Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2008

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

Archived discussion for April 2008 from Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates.

April 30

Discovery of memristor

Tremendous discovery, it was first predicted in 1971 by Leon Chua of UC Berkley but had never been manufactored. It's a component that remembers it's previous state. It's like a variable resistor, and can store information like 1's or 0's due to it's resistance. It could possibly lead to computers having no boot up, and is a stored memory similar to the human brain.--Sparkygravity (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs to be improved some more so we can get that banner off it, first. --PlasmaTwa2 00:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Support with shorter text (example above but any is fine) when the article is ready. —SusanLesch (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose mainly cause I don't understand it from info given. Blurb and intro on article are self-referential definitions not written in layman's terms. Flux Capacatior, Leaves me scratching my head, "SCIENCE BAD" --Lemmey talk 01:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose for once I partially agree with Lemmey (yes I know this is a shock). The article doesn't really explain the importance of this breakthrough. The only thing it really says it that it may be able to replace hard drives, but a lot of things may be able to replace hard drives. The big problem is none of them have come even close to the cost of hard drives yet. From what I can tell, this breakthrough may in fact be significant enough for ITN but unless the article properly explains that, then it should stay out. Readers should not be left scratching their heads wondering why they're reading about some strange thing Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hasn't lead to anything yet, oppose. SpencerT♦C 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Interesting invention and good article. Narayanese (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

April 29

United Nations Global Food Crisis Task Force

This story is currently top billing on the Beeb's news website (home and international versions). A similar suggestion was made a while ago, seemed to have good consensus, but no admin seemed to take a fancy to it. This is a good story (albeit "task force" is a little overly dramatic, but that is how it's being described) with a decent article that is of significant global import but may not be directly obvious to those in the western world- so a nice encyclopaedic angle to it as well. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Support in principle. Might need a slight blurb tweak and/or added links, but otherwise this is a no brainer. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - as the UN is only a collection of corrupt non-notable task forces, study panels and commisions. A report of plans to (possibly) create another bureaucracy is not a worthy ITN. The core event that caused it might be worthy of note, but the UN has never solved anything. --Lemmey talk 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
haha- Lemmey, I always look forward to your balanced and well reasoned analysis. Your response, as they say, could have been seen from a mile off. You do brighten up the day ;-)
I'll leave it to the individual to decide whether or not the UN has "never solved anything". Badgerpatrol (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree the UN is crap with a capital C. What's it actually there for because it don't do a fat lot
Anybody want to sign their above comment? SpencerT♦C 23:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Support. This is a single event we can feature to get the food crisis on the main page. Random89 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather focus on listing core events w wikipedia articls than looking for incidental actions. Is there anything in the guideline that would prevent us from making just a list of in the news topics similar to the Google news 'In The News' section? It would allow us to list recent ITN articles without having to wait for specific headlines. Recent Examples include : Sub Prime Mortgage Crisis, Oil and Gas Price Increases, Airline Mergers - Bankruptcies, Zimbabwe Presidential Election...--Lemmey talk 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem there is that in the format we use, we can certainly link to any recently updated article, but we need a blurb to attach to it. Our inclusion criteria are based on the viability of the story from its hook, and only to a lesser extent on the notability of the article. We would need to change our format to have an "ongoing events" section like at Portal:Current Events, and I don't think thats a road we really want to take, as even if it was agreed upon to be needed in principle, we would still run into the same problems that face the (in my opinion far more important issue) death criteria.

Oppose per Lemmey. I like the idea of getting the world food crisis on ITN, but this is the wrong vehicle for it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If there was a article for the task force, then I would support. As it is now, oppose --PlasmaTwa2 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Amstetten kidnap case

  • Should we mention the release of Elisabeth Fritzl and her children, after 24 years of kidnap and incest? This is the second such case in Austria in a year, after Natascha Kampusch, and is making headlines throughout Europe. AecisBrievenbus 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to see this go up, this is making headlines all the way over here in Canada for what it's worth. --PlasmaTwa2 02:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm kind of second guessing this now. There definitely seems to be some international interest. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There definitely is an international interest to this. Partly because this is such a sickening story, partly because this took place in Lower Austria, as did Natascha Kampusch's kidnapping. AecisBrievenbus 02:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd support this story, but unlike my opponent I'm against kidnapping and incest. --Lemmey talk 02:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a big story. I weakly support it going up, pending updated articles. It's not a great ITN story but it meets the criteria, imho. Badgerpatrol (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What would the headline be? Something like:
  • Fourty-two year old Austrian Elisabeth Fritzl is rescued after being held captive for 24 years by her father in his basement.
Open for change :P --PlasmaTwa2 05:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Support, the article is expanded as well. --Tone 07:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This was kinda big yesterday... --Howard the Duck 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Support, this is the lead item on all the UK news channels, and although more than a little lurid is clearly of international interest. Yorkshiresky (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Strongly oppose This is a salacious news story of no encyclopedic interest. We shouldn't cover this any more than the latest antics from Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse, or now Miley Cyrus. It is also lends support to the allegations of anti-American bias here: if there were say a hypothetical story involving 400 children being seized by the state of Texas after (allegations of) rampant, systematic sexual abuse of young girls in a fundamentalist commune, there would be cries from all corners about "it's not international!" Why this then? It isn't encyclopedic, it isn't important, it isn't international, and it's not even on the Current Events portal. Case closed. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, given the lengths I went to get the deaths of two eminent minds of the 20th century covered on ITN to no avail despite strong consensus, if an item so trivial and unimportant as this gets promoted, I'll have to rethink my continued contributions here. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because being headlines in Canada and the UK isn't international. Dare I say, that, since it doesn't seem to hav any news in the US, it isn't international? The difference between those deaths and this is that most people are acutally intesrested and aware of this. I did not see anything about the butterfly effect guy in the news. Nothing. International importance? Maybe. International interest. No way. Comparing this to a death - something we always argue about putting up - is just wasting breath, in my opinion. --PlasmaTwa2 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You highlight the exact reason why this shouldn't be promoted - evaluating importance always usurps evaluating coverage. Election, space, awards, etc. that we regularly cover never appear on most front pages but that doesn't make them unimportant. I only see assertions of coverage, not importance in the above supports. Why? Because there is no importance to assert, it's just a story about a father kidnapping, raping, and fathering children with his daughter that has attained escape velocity from the local Austrian news cycle because of its lurid and sensationalist aspects. It will be forgotten by this time next week but for the precedent we set now that perhaps stories involving kidnapping, rape, incest, and combinations thereof might be included if the BBC, cable news, and newspapers in Toronto and Sydney take the space/time to include it. Everyone agrees that the number of Google hits, coverage BBC, IHT, AFP, NYTimes, etc. does not make it internationally important. The calculus for evaluating a nomination is on the criteria of promoting current events that are encyclopedicially notable and internationally important. Why then is this candidate being supported on that rejected criteria while notable deaths are not being promoted on an accepted criteria? Madcoverboy (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Somehow, I doubt this will be forgotten till after the woman makes a statement or something, since info on the case is still being revealed. It's kind of hypocritical, to me, to say that this will be forgotten a week from now, when the deaths of unknown scientists went pretty much forgotten worldwide. There is no way to accuratly judge importance. I support this due to the clear worldwide interest for the story. The fact that it is in the news in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver just shows that there is enough interest over here that it justifies being on the front page of the news. It is making news because people are interested and intrigued in this bizzare and severe case. --PlasmaTwa2 22:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Saying that this "will be forgotten by this time next week" is irrelevant crystal balling. But let's join the crystal balling. Is it really likely that it will be forgotten soon? I don't think so. The Natascha Kampusch kidnapping already looks set to trigger a parliamentary inquiry soon, this will only fuel the inquiry. It's sad to say that this does not stand on its own. This is growing to the level of the pedophile scandal that rocked Belgium in the mid 90s. This is not just another lurid story, I'm afraid there's a lot more to it. AecisBrievenbus 22:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Based on this event alone, and based on the relevant article updates, then i would lean towards yes, but as, with Madcoverboy, the whole precedent thing gets to me here. Random89 21:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I would've supported if the picture of the guy was free use. Did anyone who saw this guy walking down the street not suspect him of being a psychopath? Random89 23:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral. "News" is what masses of people are interested in, not necessarily what we are interested in. Anyway I don't think it's ITN's role to decide what is news. Rather, it's to help people find more information on things that are in the news elsewhere. That said, I doubt there's much more we can say about this case other than what people are already reading in the newspaper or online. It's not like, say, the polygamists' case, where people can come to Wikipedia to find more information on the FLDS. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Madcoverboy, I think it would really behoove you to review the ITN criteria. It is only necessary that the item be of international importance or (not and) international interest. This story has been all over the news all over the world, and from what I can tell that makes it of international interest. The bottom line is that your recent struggles over the death criteria factor into this in absolutely no way, shape, or form. Though you'll be sorely missed, if something like this is going to cause you to leave the ITN/C page then I for one say "good riddance." Support. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that being displayed on the front page of newspapers was neither sufficient nor required for an item to go up on ITN. A week ago, every newspaper in the world was talking about Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania, but there is a consensus here not to list that. And on the other hand, I don't think the Nepalese elections and the Bamyan paintings didn't make the headlines, but we put them up nonetheless. Headlines are not necessarily an indicator of international significance. ITN is good when it gives background reading to Wikipedia visitors. Putting this up isn't going to give anyone more information: the article has nothing more than the information you find in any newspaper. I don't see how putting this up would improve Wikipedia, so oppose. Pruneautalk 08:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, didn't make headlines in the UK, for what I gathered. I support this one. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It certainly did in fact, and continues to (you may have been speaking tongue in cheek). Both Mwalcoff and Pruneau have made very valid and insightful comments about the nature of ITN and I agree with the jist of what they say above wholeheartedly (hence the weakness of my "weak support" above). Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Didn't on most of the city newspapers in Canada, though it was on the Globe & Mail... It's strange he says this won't help improve Wikipedia. How would putting up Clinton winning a state do otherwise? --PlasmaTwa2 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
So what if nothing happens for a couple more days nothing goes up for a week? Two weeks? There should be some standards for ITN for example one new story per/3 days minimum. Hobartimus (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral: This whole thing leads to the question: So what? SpencerT♦C 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, with respect, a media circus. I hope the previous commenter didn't intend to say what I read. Did the Texas compound ever reach ITN? —SusanLesch (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No. In retrospect it probably should have. If I recall correctly, it pretty much had consensus. Random89 07:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my bad, allow me to doesn't really have international interest beyond a tabloid format and really doesn't affect current events. SpencerT♦C 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You're fine, I read it too fast. And I agree. —SusanLesch (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

