing better to do than to declare what is and isn't important in the news. I doubt it though. Swarm X 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The stated goal of WP:ITN is to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. The view statistics of the article, combined with the worldwide mainstream media coverage, demonstrate that this story is of wide interest. It should not be the job of ITN editors to decide what our readers should be interested in. I sympathize with Hilo's concern about the way this story has been reported in the media and how the woman has been convicted by said media, but ultimately, ITN is not an online newspaper and does not have to follow, or be judged by, the same ethical standards that news sources do. The main concern is--is the article up to date and in good shape, and does it pass concerns related to WP:BLP? If it does, I'm fine with it. As there appears to be a consensus that the article is indeed in good shape, I'll go ahead and mark this ready, despite the opposition. As always, an admin will ultimately have to decide on this one. Regarding two specific objections: a) Missing white woman syndrome-- I always cringe at this objection. It's basically playing the race card. It has dubious academic credibility. (the WP article does not cite a single academic source) It also implies that if the victim were non-white it would be notable. Obviously, the case shouldn't be more notable because of someone's race. However, I have no objection to a story being more notable because the victim was a young girl. A young girl is the most helpless of victims and there's nothing immoral IMO that such a murder generates greater sympathy. b) 'Tabloid fodder'--Frankly, we crossed that line when we posted not only the royal wedding but the engagement as well. I realize that for many people the wedding of a future head of state is not 'tabloid fodder' but I guess one man's tabloid fodder is another man's serious news story. True crime is a topic of very wide interest and also a subject of serious study.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And exactly what "true crime" do we have here? Making a false statement to police? Murder has not been proven, except in the sad minds of the manipulated tabloid audience. HiLo48 (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The victim was found dead in a plastic bag with her mouth duct-taped; it goes beyond reasonable doubt that some crime was committed by someone. True crime does not necessarily refer to solved crimes with the criminal convicted; it refers to the investigation and possible trial as well, which there certainly was. Many people are just as fanscinated by unsolved murders (e.g. the Whitechapel murders) as they are by ones resulting in a conviction.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. In case this gets posted it will immediately get pulled because of a clear lack of consensus. And pulling items is not something we want on ITN. (I opposed posting the royal engagement as well but this story is far less relevant in the wider picture). What would make it relevant would be triggering changes in the law of something of that scale. --Tone 12:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The now multiple, then reverted declarations of Ready on this topic weaken the the case even more. On each occasion it has been done while ignoring valid criticism. More like bullying than discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, marking [Ready?] when there is no consensus makes little sense, therefore I removed it. And however I look at the case, I cannot see a consensus here. --Tone 12:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was unclear. I support your removal action. It's the unjustified, unilateral action that led you to it that's the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understood, I just wanted to make it clearer. --Tone 13:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I marked it 'ready', as I stated above, because I felt there was a consensus that at least the article was updated; I conceded there was opposition but it's not a !vote. Marking it ready doesn't put it on the front page.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This has had too much publicity IMO and is serving more as entertainment for the media and U.S. rather than having a significant impact globally.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (not that it means too much now) - we're not some sort of tabloid-battling force, it's not as though us posting this is tantamount to "becoming one of them" or whatever the reason is for people opposing this. Listen. I don't like US-centric stuff on ITN, but this is certainly an exception. The fact that it's been floating about globally as well as across the states is proof it's at least remotely interesting to a wide audience, and that is what we're for - showing off stuff that's in the news. Whether or not a tabloid or three have also been reporting on it is none of our concern.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  18:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Worldwide coverage and widespread interest around the world for this mind-bending case stranger than fiction. And with a surprise ending to boot. To all who claim this is sensationalism: you're idiots. This was not some ordinary murder trial. If it was, it would not have captivated people at the level it has captivated. People simply do not get this interested for murder trials.
  • And yes, it has been highly publicised. Does that make it any less notable? Hell no! It makes it MORE notable for the reason I just stated. The opponents here who make you think the opposite are simply hardcore non-conformists who simply hate anything mainstream, and are using ITN as a medium to express this. We saw it with the Charlie Sheen affair, with the Lindsey Lohan sentencing (which I opposed as well, FWIW), and anything after the 15th nomination for the Arab Spring. These people seem to want to look better and more sophisticated than everyone else, claiming that these types of stories are just "tabloid fodder" and are therefore meaningless. But get this: they then turn around and oppose any death not sensational enough for their standards!
  • I'm sorry if this looks like a personal attack, but it's extremely ignorant and it had to be said. It's disrupting the process here at ITN and it's the main reason this section is dying slowly out of existence. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we are posting a hell of a lot more content now than we were before and there have been substantial improvements - in June we posted 54 items, or one every 13.3 hours on average, between the 24th October and the 25th January only 100 items were posted which is a rate of one every 20.6 hours. I agree though about there being some issues, such as the way this has been discussed still remaining. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (already !voted) Newsworthiness and significance are both factors for ITN. This has none of the latter. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong support - the biggest trial since OJ simpson, and the sentence itself makes it itn news.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a local news story in significance only, no matter what the trainwreck aspect of it. 21:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Local story? have you been sleeping in the woods for the last month or so? haha.