April 28

Chinese train collision

Reword as "Two trains collide near Zibo, China, killing at least 66 people." Article is perhaps not quite up to scratch yet. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I prefer "A train collision near Zibo, China kills at least 66 people."
Support when expanded more. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 04:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Support pending expansion given precedents for aircraft accidents. Similar accident in America, Commonwealth, or Europe would have pervasive coverage and likely inclusion. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats cause theres more than one newspaper everywhere else. --Lemmey talk 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Added - "A train collision near Zibo, China, kills at least 66 people." Rudget (Help?) 15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Death toll rose to 71 according to Inter Herald Tribune and others including the wiki article itself, as of Wednesday (latest). Maork (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Also could the number injured (416) be added as this is significant too? Maork (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I find the article is hard to understand, and mostly uncited. A picture would also be nice. SpencerT♦C 23:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

ISRO PSLV launch

Source wikinews:PSLV rocket launches ten satellites
This is major event in space history as ISRO has reached yet another landmark. The payload contains 8 commercial satellites from different countries making it international. News has been in the current event section. Image is GFLD and not fair use as per criteria. Similar news about ISS, NASA and JAXA have been in ITN before many times. I think this is a deserving ITN candidate. --gppande «talk» 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Should there be an article for this launch? And are we sure the picture is actually GFDL?F (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Article for this major event would be very good. I can create it but thought it would be more appropriate to leave it as a news item. So nominated it in ITN. The image license says GFLD. No objections ever raised. --gppande «talk» 11:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not how ITN works. The ISRO article, which is bolded, has no update about this, neither does the Satish Dhawan Space Centre article. PSLV has 2 sentences of an update, which I don't think is enough.
Check out WP:ITNMP for the full criteria, but here's mostly what you're missing:
The news be important enough to warrant updating the corresponding article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a news report, so relatively small news should not be added to articles (and such news items should not be displayed on the main page).
A short (usually one-sentence) blurb should be written for the current event. It should contain a bold link to the most relevant article.
The bold link must lead to a newly created non-stub or a pre-existing article that has been substantially updated to reflect the new information. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient.
First, the blurb should be a little clearer as to what is going on. Second, there needs to be more updates to the articles you're linking to (not necessarily every one, but deffinitely the bolded one). Third, while the picture isn't a must to go up with it, see if you can hammer out its legality in the next little bit. Conditional Support per my comments. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a good ol' no from me. Feels good not to have to argue over it.--PlasmaTwa2 18:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Pls add to Portal:Current events, per ITN guidelines. -- (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

April 25

New picture?

I think we need a new picture. Instead of Fernando Lugo, I recommend a picture of the recently identified oil paintings as those are a purely visual ITN blurb.

That's a picture from, but I doubt it qualifies for fair use.

Since it is an old painting, the painting is public domain. Photos of the painting should be public domain right? F (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The example you give talks about the fair use in the US, but in the UK that ruling is largely ignored.
I believe only Florida law is relevant for Wikipedia (or is it California now?). It's not British law, anyway. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That only applies for strictly 2D works. Because this is painted on a definitely 3D wall, the ruling is inapplicable. Mangostar (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, unless I'm mistaken, just because the surface isn't flat doesn't make a painting 3D. If the wall were used in some way to artistically enhance the painting I could see it, but a painting on a wall, however uneven, is just as 2D as a painting on canvas.
Sorry to see a politician, and the same one, is still on the main page-10 days straight--while a discussion continues...we did have a photo of the vicinity. —SusanLesch (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe someone should contact [1]? If they give release a photo into the public domain (or some other free license) then there would be no debate about copyright issues not to mention we can upload it to the commons (since commons requires the image be public domain in both the US and wherever the author comes from I presume Japan here). Since they are a research group and it is an ancient painting, they may very well have no problem with that. Nil Einne (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