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I have to say it again. It's been tabloid trash for most of its life, much like the love lives of footballers and movie stars. Quality sources got involved for the trial, at which someone was found guilty of lying to police. I really didn't think that two stage process was too complicated, but it clearly is for some. Not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Johnsemlak. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Johnsemlak made the most constructive comment in the conversation so far. The purpose of the WP:ITN section is: a. "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" / b. "To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events" / c. "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them" / d. "To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource". This was obviously big news worldwide, as nobody expected a verdict of "not guilty." Thus, it fulfills a, globally. Wikipedia article is extensive, and although it had some tags this was, and is, receiving so much visibility even without ITN, that article is already up to standards (kudos to contributors). Fulfills b & d. I conclude with: we shouldn't too much select stories based on our own likings here (notable/not notable, yellow/white press), as ITN is not part of the encyclopedia content, but a web portal for users and editors to find current content. Sometimes enough press is just enough, even if it's yellow. --hydrox (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason "nobody expected the not guilty verdict" was because of the earlier "who's kissing who in Hollywood" type coverage from the tabloid press, stuff that would be unacceptable here now. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This wouldn't have been that significant without the "not guilty" verdict. Another pathetic criminal sent to prison, who cares? This is a very interesting case from the legal perspective as well. I had never heard of this case before opening the local newspaper this morning, several thousand kilometers away. Actually, the "not guilty" verdict makes this case so peculiar, that it is easily of random interest to the readers. I feel like it fits all the four purposes of the ITN now. --hydrox (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - After a careful re-reading of the criteria outlined in the 'Significance' section (italics are mine) at WP:ITN:
"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. The most common form of opposition on this ground is that the news is "too local" and not of interest to people in the commenter's country of origin." (End ITN quote) Please note that I do not Oppose because this is a USA-centric story, but because the story is trivial compared to our standards. I am unswayed by arguments that the story is famous for being famous, while at the same time I find I'm unmoved by many of the opposes which seem to be WP:DONTLIKEIT... indeed, I am dismayed by what I view as the low quality of reasoning on both sides. Jusdafax 02:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I remain in support of the nomination, I accept this as a valid objection, as I can see how someone may view this as 'trivial'.
    That said, I find that criterion somewhat troubling. The term 'trivial' is, in addition to being rather subjective in application, is mildly derogatory and IMO an unhelpful descriptor of ITN criteria, particularly with no examples given. I think we can all agree that we want to exclude 'trivial' events from ITN, but getting everyone to agree on what is trivial is a common source of debate on this forum. In this example, we have an otherwise non-notable event that has been given extensive news coverage and notoriety--and in the opinion of many editors here--notability. In many ways here we are debating, not for the first time, whether a human interest story is suitable for ITN. One could compare this story to the recent Strauss-khan case, where person was charged of a crime, subjected to intense media scrutiny, and then relieved of all or most of the charges. One example is 'automatically' notable because the person was notable in their own right, or a least in charge of a very notable organization. The other person had no such notability, the kind of 'ordinary' person unworthy of their own Wikipedia article; and yet the trial has captured the interest of many people for whatever reason.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Johnsemlak, for the obliging manner in which you term my objection as "valid" which I take as quite a compliment, given that such acknowledgment is rare from a !vote at odds with one's own on this page. In fact, yours was the opinion that resolved me to refresh my understanding of the actual criteron at ITN. Regarding your last sentence, my personal views of the international media are, or should be, beyond the scope of this discussion, leaving us to debate, as you note, what we find to be "trivia." I agree that it may not be the the best operative word as ITN policy, but at the moment it is what we have. Jusdafax 07:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong oppose there are large amount of interesting cases that get a lot of worldwide media attention. atleast at minimum ITN should focus on cases in highest courts such as supreme court... which may in some way change the law of a country. this case does nothing to anyone. yes its a sad crime by whoever committed it but not for ITN -- Ashish-g55 02:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting way to look at it but I think there are other ways a trial can be notable besides being in a high-level court. The article asserts the case broke new ground in forensic science which is a notable aspect.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but will this be posted as legal item or scientific item? i would support if idea behind it was new forensic science techniques or something similar but i dont think thats what others are looking for here... -- Ashish-g55 11:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Ordinarily I believe that we should largely defer to the judgement of reliable sources about notability and significance of particular events - and there is certainly plenty of coverage here. However, for ITN inclusion one does need to draw the line somewhere: there needs to be at least some inherent significance and importance, based on our own subjective judgement, for a particular event to be listed as an ITN item. For example, the murder of Matthew Shepard and the trial of his killers significantly advanced gay rights debate in the U.S. and resulted in much new hate crime legislation. The O.J. trial became a significant moment in terms of the race relations in the U.S. In the case of Casey Anthony's trial I just don't see any inherent significance - no political or social or international importance of any kind, as far as I can tell. Just a sad story overblown by tabloidish U.S. media for no rational reason. Deserves an article on WP but not inclusion in the ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. US domestic news, not significant. Mocctur (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Same as what many users have said above. Tabloid material, no international significance at all. I don't care if this case gets as many hits as Britney Spear's latest single, it is not encyclopaedic material. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

African drought

Article: Horn of Africa#Drought (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Several countries located in the Horn of Africa endure their most severe drought in 60 years, with millions of people affected. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Agree, drought cannot be the focus article. Support in principle. --Tone 12:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be sensationalist with nominations. Section title "At least 9 million people" and drought as the target article? What? Are we in a game of charades? What's next, a death of a VIP in San Marino and we'd have "history" as the target article with the matching "An entire country mourns" as the section title? I know selling an ITN blurb and its corresponding cute little notices on user talk pages are really sought after by some of the people here (probably the Wikicup or something) as if they're FAs, but this is bordering on being sad and pathetic. –HTD 12:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Horn of Africa#Drought was what I intended actually. I should have checked again after I saved. I'm not sure it's much better either but I couldn't find anything else. Maybe someone else can. And yes, at least 9 million people. The source says at least 9 million. I don't think there is any other way of saying that apart from saying that it is at least 9 million people. It isn't often that a nomination is made involving 9 million people. On the other hand, the blurb says "millions of people" but that seems a bit vague. I'm sorry to have made a nomination at all if it is considered "sad and pathetic" by some, any or all. --candle•wicke 13:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the Horn of Africa article: "Drought is a predictable event in the Horn of Africa's semi-arid and arid climate"... it loses notability if this is the target article, but a separate one would be better. SpencerT♦C 00:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there's a massive drought in Texas too. That would never make it. Hot Stop (c) 13:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support noone's going to die in the Texas drought as everyone there is rich enough to buy food from elsewhere. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If an updated article/section can be worked out. I'm not sure the target section in the blurb focuses enough on the point the blurb is trying to make. RxS (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We're not crusaders for under-reported news stories; we actually want to present an encyclopedia article for the headline. No decent article content covers this thing whatsoever. Swarm X 08:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strauss-Kahn indictment to be withdrawn

Article: Dominique Strauss-Kahn (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The charges of sexual assault againg the former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn to be withdrawn. (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph, IBN Live
Credits:

Crnorizec (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

July 4, 2011 (2011-07-04) (Monday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

Sport

Zine El Abidine Ben Ali convicted and sentenced

Article: Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Zine El Abidine Ben Ali is convicted of the possession of illegal drugs and weapons and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Ditto. As long as this is in absentia, it does not contribute much to the overall story. --Tone 19:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the article and section is in good shape. beleive we posted Mubarak and Ben Ali's precedent is arguably more improtant.
Mark ready?Lihaas (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least 88 resignations

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​ At least 88 lawmakers in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh resign in support of the creation of a new state called Telangana. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Times of India, The Hindu
Support if/when the new state is created. This would be an important event in India. --Tone 19:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Important political development. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support the concept as important to have such a large chunk of empty seats, hjowevber the article is horris and need some organisationLihaas (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Otto von Habsburg

Article: Otto von Habsburg (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Otto von Habsburg, former Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary, dies at age 98. (Post)
News source(s): Monstersandcritics, [
Article updated