President of Afghanistan failed assassination

The article is not expanded for more than a sentence so it fails the criteria, even before we start discussing notability. --Tone 12:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Support: (Better Wording) + expanded article Notable as Karzai was attending an event at Soccer stadium along with American ambassador, other foreign officials, members of Parliament. 1 MParlement died during the attack. --Lemmey talk 16:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
expanded the article --Lemmey talk 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. A single sentence describing this is not appropriate for this to appear on the main page. SpencerT♦C 16:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed headline (be bold, change as necessary): --Lemmey talk 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about this. There's been 4 attempts in the past few years, and I dunno how the fact that he was attending an event at a football stadium makes this particularly notable, per Lemmey's statement above. If it goes up it should just be: "President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, survives a Taliban assassination attempt while attending a military parade in Kabul." or similar. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Support provided the amount of dignitaries are mentioned. That's probably the main reason this should go up there. Suppose they had all died? Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Supposing they had all died, we would presumably have put this up on ITN. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI this c now has a corresponding wikinews article that has made the wn frontpage. --Lemmey talk 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Comment: I'm still not sure if the blurb on the page is enough....I'm improving right now. SpencerT♦C 01:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nepali election

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) wins a plurality of seats in the Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, the first elections in 9 years

We finally have a reasonably official result in the election (indirectly from the EC [2], [3]). Hopefully the item speaks for itself. As for the wording, the election (or its results) is almost definitely going to spell the end of the monarchy but I think it's a bit true speculatory to say it will happen and I can't think of a concise way to word it otherwise so perhaps just leave it out? The first elections in 9 years seems reasonably significant in itself IMHO Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. A bit late but ITN worthy nevertheless. --Tone 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Not that late. SpencerT♦C 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah the results were only really known on Thursday which wasn't correct anyway with an annoucement on Friday. [4] mentions that they are still being counted on 23rd. Prior to that we had the annoucement of the FPPT (first party past the post) seats around 21st [5] but I purposely didn't propose it then because it was quite clear things were going to change a fair bit with the proportional system e.g. the Maoists were 1 vote short of a majority there (120/240) but as we see now it's 220/601. While it's been clear for a while the Maoists were doing well, with proportional representation it's often necessary to wait for the final or near final results for a full picture Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Support as the Maoists were actually rebels against the parliamentary monarch gov't as late as April 2006. --Lemmey talk 01:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Support this news is much more worldly/important than half the stuff that is currently up. Also, shouldn't the word "win" be changed to "wins" since "the Communist Party of Nepal" is singular? Dwr12 (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. It is embarassing to the US. The CIA still classify the Maoists as terrorists currently. Testaa (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Two questions though, will Prachanda become President of Prime Minister? And Testaa, where do you see that? The State Department doesn't list them. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Can someone please put this up. This is one of a few recent stories that probably should have been listed on ITN already. Random89 05:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact it isn't up already is just plain unacceptable. --PlasmaTwa2 05:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Added. If no admins are around, please, leave me a note or ask at WP:AN so that we don't wait for too long. --Tone 07:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sean Bell

Due to the recent judgement in favor of the three NYPD officers in his shooting death... might spark some riots in NY. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 15:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) (Maybe i'd ought to read the instructions before I jump in head first, yeah?)

If the story does progress somewhere (i.e. riots) then I could definitely change my mind, but as of now, I don't think so. Oppose. Random89 16:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that.I definitely think this could turn out to be ITN-able story. But let's wait for the riots to break out first ;-) Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Not touching the edit summary on that one.... --Lemmey talk 17:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Whoops. I just noticed that- any double meaning was most definitely unintended, needless to say. Badgerpatrol (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you only said it because your bitter. --Lemmey talk 21:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I didn't get it :P --PlasmaTwa2 21:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Support if something ITNable happens as a result (riots not just protests), but the verdict is not enough on its own. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Unless something big happens in the riots. A riot by itself is not notable - if thirty people die, then it will be. Montreal just had a riot - I didn't see that one go up. --PlasmaTwa2 18:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not.
No signature? SpencerT♦C 21:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for the exact reasons Plasma 2 mentioned. Dwr12 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, not internationally significant. -- Naerii 16:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

April 24

Dark matter

That's great and all but I doubt anyone cares. Strong Oppose. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Important scientific milestone. Dark matter is a good article and has been updated with the news. —Ed Cormany (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Curing cancer or perfecting the hydrogen fuel cell or finding a way to safely store nuclear waste or any number of other things are important scientific milestones. This is something that matters to theoretical physicists and very few other people. ITN doesn't need to skew any further toward the geek demographic. No thanks, we're good. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
...a rationale that would probably have led to us not putting the formalisation of the Theory of Relativity on ITN- one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scientific discoveries of all time. Of course the issue of dark matter and cosmological theory is something that has resonance with anybody who has an interest in science- i.e. any educated and/or inquisitive person. However- this story is based on a talk at a conference. I would probably prefer to hold off until a paper is published in major journal in a few months time- when this will really be making waves if it is accurate. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm educated and inquisitive, and I have an interest in science. I just don't particularly care about the discovery of something that doesn't actually effect anyone's life, apart from theoretical physicists who are, I'm sure, quite tickled with this discovery (if it did indeed happen). The theory of special reletivity is not a good analogy for a few reasons. Einstein didn't "discover" relativity like these people claim to have "discovered" dark matter. He developed a series of arguments that after being reviewed by many of his peers became accepted and he eventually won the Nobel Prize for those (and other) contributions to physics. That would have gotten on ITN, and if these people get the Nobel then that will make it on ITN as well, with the added benefit that people will better understand the accuracy/implications of this discovery. In addition to the relatively shoddy condition of the article and the questionable nature of the "discovery," this has gotten zero coverage on any media form I frequent, so I have to say I don't think this should go up. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
haha, well if it's not headlined on "Good Morning America" then you're right Grant, it shouldn't go up. Let's make that an additional criterion. The difference between observational and theoretical science is irrelevent here anywhere- but note that I used the word "formalisation" initially, specifically so as not to confuse you on that issue.
Bottom line- if you claim to be interested in science but you have no interest in a possible resolution to one of the central issues in modern physics- not to mention the origin of galaxies and the pattern of the universe itself, definition, you are not interested in science, without meaning to get personal. But I reiterate- if this discovery is accurate, it will be published in a major journal very shortly. Then it will make a big splash, and then it will go up on ITN. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I regularly watch several hours of cable news a day while working during the week and they talk about tons of stuff like the ISS and shuttle lauches/landings, interesting medical studies, etc. so when something is completely ignored by them over a period of several hours I have my doubts as to the importance/validity of this story, especially one that purports to resolve "one of the central issues in modern physics", "the origin of galaxies," or "the pattern of the universe itself." I also regularly check MSNBC's home page and the International Edition of CNN's home page and there is nothing at all under the dozen or so combined "tech and/or science" headlines about this item. Again, I am plenty interested in the developments in the fights against disease, global warming, etc. which are plenty "scientific" without giving a flying fuck about a bunch of douchebags intellectually masterbating about whether the earth is 8 billion years old or 12 billion years old of if the universe is held together by a bunch of tiny invisible strings or a bunch of inherently invisible new matter. I've taken advanced chemistry and physics, but I've also never been to a Star Trek convention, and the implication that you have to be a giant fucking geek in order to be educated is arrogant, offensive and ... by defitition personal, and I think you're better than that, Badger. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well. Everybody can read that and draw their own conclusions. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Scientists hunting an invisible form of matter that pervades the universe and holds galaxies together claim to have found it underneath a mountain in Italy" - right. Did I ever tell you about the time I invaded Canada, acidentially of coruse. --Lemmey talk 13:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully understand this comment (although the sentence to which you refer is indeed quite trite and badly written, if that's what you're trying to drive at). Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. What that sentence means is that they used detection equipment and apparatus (located under a mountain in Italy) to carry out experiments that (apparently) show the existence of dark matter out in the universe. Badgerpatrol, I know you realise this, just explaining for Lemmey. Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Point is its an article written in a USAtoday style. Its a good read but not very impactful in the academic community (or any community) yet. While I'm all for scientific stories explained in a lay person format, this sentance underscores the basic conflict between independently confirmed scientific articles and kitchy somewhat sensationlized news reports. 'Scientists think Turnip Greens help fight cancer' vs 'Scientists at UAB say there is an enzyme A8012b in turnipus greenmaticus that may reduce the spread of some cancers in labmice'. --Lemmey talk 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is big news but let's wait for the results to be published in a peer review journal. --Tone 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Support when published Peer review is essential to the scientific process. This could very well just be another cold fusion, monopole magnet, etc. "breakthrough" scientific story that really just breaks too early before it can be vetted by the appropriate experts. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Support when published per Madcoverboy. --PlasmaTwa2 18:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait for publishing This very well could be huge, but for now, I'd hold off until its published in a scientific journal or hits the front page of something. Random89 19:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose sorry, but based on Nature news on 23 April, quoting a physicist at the Centre for Atomic Energy in France, "unless another team sees's unlikely that the wider physics community will accept the Italian claim." and "Bernabei agrees". —SusanLesch (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose articles not updated. SpencerT♦C 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with most of the above; waiting for verification, wider acceptance in the scientific community before putting on ITN seems to make sense. For the record, I've never been to a Star Trek convention. :) Hammer Raccoon (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Badger called me uneducated and unintelligent for not caring about this story, and, I'm sorry, that's just not the case. There are plenty of practical scientific fields to care about without being obsessed with the latest breaking development in a field that doesn't really matter all that much. In my opinion this shouldn't go up until they win something for the work (i.e. Nobel Prize for Physics), which if this is truly as groundbreaking as you think it is, it surely will do. My point is that something like the International Seed Bank getting established is of more international interest as there is potentially some practical use to that landmark, with the added benefit being that there was coverage by the media of the event. I realize I came off sounding angry and stupid, but I really don't think my position is that unreasonable, but I could be wrong. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Einstein won the Nobel Prize in the 1920s for his work on the photoelectric effect that was done in, what, 1900? Are you seriously suggesting that we wait until 2028 to put this story on ITN? If they have discovered dark matter, it could well be a potentially Nobel-worthy discovery. Your attitude towards what you deem to be "non-practical" science is a little bizarre, Grant. Fortunately it's not an attitude shared by the US government, the EU and affiliates, the Russians, and the Japanese, each of who have, are and will continue to spend billions on research into basic physics (the curent £5 billion+ LHC project springs to mind). Nor is it shared by the world's media, which regularly splashes physics and astronomy stories.
Applying your rationale, natural selection, relativity, the discovery of extra-solar planets, the (admittedly now discredited) discovery of basic life on Mars, the HST, and possibly the unravelling of the structure of DNA, would never had made it on to ITN, whilst a female racing driver winning a race, a golfer winning a golf tournament, and the Governor of New York getting caught f***ing a woman behind his wife's back all recently have gone up with little or no dissent. ITN IS NOT A NEWS TICKER. IT IS AN ASPECT OF AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA. It is perfectly valid to argue (as many including myself have) that this story should not go up until it is more strongly verified. It is not valid to argue that it shouldn't go up because of the subject matter, which very obviously satisfies the ITN criteria. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The review process, especially for such groundbreaking changes in the way we view the universe as special relativity, is quite slow as the scientific community has to accept the new idea as truth. Simply publishing a paper that begins that process is not the same as acceptance. Einstein first proposed his ideas in 1905. They took more than the next decade to become fine tuned, for criticisms to be made and rejected, and for the technology to to be developed in order to test these ideas. In this day and age all of those processes happen quicker for a number of reasons, so the wait would likely be cut down quite a bit. The timeframe you're proposing makes it a lot easier for junk science to make it ITN, which would be unfortunate for a number of reasons. Wikipedia works just like science where we emphasize verifiability. For a lot of scientific breakthroughs that process doesn't happen in one finite point like an ITN news item. If you want to learn about all sorts of breaking, minute developments in technology and science then go to the science portal of Wikinews.
In addition, while ITN is not a news ticker, the stories have to be of international importance or interest. There has been zero media coverage of this item, while the second woman to win an open wheel race (as I understand it one of the most popular sports in the world), the governor of arguably the most important US state resigning (NYC is the most important city in the US and Spitzer directly contributed to its regulation by being a hardass prosecutor), and one of the biggest upsets in world sports this year (everyone expected Tiger to win the Masters if not the Grand Slam this year), are all big stories that got a lot of international coverage. If/When any of the multiple news shows/sites I watch/visit regularly bothers to bring this story up, which I imagine will happen soon if it's the most important scientific breakthrough in modern physics since relativity, I will support this story going up, but not a minute before. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not for us to assess what science is "good" and what is "bad". If this gets in to Nature/Science etc. then it is verified as good science by definition, and it should go up. As I'm sure you can see, I haven't supported this story going up either. My argument is with your deeply flawed reasoning, not with the end result. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
My point is that until the scientific community (read: precisely the people who do decide what is good science and what is junk science) has an opportunity to weigh in on this there is absolutely no way this should go up. What I mean by junk science is the kind of stuff that the oil industry or the tobbacco industries put out about global warming or smoking. While these people obviously aren't funded by ExxonMobil or JRReynolds, they could be like any number of scientists simply looking for funding and so they make a giant deal out of something that isn't notable and everyone stands on their heads about it until the real scientists look at the study everyone's crazy about and go *throat clear* "What!?" You might be right to say that the Nobel is a little too far in the other direction, but simply holding a press conference and making an announcement or releasing a preliminary report is surely not enough. As for the media coverage below, I can only go off of what I see and I have seen exactly zero about this story despite looking. If I hadn't come on ITN/C I would not have known this "discovery" was made. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pedant, but there patently hasn't been "zero" media coverage. Anyway, I agree with Spencer below; this clearly isn't going to go up right now, so let's all drop it. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur and add that the universe is not internationally notable. --Lemmey talk 15:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it fails WP:IN-U because everything is written from in-universe perspective. Haha. --Tone 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Guys! Hold it. There's nothing to debate about, because the articles are plainly not updated. It doesn't matter until then. SpencerT♦C 11:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Lessons Learned: Ok, lets not get into big notability debates in future ITN candidates until all of the other ITN criteria have been filled. Btw, haha Tone. SpencerT♦C 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