Support as nom - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A highly influential figure in post-WWI Europe. Article needs updating though. Nightw 10:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very important royal and political figure of the 20th century. We usually omit posting deaths of royal members, but this one should be excluded by the virtue that von Habsburg pretended the throne almost 40 years, afterwards was active in politics and received highly notable acknowledgements.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A crown prince pretender 1921–1958 and a Member of European Parliament 1979–1999 (and as such one of the most senior members of the said body), multiple honours and a seemingly noted and active European political figure. None of these would probably alone merit ITN, but together they just might. --hydrox (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I think we should mention his time spent as an MEP. Hot Stop (c) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Hydrox. --candle•wicke 15:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure of his significance, being from across the pond and all. But the article is certainly not well referenced enough to be featured on the main page in the absence of significant news (not just his death). NW (Talk) 15:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More references added. Update done. Nightw 03:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose non notable death of a notable royal.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a "wow" factor is required to publish deaths on ITN, you might as well abolish the death criteria completely. This is a very lacking argument that has been gaining much usage recently, and I cringe every time I see it used. Who care if the death is notable? What's notable here is that this "notable" person is no longer physically able to contribute to society in the way that rendered him notable in the first place! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His death is extremely notable, a one-in-a-century, and I figure we will soon have a separate article on his burial. His mother received a state burial worthy of an Empress (she was one). Mocctur (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not such a groundbreakingly notable life as should warrant posting his death at such an old age. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He was 98. People do tend to die when they're 98, and I don't see what makes him so important that we should post his hardly surprising death. C628 (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter how old he was? A person's inherent notability isn't subject to age. Are you saying that if he was 34 and died from a drug overdose rather than old age his death would automatically be more notable? Nightw 02:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@NightW and Eric Leb--ITN traditionally considers deaths due to old age to be less significant than deaths of people who were still active in their careers. One of the factors is whether the death has an impact on current events. Many people don't want ITN to be an obituary section.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet we seem to automatically post the deaths of former heads of state no matter how old. We've somehow come to believe that the deaths of these people are inherently notable yet those of others, even those that were perhaps more influential in there time, are not. Seems a bit of a narrow-minded tradition, don't you think? Nightw 03:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I consider the tradition narrow minded; however it surely can have exceptions, as Doktorb points out below. Support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. Otto von Habsburg has been a hugely influential political figure since the 1930s. He is the former Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary, one of the world's maybe five great powers in its time, which ceased to exist almost hundred years ago. Otto was destined to become the Emperor. He was later (1961) offered the Crown of Spain, but turned it down. His political role in many of the countries of former Austria-Hungary for many decades cannot be underestimated. If anyone is worthy of inclusion on the main page, it's Otto. He's like a person from a different century altogether, it's almost like Napoleon dying—the man was exiled in 1918! If Bill Clinton died, it would not be nearly as important. Mocctur (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per night. Spongie555 (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally, I'd be meh about something like this but he was last of the Habsburg line, which is a big deal. And just to comment on the whole expected death/old age thing. I don't get that at all, ITN exists to provide access to Wikipedia articles that documents items in the news. Whether someone is old or not doesn't make any difference if people are interested in the deceased. It's not logical at all...RxS (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Nightw 03:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I fully understand why people are opposing, given that precedent suggests that it would not be front page material. However, exceptions come along to prove rules, do they not, and this is on exception. Given the historic importance of a) this man specifically, and b) his family and genealogical line, it would be highly unusual for Wikipedia to consider his death not to be notable. I can only think of the death of the current Windsor line as a contemporary example, albeit slightly different in context. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The death section should be expanded further. Standard obit details such as 'survived by 22 grandchildren' aren't notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the deaths of much less notable people on the front page, including American TV hosts. Otto von Habsburg is a one in a century kind of person, there will not be any similar cases for the next hundred years. Mocctur (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One More Thing This has no place on Wiki, I know, but it made me laugh. Otto von Hasburg was in an office in the Berlayamont building during one of the World Cups, and a young Eurocrat, not knowing who he was, tried to strike up conversation by asking, “Did you see the Austria Hungary match last night?”

“No,” replied His Highness, “Who were we playing?” doktorb wordsdeeds 08:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it was he was the record-holder of being pretender-reversionary claimant to a monarchy; had things gone differently he would have been the longest-serving monarch - 89 years is unlikely to be improved upon in a #very# long time; UK Prince Charles is now the current holder of the 'reversionary royal' claim. 94.195.193.37 (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Ready] 3rd bombing in the Arab Gas Pipeline this year

Article: Arab Gas Pipeline (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Explosion of the Arab Gas Pipeline in Egypt's North Sinai Governorate suspends natural gas supplies to Israel and Jordan. (Post)
News source(s): (AFP via Jakarta Post), (Al-Jazeera)
Article updated
Support: as nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the pipeline has been shut down and it is an international incident. --candle•wicke 15:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. This is getting boring. GreyHood Talk 16:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No significant major coverage about its impact. If it's the third such bombing, surely this is more routine than not now, and there's no real story here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support good updae on the article.Lihaas (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

July 3, 2011 (2011-07-03) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters

International relations

Politics and elections

Sport

EuroBasket Women 2011

Article: EuroBasket Women 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russia defeats Turkey to win the EuroBasket Women 2011. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Seems WP:ITN/R. GreyHood Talk 22:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is no more WP:ITNR than the WNBA championship is. Which is to say, it isn't. I'm inclined to oppose unless we get a particularly good, prose-filled article written within the next couple of days. NW (Talk) 03:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such a situation seems normal for sports articles. And actually there are three paragraphs about the final down the page. As far as I remember, this volume of prose was just enough to be posted on ITN few months ago. GreyHood Talk 18:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded intro a bit, so that there would be less confusion about whether and where the article was updated. GreyHood Talk 19:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should modify the wording in the blurb to include both, the main article and the section about the final. Sounds better to me something like:
Russia defeats Turkey to win the EuroBasket Women 2011.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the blurb according to your proposal, however if someone feels it is overlinked feel free to amend, of course. GreyHood Talk 20:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... 5,000 people watched in an arena with the capacity of 13,800? I don't think people here would like to post any event from this list save for the NBA, NHL and Euroleague. zzzz –HTD 22:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we didn't post the 2010 Fiba Woman's World Championship.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think the guys here would post the Olympics (this is a qualifying tournament to that) either. –HTD 10:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the World Championships also are some kind of qualifying tournaments, so should we post every Olympic competition alone?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
World Championships are not "some kind of a qualifying tournaments" as it already is the world championship so it won't make sense for a world championship to be a qualifying tournament, although in FIBA's case the world champions qualify for the next Olympics, while the Olympic gold medalists qualify for the next world championship (think of it in the old FIFA World Cup format where the defending champion doesn't have to qualify).
And Olympic basketball would never be posted as long as the USA wins -- we'd settle for the next best thing, the Worlds, where the best players didn't play the last time around, but that was also laughingly opposed.
So we're stuck in a situation for basketball where the top international tournament where the best players play (the Olympics) won't be posted at the ITN, but the next best thing (the Worlds, in theory these two are equal) is posted with some opposition, and we post the EuroBasket (for men), an intercontinental championship that doubles qualifying tournament where oddly, the tournament where this year's champions go won't be posted (2012 Olympics). Almost the same situation for the distaff side, although it's worse as no tournaments are to be posted. –HTD 15:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Thai general election, 2011

Need update, though. Blurb:

Further note: Preu Thai has won 249 seats -- they need 251 enough seats for an outright majority. –HTD 13:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dunno what's the benefit of adding "incumbent" as it's understood that by stating that he is Prime Minister that he is the incumbent. –HTD 17:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Pulled] STL arrest warrants

Article: Special Tribunal for Lebanon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Special Tribunal for Lebanon issues four arrest warrants against senior members of Hezbollah. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, The Daily Star
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Story has been developing over the last few days. Now that we have Hezbollah's position (total rejection), the situation has come a full circle. --hydrox (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to what? No-one has made a case for posting this. Kevin McE (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what exactly you mean, but I take that as a sort of "no comment", unless you are actually saying this nomination is somehow invalid. If no one else objects, I am going to post in a few hours since it is getting old already (June 30). The article is fairly extensive, and although it has one tag it doesn't appear to be a serious issue. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, this looks interesting, but who are the subjects of these warrants? If they're top brass whose loss would seriously hurt Hezbollah, I'd supportm but a little more information would be nice. Also, which part of the STL article has been updated? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The updated section is Special_Tribunal_for_Lebanon#Indictment. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The update looks decent and if these are, as the article says, the first arrest warrants against Hezbollah members, I'd say that's pretty significant. A blurb along the lines of Hezbollah rejects the first arrest warrants ever issued for four of its members would probably be better, but support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait.. where did you get all that "first arrest warrants" stuff? These are the first arrest warrants issued by the STL, a UN-backed criminal court investigating the death of former MP of Lebanon operating within the framework of Lebanese law but based in Hague, but definitely not the first arrest warrants against members of Hezbollah as an organization. --hydrox (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting topic, article is in great shape. RxS (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose two votes vs. many questions is hardly a consensus, and the article is a mess... I have to side with all the concerns raised in the discussion above. Crnorizec (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a bit messy, I agree. I did not vote as nominator because I was hoping for 3rd opinion to help form my own opinion, and I was quite surprised that it got posted so fast actually (which, BTW, is good practice for less controversial, less complicated topics). Secondly, the blurb was hardly discussed at all. I would have preferred my original blurb that was purposely worded in the most neutral way, just stating the obvious fact recognized by all parties, while Hezbollah's position to "reject" arrest warrants is hardly well-received by the international community (terrorist organization according to US, UK, Israel, but not EU). Though, now that its been posted on the Main page for several hours, changing it serves no point, but I would kind of suggest letting this item go without faint of heart as soon as new materials become available. --hydrox (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled. The event your original blurb describes actually happened on June 30; that is already too old now, which is why I had to reword it. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I do not agree that it "got posted so fast". It took more than 24 hours since your nomination. Perhaps we should wait for a week then? Please notice how often ITN gets criticized for being stagnant. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Wimbledon

Articles: Petra Kvitová (talk · history · tag) and Novak Djokovic (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, Petra Kvitová wins the women's singles and Novak Djokovic wins the men's singles at the Wimbledon Championships. (Post)
Credits:

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

 Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Tone 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#diacritics_consistency to explain the inconsistency between how we wrote names in this blurb.--Avala (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No.1

Tomorrow Djokovic assumes the No.1 position so the blurb should then be updated to include this information. Any objections?--Avala (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Changes in rankings are not automatically ITNworthy, that change in rank was not dependent on him wining this event, and the blurb would become too long. Kevin McE (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye

Klitschko won with a unanimous points victory. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs an update on the fight itself. Otherwise Support, as the fight seems to have unified all or most of the heavyweight titles, [POV]although these days the heavyweight division has about as much legitimacy as George W Bush's election in 2000[/POV].--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per its special significance as a match that led to the unification of the titles.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. GreyHood Talk 13:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per previous; important boxing match. --hydrox (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article isn't really fit to be on the main page. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

July 2, 2011 (2011-07-02) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

Kosovo and Serbia

Article: Kosovo–Serbia relations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Kosovo and Serbia sign several accords relating to practical problems. (Post)
News source(s): Serbia and Kosovo sign deals
Article needs updating
might be interesting with a Djokovic result tonight..Lihaas (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Itamar Franco, former President of Brazil, dies

Article: Itamar Franco (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Brazilian politician and former president Itamar Franco dies at the age of 81 (Post)
News source(s): R7, Terra Networks
  • Comment I'm pretty new here at wp.en - first blurb I nominate - but I have some experience at wp.pt. I don't believe the death of a former president is something this wikipedia will see diferently than we do there. Since he "was in a high-ranking office of power, and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region", being the president who launched the "Plano Real" in 1994, and stabilized a economy, ending a instability that begun in 1986, I think we should include him in the ITN. Brazilian real has been the currency since then - Between 1986 and 1994 the country had four different currencies, and inflation rates changed from one hour to the other. Franco and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Minister of Economy at the time and the president who followed him, changed that. This was announced about ten minutes ago, so I will update the nomination with sources from other countries as they appear - Maddox (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support sounds significant, and he's the president of a major country. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I usually oppose deaths, but I'll give this one in principle support: he was the President of a large and significant country for a reasonable period and he was politically active at the time of his death. The article isn't perfect -- there are some unsourced sections -- but I think it is ok enough to post. There's little obvious POV.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Death of a president. Brazil is a big country. South America doesn't appear on ITN enough. --candle•wicke 23:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois abolishes the death penalty

Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, capital punishment is NOT permanently the subject of heated debate within most of the "developed world". Most of the developed world abandoned capital punishment long ago and the issue has faded from significance in most countries. This is an American issue, only relevant to the rest of the "developed world" in the way it might affect the image of the USA in the rest of that "developed world". Personally, I doubt that most of it will notice. I'm in no position to judge how significant it is within the USA. I'll leave that to the locals. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I would support this if only there were a more reasonable background to do so. But since it is valid only to a federal subject in a country with 37 others out of 50 tolerating the death penalty, I don't think that it'll quicken the abolishment on a higher level.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on timeliness grounds. Quinn signed the bill eliminating the death penalty in Illinois in March and commuted all outstanding death sentences at the same time. The fact that abolition takes effect today is not news. The Fox News story cited above describes this non-event the same way a lot of the press coverage does: "quiet". If we were going to cover this, we should have done so in March.--Chaser2 (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As a person residing in Illinois, this hasn't even made the local papers. I would be curious to see if it's been given any international attention. 75% of the states still have the death penalty, and there is also a federal death penalty valid in all states. However, as the United States is one of very few "first world" countries to still have a death penalty, there might be more international reaction than local reaction. N419BH 18:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Barely even news in Illinois (check out the online Chicago Tribune, for example). The more significant Illinois developments have already occurred. While I'm not alleging anyone here is motivated by POV, trumping up, on the main page, fairly insignificant "milestones" in abolishing the death penalty risks creating that appearance. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability considerations, however, I don't see a substantive enough update anywhere, and indeed adding sufficient coverage to either article linked would probably be disproportionate in context. Therefore in the absence of a more specific article it has to be an oppose. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it doesn't appear to be featured in the local media according to the above and because other parts of the country are still killing. --candle•wicke 23:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Padmanabhaswamy Temple treasure

Article: Padmanabhaswamy Temple (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Treasure worth billions of rupees is found at Padmanabhaswamy Temple in India. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
  • Support billions of rupees is a lot of money and the treasure is supposed to be worth over $500 million. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Highly interesting item, treasure is always interesting. People will read this, and it's a pretty good article. Per nom, nice change of topic. Looks well updated, at least within in spirit if not letter (and it might meet the letter also) RxS (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to think that treasure is found only in the movies; this deserves to be in ITN. However, it would be good if we get an actual figure (however rough). Billions of rupees is kinda vague. This would be a nice change from the politics. Lynch7 15:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per MikeLynch. Good point. Maybe we could delay until we have a final estimate. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ALT: Treasure worth ₹100,000 crore (US$22.4 billion) is found at Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerela, India.
(Source: Deccan Herald, Google Calculator) Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer the alt blurb significantly, marking [Ready] as the article is suitably updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any other sources (preferably the well-known, highbrow, reputable type) for the figure. I can live with using Google for the conversion to USDs (that'll be rounded for the blurb anyway), but if that were in an article about this find, I'd be happier. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How 'bout The Economic Times. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. But what does "unofficial estimate" mean? Does it mean they haven't finished the inventory or that it's just guesswork? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could go for the BBC estimate of 2500 crore Rupees, and say "at least" so say Treasure worth at least ₹ 2,500 crore is found at Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerela, India. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some English-language countries use the Euro (Ireland, Malta), but I agree that USD would be better. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good post. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sudanese Army invades Libya