April 23

Bamiyan Oil paintings

Does this discovery radically change any preconcieved notions of art history in the academic community?--Lemmey talk 13:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't heard hide nor hair of this on American TV, so at least in the States we don't care, but elsewhere this might be news, I dunno. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I like this story and it is ITN-able (the origin of oil painting is obviously of international interest) although a) the BBC article that this is based on is a badly-written piece of tosh (not a killer in itself) but b) I, like lemmy, would also like to hear a bit more about how the art community has reacted to this news. If this pre-dates the earliest previously known oil paintings by 600 years then fair enough...but the article doesn't say that, it only mentions Europe. It's not relevant when Europeans adopted oil painting, and to state tis discovery only with reference to Europe could in my view be perceived as slightly arrogant and euro-centric. I like the story though, and some stories (especially Sark) have now been up far too long (what happened to the food crisis, which has been making global news?) so weak support pending new info. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I'm not an academic, so others may be better placed to comment. However it seems like a significant discovery in world artistic and cultural development, and also challenges the idea of Europe as the main innovator in art history Oil painting 'invented in Asia, not Europe. The reference to Europe shouldn't be seen as Eurocentric, if the discovery usurped some other culture I would have put that in instead. Yorkshiresky (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a much better supporting article. Change to strong support. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
While somewhat noteworthy as this kind of scientific study wasn't possible under the Taliban, I'm just not really feeling it. Europe certinally doesn't have any claim as the main innovator of art history when taking into account the history of civilization (Egyptians, Mayans, Chinese, Indians, Persians) and I don't feel anyone is saying it does. Lastly there is a huge diff between oil painting on rocks and any kind of painting on canvas. Week Oppose --Lemmey talk 17:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about the Taliban angle per se- that doesn't really make it notable. BUT an interesting angle is that (according to the Telegraph article) it seems that these paintings have only been exposed due to the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas by the Taliban. The reason for my "Europe" comment above was to ascertain whether oil painting was actually invented in Europe- it was (or so was previously thought). I think this is an interesting story and one likely to resonate with the ITN readership. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Disagree entirely. Again, ITN is not and should not be about what people ought to find interesting, but rather what people do find interesting. I haven't seen anything about this on cable news (I've been watching for several hours and they love this kind of shit to fill the morning hours when they have nothing better to talk about), or's homepage or even the International edition of CNN. I agree this is a neat story, but of international interest? I think not. This is like the Sark story that should never have gone on ITN. Strong Oppose. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The audience for Wikipedia (intrinsically an educational encyclopaedia) and morning cable news tosh (presumably largely filled up at present by news of Barack and Hillary blowing their noses and threatening to obliterate various foreign countries) is emphatically not the same. At present, ITN is not a news ticker. When it becomes a news ticker, then the biggest stories (in the US and to a lesser extent the rest of the world) are going to be going up. Nobody is saying this is an international front page splash. But is it interesting to the kind of person who reads encyclopaedias? yes, I think it is. Our judgement is required to decide (through the consensus of our international editorship) what stories are likely to be of international interest. I reckon the origin of oil painting is. Badgerpatrol (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree as cable news watchers are generally educated as in this country political participation peters out at about 50%. I'm willing to concede the argument, and I look forward to your support for articles that are of intrinsic importance to our audience, like the biggest stories in the US, which you concede gives WP more than 3/4 of our audience. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
well Grant, that's the opposite of what I've just said. ITN is not a news ticker at present, it is an aspect of an encyclopaedia. What you need to do to ensure that ITN is entirely dominated by US stories as you wish, is to go to the relevant pages, take part in the discussion, and then come back here when you have a consensus to do it (as I have said here and elsewhere, I would almost certainly support abolishing ITN completely and linking to a Wikinews ticker, or similar). Until you've done that however, I at least will continue to try and abide by the ITN criteria as currently laid out. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment ITN guidelines don't mention whether an article should be one people ought or do find interesting, which is something we'll probably never know, so that argument is a bit of a red herring. However I would argue that a discovery which overturns centuries of received wisdom is of international interest, maybe not to CNN or MSNBC but I'm sure to many others. If nothing else, arts and history related articles are rare on ITN and IMO would make a pleasant change to see one up. Yorkshiresky (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd check those guidelines again, as a story should be "of international interest" and my point was simply that in this nation at least, we don't care. I am hesitent to support any obscure item that someone believes people "should" care about or be interested. You might feel this is the final nail in Western civilization or something, but I don't think I'm off the mark when I say people aren't that interested in the history of oil painting, even if scientists and art historians were wrong about when it started. Also, as someone pointed out, this is not oil painting on canvas, which I think the blurb as currently written gives the impression of. At the very least this is a story about oil paint rather than oil painting, if you get my meaning. Somebody didn't find a bunch of Monets in a cave outside Kandahar, they found cave paintings that happened to be made with oil paints. Also, what's to say we won't find older oil paints tomorrow? -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support While I personally don't really care, someone could find it interesting. If it is actually a major turning point for the study of art history, then I am even more in favour. Also, we need some turnover right now... Random89 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Just because it isn't on CNN doesn't make it not newsworthy. --PlasmaTwa2 22:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
But just because some one works for CNN it does make it noteworthy (and interesting) when they are caught in central park with meth and other mentioned unmentionables [7]. He does anchor CNN international, maybe we should make it an ITN candidate --Lemmey talk 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Naw. He can talk about himself on CNN, that should be enough for him. --PlasmaTwa2 23:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Support: Are the articles updated to reflect this? Comment:But wait, did that early sound recording predating Edison's recording go up? SpencerT♦C 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Conditions failed. A single sentence in the bolded article describes this discovery. Oppose until article is updated. SpencerT♦C 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, I change to oppose, until it is expanded. --PlasmaTwa2 06:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The article has been explanded. I change to Support --PlasmaTwa2 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment, article rewritten and expanded with additional refs.Yorkshiresky (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Support now article looks cool. I wish there was a picture though. SpencerT♦C 10:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. There are a few pictures of the vicinity (one of them is added above). —SusanLesch (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not what I mean. I mean a picture of the oil paintings in the article is what I wished for. SpencerT♦C 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would like a picture of the paintings too, but that's what the wiki had when I looked. —SusanLesch (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason for this to not go up? Can an admin please help us out? Thanks. Random89 16:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
We need final wording, and then I'll make a comment on WP:AN. Go to WP:AN if something isn't going up. SpencerT♦C 22:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

April 22


Taking place today:

"<Name> is elected President of Lebanon."

Should we add a link to Maronite Church as well, since there apparently is an unwritten rule that the Lebanese president be a Maronite Christian? AecisBrievenbus 14:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's unwritten rule and he's a Maronite Christian, then probably not. If there's an unwritten rule and he isn't, then perhaps Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Unsure how we could possiblly include any wording of 'unwritten rules'. The wording '<blank> is elected pres of leb, he will be the first non-Maronite Christian to attain the office' could work. I think it would be better to stick to listing the candidates party (in leb thats essentially the same as his religion anyhow). --Lemmey (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
it's been postponed (again). This time, however, it is indefinite until discussion has ended. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought the National Pact has been disregarded a long time ago? --Howard the Duck 06:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the linked article, the Taif Agreement which superceded it has the same expectation. Maronite Church, List of Presidents of Lebanon amd Lebanon also mention it. In any case, I presume sources will note if there is something unusual or controversial about the selection of the president if he/she's not a Maronite Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sect DNA

In light of the discussion below, and the lack of meeting several of our criteria, I wonder whether we want to even go through the motions of discussing this. Random89 04:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read carefully: These children were not arrested by a federal agency. Doug Youvan (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, this simply isn't notable. Oppose. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
What if another editor, better than me, headlines this in terms of a Constitutional issue of unreasonable search? Doug Youvan (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the last discussion showed that the erosion of civil liberties in the US is not ITNable and did so with clear consensus. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::: WithdrawnDoug Youvan (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Doug Youvan (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree with that, Grant. Something like the Patriot Act or Guantanamo are American civil liberties issues of considerable magnitude that I at least would be willing to think about for ITN. The point there is that DNA from arrestees is already being taken (wrongly) elsewhere, making the US angle less important, not that US civil liberties stories are inherently non-notable. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I mean like the slow erosion. Obviously something radical like martial law or the USA PATRIOT Act or the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc. would be notable. Something that marginaly expands the precident on something like DNA paternity tests is not ITN material regardless of how wanting for items we are. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Badgerpatrol (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Although do note that if the slow erosion gets the attention of Americans and leads to mass protests for example, or something else noteable, then that's a different matter. But you're both write the slow erosion of civil liberties, in any country, is unlikely to be ITN worthy in itself. Nil Einne (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I should point out if they are going to be added to CODIS (and I have my doubts), this isn't mentioned in the source you supplied. DNA testing, sometimes compulsory, to establish parentage or more commonly paternity is hardly rare as far as I'm aware even in the US so I see nothing to indicate there is even anything unique or new about this case in the US, let alone the world. The number of people involve is probably the only unique thing. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this has been un-withdrawn, I formalise my oppose. That article says nothing about adding these sequences to the national DNA crime database (or at least it didn't when I read it the other day- was this an omission that has now been corrected?). Even if they were to be added, all I see is the social services and police trying to establish paternity/lines of descent among the unfortunate child victims of a religious cult, a line of enquiry that is perfectly rational and sensible, both for evidentiary purposes and for the children's pastoral well being. No offence Doug, but can you maybe a) provide a better reference that actually says what you say it says; b) explain a little bit more about why on earth you think this is this an interesting story? Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense is taken, thank you. Perhaps we should sit and wait for more reports on this event. Doug Youvan (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, particularly ones that actually do state that these samples are going to be added to the crime database. Even if that is the case...I don't understand why this is a story. It's just another sensible and natural move in the investigation. Perhaps the wider story of the cult itself might be suitable for discussion as an ITN piece...although I'm not 100% certain that I'd support that either. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


This election takes place about a week from now, but I think it would be a good thing if we were to discuss this in advance, just so we know where we stand on this one.

Should we put this up when the results are known? AecisBrievenbus 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Preemptive Oppose Mayor of London is not internationally notable. --Lemmey (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Support If we can put up that crap with Spitzer, we can put this up. He is the mayor of argurably the most important city in the world, and the largest city in the European Union. --PlasmaTwa2 03:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1, Spitzer was governor. 2, London is the crown of a dead empire slowly losing any distinctiveness in the world by an overemphasis on diversity and multiculturalism with acceptance of Muslim immigrants who are increasingly militant and nonaccepting of basic British values. 3 Worthy ITN candidates should always be evaluated against the guidelines on their own merits and circumstances, not what was accepted at a different point in time, otherwise we will only go down a circular argument without end for each ITN. --Lemmey (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I can never tell if you're pro-American, anti-American, or anti-everything. --PlasmaTwa2 03:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm southern, so each of those labels could apply. --Lemmey (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Love how you put a link to Sweet Home Alabama. That made my day. --PlasmaTwa2 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Lemmey, I sincerely hope you are speaking tongue in cheek with your bizarre missive above. If not, then perhaps you can enlighten all us non-experts on what "traditional British values" actually are, since it seems from your comment that a committment to building a welcoming, just, egalitarian and free society for all do not in your opinion fall under that bracket.
Yes, London is a world city if not the world city. I'm not sure about this one though. I suspect that neither of the principal candidates will be known to global audiences, but then who amongst us knew who Eliot Spitzer was before he got caught boffing that cheerleader or whoever she was (for $4000 an hour; I think Ken will be putting in for a pay rise if he gets elected). Did the mayoral elections for e.g. Paris, New York, Rome, Tokyo etc. go up, as alluded to by R89 below? If there is a precedent that could make my mind up. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would oppose. It is a bad precedent to start by putting up the election of non-national officials. Plasma, your comparison to Spitzer is fully invalid as a) he was the governor of a state, not the mayor of a city, b) he was not routinely elected but resigned amidst scandal, and c) your comment is fully POV. I would venture that London is not the most important city in the world, and even if it were, there is no way to show that in a neutral way without sources. I would be surprised if you could name the mayors of Tokyo, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai, or New Delhi, all of which are cities that can be seen as comparable to London, without looking it up. Random89 03:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not point of view. Look up world city. That pretty much says London, New York, Tokyo, and Paris are the four most important cities in the world. Also, London is one of the most important cities in the world, economy-wise. Search around Wikipedia to find all of this. Don't go and tell me a city from a third world country is comparable to London. --PlasmaTwa2 03:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I do believe your forgetting Dawson Creek why its so important it made the FA last week. --Lemmey (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Because it is a featured article. You know well enough that the TFA criteria are not remotely related to the ITN criteria. Random89 03:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
(editconflict) While I would like to distance myself from Lemmey's comments above about diversity (as this is neither the time nor the place for that discussion, and it was phrased in a way to take a cheap swipe at muslims), I am also stunned by your arrogance. To categorically claim that "a city from a third world country is comparable to London" is false is a ludicrous statement. In terms of population, local economy, growth rate, and a host of other factors many of the third world cities you sweep aside far outclass London. Random89 03:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, then we have a problem, because that is POV as well. Alot of the cities like Rio are larger and have a higher growth rate, but they are far behind economy wise. --PlasmaTwa2 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
On the contray I found the Rio poverty tour [9] very much like the Oliver Twist tour. But thats a tale of two cities. --Lemmey (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyhow, I don't feel like getting into an arguement over the internation status of cities. --PlasmaTwa2 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Listen, the Spitzer thing got a lot of coverage because it had to do with prostitutes and the media loves to get away with showing a bunch of pictures of hot, scantily-clad chicks on TV for a few days. Spitzer's replacement was also quite notable, which fueled the coverage, and the Governor of New York is the only governor that would have gotten this much coverage. The point is that there was a decent ammount of international interest which is what ITN is supposed to be about. I doubt the routine election of the mayors of New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Rio, Buenos Aires, Shanghai, Mexico City, Paris, Beijing, Madrid, Berlin, Bombay, New Delhi, Cairo, Dubai, Hong Kong, etc. would be welcomed onto ITN, so I see no reason to welcome this one. I agree that London is an important city, but so are all of the cities I have listed. As the argument about the financial importance of London goes, most of that falls to the Lord Mayor of the City of London, who basically acts like the Fed Chairman in the United States. Those are actually things I would support including before this one. As for Lemmey and Plasma, I fear that both of you have made comments that are incredibly divisive and not actually reflective of yourselves as individuals IRL or on WP, which is a shame as I have known both of you to be nothing other than helpful, positive contributors to this project. I know shocking statements are something of an MO for Lemmey, but I don't think striking some of those comments above would be inappropriate as they are at the very least POV and have no place on WP as such. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say this Grant, but you really have got that completely, completely wrong. The British equivalent of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is the Governor of the Bank of England, the body that controls interest rates, money supply (I think?) and generally administrates the economy. The Lord Mayor of London is a purely, purely ceremonial title (and I mean really ceremonial) whose main role is to live in a very nice house (the Mansion House, which is indeed nearly opposite the Bank of England and the old Royal Exchange), represent the City at ceremonial occasions, and organise a very popular annual Lord Mayor's Parade. The City is the financial centre of the country, of Europe and (along with New York) of the world, but it has really nothing to do with the Lord Mayor at all. With (genuine) respect, you are very, very confused (unless you were making a very subtle joke that I didn't get, in which case apologies). Otherwise- a good advert for why we need to maintain an international flavour on Wikipedia and in ITN generally, so that we can all learn about each other's cultures and countries. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
...although you are 100% correct about the media's general and fortuitous hankering for pictures of hot chicks. If the Green Party candidate wins this election, I expect this to make the front page of every newspaper in the world ;-)
(and you're also right about the sad, inappropriate and somewhat unsavoury comments above). Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Not very PC to suggest that scantily-glad females are a fortuitous addition to the newspapers. Might you have meant gratuitous, or are you outing yourself as a sexist :@) ? Kevin McE (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I meant fortuitous. Actual news is either dull or depressing, or both, can't be doing with that all the time. Obviously certain "newspapers" here in blighty do take my philosophy slightly too far, admittedly ;-) Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I'm taking a class on the British Empire, and so we've talked quite a bit about the City of London as shorthand (like Wall Street) for the British financial sector, which is AFAIK a common useage. What probably happened was mentioned the Lord Mayor running the City of London and I mistook him to mean the British financial sector, or he was talking finance and meant Governor of the Bank of England (something else we talk of frequently) and simply misspoke, which he is prone to do. Anyway, my mistake. The whole point of my post however was that the things Lemmey and Plasma said above are wholly inappropriate for WP and they should apologize, strike them out, or both. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologise Grant! At least you are actually interested enough to study it. Yes, the City of London, "the City" (not to be confused with "the city") or the "the square mile" are very common terms for the financial sector (which is centred around the City of London, the original ancient part of the city), analagous to "Wall Street", and the Lord Mayor is indeed the nominal head of the Corporation of London which is more or less a bit like what we call a local council, administering the area (and some other areas of the city outside The City that they happen to own) and its public services. For a politics student it's probably quite an interesting anachronism actually- because of the small resident population and the importance of business, they have collective voting I believe- businesses are allocated a certain number of votes as well as individuals. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm feeling oppose on this one. ITN should only show national-level elections, UNLESS there's a high notability of a lower election. By high notability, I mean like the first female governor in Saudi Arabia, etc, where it is possible for it to go up (ok example). SpencerT♦C 10:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. In general, elections for mayor or governor should not go on ITN. I don't think anyone even suggested putting up that Bertrand Delanoe got re-elected as mayor of Paris last month. Special circumstances are needed to make those events ITNable, IMHO. Unless Livingstone is replaced with the first disabled mayor of a European capital or something, this shouldn't go up. Pruneautalk 13:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking about Delanoe too. And because of his personal circumstances he is probably more notable than either Red Ken or Boris by some way. I also think no support for this story, on balance. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose No matter the size, power or is it's the capital, it's a city. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose baring something exceptional which makes this unduly notable. Lemney's rather 'bizzare' comment aside, other editors have already made probably all of my points Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - No opinion either way whether it's used or not, however businesses don't have any votes in this Mayoral Election, only in the election for Lord Mayor of the City of London which is largely a ceremonial post. It follows the rules laid down by the Electoral Commission. Yorkshiresky (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I think the Lord Mayor is elected by the livery companies directly, not the people or businesses per se (correct me if I'm wrong). The residents/business voting system is I think for the Court of Common Council, which is analgous to a regular borough or district council. But yes, residents in the City (but not businesses or organisations) can vote in the Greater London mayoral elections as well, of course. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