  • Google news searching Sudan and Libya isn't giving me very much right now. Wait till we see if the media makes a big deal out of this / if initial reporting is accurate? NW (Talk) 03:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] Wimbledon Championships - Women's Finals

Scrapped nomination (Moved above)
Article: 2011 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, Petra Kvitová defeats Maria Sharapova to win the Wimbledon championship in women's singles. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: I know many will say that the posting should be delayed till the Men's finals, I believe that we should post this blurb and modify it after the Men's finals just like the 2011 French Open post because it is after one whole day. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I gave conditional support last time round on the proviso that it wasn't then bumped when the men's result was known. It was. That has the effect of prolonging the entry's feature on ITN, and given ITNR items receive less scrutiny in the first place, and there is at least some sentiment there is too much sport on there already, I would prefer waiting until the conclusion rather than have this lingering around at the expense of something else where there is a more substantial consensus. ITNR tag removed since ITNR is very clear that interim results are not ITNR items. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't want it bumped you have to do more than make a comment in the thread - discuss it on WT:ITN, its a legitimate point, but that's the home for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominated event is a pre-approved recurring item, meaning it is considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN. If you wish to challenge the importance of the item that should be done so on the recurring items talk page.
      • Who wrote this? In any case, it clearly is not. ITNR is very specific: the head of the sports section states "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the tournament or series". The conclusion, not ongoing drips and drabs. The pre-existing consensus is therefore against posting. If you want to challenge that you take it up on WT but that is the situation as is exists now. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
        • The conclusion of the women's series is today, and the men's series is tomorrow. This wouldn't be "ongoing dribs and drabs" if this was posted before the end of the mens event and it means items get posted promptly as well - I have no issue with your idea that the item shouldn't be bumped after the mens event, and frankly I think its a good one, but the place to suggest it is WT:ITN - I will do so myself if you don't after this event is over. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both - Reoccurring item. Marcus Qwertyus 03:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
npo it is not an itnr nowr is there precedentl . AFTER the mens fnal then it gets posted.Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is ITNR, and should be posted after the Women's singles. However, after the result of the men's finals, the blurb should be updated to reflect both the results. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree with Avenue, like we did with Roland Garros.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The precedent is that the winner of the women's final gets posted after the womens final if there is an update and that's what happened with the French open. If you guys wish to challenge that start at thread on WT:ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marking [Ready]. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: possible images are this one or this one. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the refs. How about now? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, we need prose and references. Unreferenced prose won't be posted and nor will referenced tables with no (or very little) prose, and since this article is about the entire women's singles tournament, I'd expect to see decent prose on the whole tournament as well as a paragraph about the final and the winner. Like I said, probably easier to update the player's article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

July 1, 2011 (2011-07-01) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

2011 WPA World Nine-ball Championship

Article: 2011 WPA World Nine-ball Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Yukio Akakariyama defeats Ronnie Alcano 13—11 to win the WPA World Nine-ball Championship in Doha, Qatar. (Post)
News source(s): Gulf Times
Credits:

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

 Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did this get on ITNR? 38 google news hits; 300 page views the day of the final. The event that shall not be named is far more deserving than this.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time there had been a article on this on the week of the event, so people may not have known the article even existed (LOL). I was even more surprised that it got that enough page views. With that, I'm willing to wait on next year though before this gets to be posted. This is fairly a big sport in Taiwan and the Philippines, has a following in the U.S. and some parts of Europe. –HTD 00:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean student protests

Article: 2011 student protests in Chile (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 100,000 students protest over Chilean education, in Santiago. (Post)
News source(s): http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/80000-chileans-protest-over-education-20110701-1gtn1.html
Credits:
Protester with a poster saying "Education is not for sale."

This is being reported everywhere. Diego Grez (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. 80,000 is a lot, "biggest protests in 20 years", clashes with police, seems big enough for Chile, very few South American ITNs recently. --candle•wicke 22:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strauss-Kahn released from home arrest