April 20

Fernando Lugo

elected as the President of Paraguay.

Support as proposer I'd say a new President merits the front page. Paragon12321 (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If and when the results are official, definitely. We should also mention that this ends the 62 year reign of the Colorado Party. AecisBrievenbus 01:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Linked 'elected'. Conditional Support as long as no ones claiming it as a world record --Lemmey (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Your sarcasm does no favours to your attempts to make valid points on this page about a perceived anti-americanism. Kevin McE (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Never been one to favourtism, but thank you for noting my point is valid. --Lemmey (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, I said that you attempted to make valid points. I did not comment on your success :@) Kevin McE (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It's notmal to wait until the results are official, but after then support, of course Random89 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Although power has remained in the hands of one party for 60+ years, the phrase "single-party rule" implies that other parties have not been tolerated, as in the single party rule of China or the Soviet Union. I do not have a great knowledge of Paraguayan electoral history, but I am fairly sure that that has not been the case, at least in more recent years. I would suggest "...ending 61 years of unbroken rule by the Colorado Party" Kevin McE (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I would say "...ending the Colorado Party's 62-year rule." -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Dominant-party system is more accurate then single-party in this case Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Support...Yeah, dominant-party system is the correct word to explain it. SpencerT♦C 10:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Dominant party system might describe the situation accurately (or might not: can we assert there have there been no closely fought elections in that time?), but the phrase is not in widespread use, and surely the main page should be accessible to non--users of specialist language. Kevin McE (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment The use of single party in the heading may be more understandable than dominant party, however it is misleading as I understand that Paraguay is a Presidential democracy and was not a single party state. I think that the accuracy of the heading is more important than any perceived problems with understanding, so the wording should be changed. Yorkshiresky (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleting "single-party" from the current blurb would do the job I think. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well whatever change an admin wishes to choose out of the 4 suggestions that have been made should be made soon, because a statement that is untrue and demeaning to the people of Paraguay has now been in place for more than 12 hours. This country does not receive much international news coverage, and so it is incumbent upon us to be accurate when it is in the limelight. Kevin McE (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I definitely think that's fair. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment While I know it can be confusing, if you simply want a non-controversial wording change it's often helpful to move the discussion, or at least make a comment on WP:Errors as it tends to be better monitored by admins then here. Lengthy discussions however are best kept here or move to the talk page 18:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Danica Patrick

Support for turnover. Seems to be pretty important barrier, and it's not like we have a whole lot better going on right now. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Support ~ UBeR (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
strong support (Provided this is part of the main league rather than an anciliary event- I don't know enough about motorsports to say. But this seems like a big milestone.) Not bad looking either, I'd happily see her up as the main picture. Badgerpatrol (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure. SpencerT♦C 22:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Support A notable barrier. Also, it took place in Japan. Random89 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Support provided wording In auto racing American Danica Patrick... --Lemmey (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe Calzaghe