Article: Dominique Strauss-Kahn (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Supreme Court of New York releases the former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn from house arrest. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, BBC
Credits:
  • Comment What do you think? This is surely a surprising turn in the process, although nothing has been ruled yet. On the other hand, we prominently featured his arrest originally. --hydrox (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have a general rule that we wait for the final verdict, which we admittedly chose not to follow at the time of the initial arrest. I can understand that decision as a one off, but we don't then need a running commentary of this case in ITN. I say we should now wait for the final verdict or (as is looking far more likely) the charges are formally dropped. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support WP was quick to jump on the story of his arrest now make good when he's freed; this is big news in the US and France and no doubt elsewhere. The complete and utter vindication may yet await, but this allows him to run for president of France, which some believe the prevention of which was the whole impetus behind how he was publicly arrested. Very reminiscent of the Duke scandal, prosecutors taking high-profile targets accuse them of sex crimes vouching for the veracity of complaining witnesses and left holding the bag. Fair's fair; since we saw fit to sully the guy, now own up to our own rush to judgment and publish the favorable development. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How did we "sully his name"? We reported that he had been held without bail. That is a fact. He has not been vindicated - that may come later: he is still facing these charges. It has no bearing on the French presidency since the next court date scheduled is after the deadline for him to put himself forward. Alleging some conspiracy based on groundless speculation is not what ITN is about. Of does it not matter if we really do sully the names of others? Crispmuncher (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose for now, since the release from house arrest is less important than the final judgement. If he actually runs for president, or is declared not guilty, then it should of course be posted. Thue | talk 19:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objections to that, but I am still concerned that we might have to wait months before a verdict, and even then there remains a possibility of an appeal. --hydrox (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that we posted the initial affair, we do have a moral obligation to post if the charges are dismissed, or the verdict in the event this goes to trial. I have no opinion as to the merits of posting this particular event. Cenarium (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe wikipedia has any "moral obligations" to Strauss-Kahn (or anyone else featured in ITN), since what was featured was based on reliable sources. What I do believe is that the veredict would be noteworthy. This release is by no means significant. Procedure isn't exceptional, and wikipedia's ITN is not a newspaper. In a similar situation, I've objected posting the request for a arrest warrant for Gaddafi in pt.wp for the same reason: it's procedure. Strong oppose. Maddox (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but where have we broken our policies or assumed any responsibility to comment on any minor development in the case? All we have done so far is report the fact that he has been arrested and detained. We made no inferences at the time - that is where BLP comes in. Unless we have made some kind of factual error there is nothing to correct or clarify, particularly when there is little of substance here: once again he is still facing those charges and still may not leave the US. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

2011 royal tour of Canada

William's flag in Canada.
William's flag in Canada.
Article: 2011 royal tour of Canada (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and wife Catherine begin their visit Canada on their first royal tour. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Cf. Barack Obama's visit to India, an article that was turned down at ITN and deleted aswell. This is the same, even less significant in terms of consequence. Nightw 04:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note my comments to this point, further below. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose' - not significant enough an event, especially when there's a Royal Wedding taking place today. Mjroots (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offence, but Monaco has 35,000 people, about 7% of the population of my suburban town, or less than 0.1% of Canada's population. Thus the first official tour of the future Queen of Canada seems important to slightly more people. Never mind that she'll be the future Queen of the Commonwealth, which Wikipedia lists as having a population of 2.1 Billion. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not visit by a head of state or a major official with real power. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 05:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – what if the couple visits the US, Australia, India, and all the Commonwealth countries, would they all be nominated for the main page? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they shouldn't. There have only been two tours of Canada in the last 60 years that would be front page:
      • Princess Elizabeth visited Canada and Washington DC in 1951, on behalf of her ailing father, her first official tour not as just a groupie for dad. In this tour, she basically was proving herself as someone able to take over the crown in the near future. This tour means the same for William and Catherine, in their first tour as a couple. With royalty's relevance being questioned, this tour is allowing William and his commoner bride a chance to prove themselves relevant to future generations of Canadian and Brits, and thus help ensure the continuance of constitution monarchy.
      • In 1982, for signing the Constitution Act.
    • Otherwise, none of the other royal tours would be of equal note. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reason I gave when I nominated it for deletion that is Royals go on tours, that's part of the job spec. Wikipedia is not a news source, and this trip has no implications in significant changes in international relations, law, etc. and following on from the precedent listed above for Barack Obama's visit to India. Mtking (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose just because he is Obama and he is staying in a hotel doensn't make this all that notable. [73]. Hot Stop (c) 15:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What does Obama have to do with it?--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check the link. One of the two people to support this item opposed the previously mentioned Obama trip to India on those grounds. Hot Stop (c) 16:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, Obama related items tend to get a lot of knee-jerk opposes.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ain't it astounding to see this article on the way of being kept while the Obama one was deleted? Teehee. –HTD 19:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Frankly the Obama article probably should have been kept as well, but I still think the argument that that makes it not notable for ITN is legitimate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note that Obama's deleted article is an irrelevant comparison to begin with, as the future of the United States being a federal presidential constitutional republic wasn't at stake, just trade. Ultimately, it's not too much of a stretch to say that the popularity of constitution monarchies are at stake with this tour, at least in the Commonwealth. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a Canadian. No, we don't feature the country very much, but this isn't really the event to do that with. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Would have been nice for Canada Day, but that was yesterday. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revised blurb: Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and wife Catherine tour Canada on their first royal tour, attracting over 500,000 at one Canada Day event.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2011&oldid=1147996382"