Support as proposer The fractured nature of boxing (different weight divisions, different authorities) makes it difficult for there to be a genuinely unique and comparable record in the sport, but this does seem to fit the bill. Boxing is a genuinely international sport (current world champions are from 23 countries and every inhabited continent) and this is a genuine record. Kevin McE (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Support per the nominator's statement. It would be beneficial to list a world record in the news. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Support: British boxer + American boxer = international. --Howard the Duck 14:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
SupportSee lower section Link Welsh to Wales. If there's a list of fights Calzaghe won, link it to 45 fights. SpencerT♦C 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty central to his article, but if we can link to the same article twice we could like to Joe_Calzaghe#Professional_boxing_record, as of now I have fights linked to boxing match. Your call. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that could work. SpencerT♦C 17:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
So... Can we link to the same article twice or should we just leave it as it is now? -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Support per above and fixed blurb linkage. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Having ITNs top story be 5 days old is absolutely insane. There needs to be something new, anything will do. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Can we get someone to add this please? -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Abstain as the inverse would be shot down as not internationally notable. --Lemmey (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't be a dick Lemmey. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The source for 45 fights in the article, list the status of many of the fights as unconfirmed. [[10]] --Lemmey (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Is boxrec usually accurate? SpencerT♦C 22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, but I can't find a source saying that its a world record either. --Lemmey (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither the Joe article or the fight article mention a world record. Nor do any of the sources of those articles. --Lemmey (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Your comment that this would not be supported if it were a world record and the nationality of the boxer were different is inaccurate, however thank you for taking the time to exposure the flaw in the world record claim Nil Einne (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's ridiculous Lemmy. Take a step back and try and look at things with some objectivity. No support for this, per all the others- if it's not a record it shouldn't go up. Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
First I abstained a unanimous vote, rather than opposed. I expressed an opinion while not letting it negativly impact the candidate. Furthermore, I don't feel its ridiculous as all ITNs mention the nationality of the person except for those concerning Americans. Second, while everyone else was ignoring all the ITN rules in a rush to post new stories, I was the only one to spot a critical flaw. Without a world record its clear that almost noone would have supported this candidate --Lemmey (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Support ~ UBeR (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
So is there a source on the world record? Sure we need some more new stuff on ITN, but if this is just a light heavyweight title bout then it probably shouldn't go up. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 23:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The media build up in the UK made much of the fact that it would be a record if Calzaghe were to win, but they seem to have stopped mentioning it now. Maybe someone pointed out an obscure but superior record, maybe they just got so interested in the fight and the victory that they overlooked the statistics. If anyone with more interest in boxing than I have can find the verification, I still think it should go up (boxing is of far wider international interest than Indy Car racing), but I agree entirely that if there is no record and it is just another Lt Heavyweight title fight, that it should not. Kevin McE (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, nobody is questioning that the new record for consecutive boxing victories shouldn't go up. It's just that after 20 mins of searching I couldn't find anything about a world record, and as has been pointed out below, it appears a few other fighters have had more wins. So unless we get a cite in the next few days, this probably won't be going up again. -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Retract my support...if what Lemmey says is correct, the articles aren't updated and/or there arent reliable sources. Suggest the point be taken down for now. SpencerT♦C 23:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Retracted...yeah so I haven't found anything either, and unless someone does, this shouldn't really go on ITN. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't be a dick Grant. --Lemmey (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I was withdrawing for a legitimate reason, you were trying to stir up trouble. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have hidden this blurb for the above reasons. AecisBrievenbus 01:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment [11] & [12] suggests the world record is 5 matches away (four to equal) Rocky Marciano (who was a heavyweight champion). He is also 5 matches away from the record of world title defenses by Joe Louis and has virtually no chance of getting the most wins of a professional boxer given the large number of fights boxers of previous eras participated in e.g. Harry Greb Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

April 17

Arrested DNA

Conditional Support with article. Heres source USA Today Need to make a section for National DNA Index System within the Combined DNA Index System artcile. --Lemmey (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
CODIS is already the largest DNA database in the world and now will contain DNA any foreigner detained by Federal authorites (not just arrested). That should make it notable to a few foreigners out there. --Lemmey (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not. This is a classic example of a parochial story. The police in England and Wales have been doing this for years. I did not see it on ITN. Things do not become internationally notable because they happen in America. They become internationally notable because they are internationally notble. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Things become repetive when things become repetive. --Lemmey (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, so people should stop suggesting blatantly unsuitable stories for ITN and then this won't keep happening (no offence to you Doug, or indeed anyone else). Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, if it's only federal agencies (the FBI, ATF, etc (?)) and not the police anyway, then this becomes even less important. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Not just federal - "The move comes as 13 states ... have passed laws to include many arrestees in their DNA databanks. California, which has more than 1 million profiles, will begin collecting DNA from all felony arrestees next year," usatoday california esitmates state database will increase 600% --Lemmey (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: Washington Post article.Doug Youvan (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Do we have a useful, relevant article that would provide background? --Elliskev 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Combined DNA Index System as given by Lemmy, above. It might require adding this additional news event, but the article looks good as is, and that means rewriting the headline to include the CODIS link.Doug Youvan (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Missed that. Support with update to article. --Elliskev 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If we have an article that merits inclusion, I support. Badger, you're bordering on being a dick about this. We have like 2 million people in prison in the US (>1% of the adult population), so this database will be gigantic. Also pertains to the general erosion of civil liberties in the US. Pretty soon we'll be pretending to live in a democracy just like you! -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I dunno why you think that. In the past couple of days I've given (albeit conditional) support for the US airline story and the US death penalty story, so I presume you must mean this particular story rather than any wider attitude. I'm certainly not against US stories, as I've amply demonstrated. The fact is- why should anyone care about the gradual erosion of civil liberties in the US any more than anywhere else? I don't live in the US and nor do many (admittedly a minority) of .en Wikipedians. As pointed out, this is already being done routinely elsewhere in the western world anyway. It's just not an internationally significant story. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Badger, you have my apologies, I wrote that on little sleep and in the middle of a fight with people on WP:FOOTY. That was out of line. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
haha, no worries mate, I wasn't having a go at you and I'm not at all offended. I think I'll survive! Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose not internationally notable. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment on UBeR remark - When you fly into the USA, you are met by federal law enforcement, including TSA. At their discretion, you could be arrested for a tiny pocket knife on a key chain. Note, the US judicial process procedes by: 1) arrest, 2) charge, 3) convict, 4) appeal. An arrest can be a mistake. Doug Youvan (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
And that warrants an inclusion ITN? I don't think so. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be a story of international importance or interest. -ITN guidelines

  • I believe it falls under the interest part. ("Damn americans are doing what? fuck bush" -thefrench "Acutally your gov't does the same thing and French police have much broader powers and fewer legal protections of civil rights.") --Lemmey (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually the fact that there's nothing unique or unusual about this move is precisely the reason why people are opposing (I'm sure you read above comment by BP since you replied to it). If this were 1985 and DNA was still a cutting edge field, then I would support wholeheartedly. But it's not. In any case, this seems a moot point, I'm somewhat doubtful that there is enough to write about this in the article since from what I can tell, the only thing new is who DNA will be collected from. (The NDIS for example, which you mentioned and indeed should be added to the CODIS article, has existed for a while). Of course, everyone is welcome to try, the CODIS article is definitely a long way from a FA Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN Doug Youvan (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

April 16

Edward Lorenz

Support as nominator Profoundly important mathematician who created a highly popular term. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
His Kyoto Prize citation: for "profoundly [influencing] a wide range of basic sciences and brought about one of the most dramatic changes in mankind’s view of nature since Sir Isaac Newton". But hey, let's ignore that because the rules must be followed. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Support, but I think I speak for everyon when I say Aw Jeez, not this shit again! -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. I have given his article a brief update, which includes both the news of his death and a few other things that i noticed in the news articles that weren't in our article. Random89 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Putting this up now would just be trouble. --PlasmaTwa2 04:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Even though we essentially have a consensus to make some change to our death criteria? I think that this is a fine place to start with a new perspective on this. Its an interesting topic that may not often catch peoples' attentions, the article has been recently updated, and its is in good shape overall. Furthermore it's pretty international, since his butterfly was in Brazil causing tornadoes in Texas. Random89 04:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
We were supposed to start anew with Clarke. And I see one sentence in his artilce about his death. Definetely not itn worthy, anyhow. --PlasmaTwa2 04:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
But we didn't. Beyond date, cause, location, and reaction what else is there to say? What is ITN worthiness? Madcoverboy (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the entire "Later Life" section was added after his death. So even though the article was not expanded based solely on his death, his death led to an update to the article. As this man is in the news, and his article had been updated, is that not grounds for inclusion? If the article update criterion is the one upon which you base your objection, i believe this allows us to sidestep that. Random89 05:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The whole section deals with what he liked to do. That is not enough. The news is he died. Put some more up there that involves death and then it could go up. --PlasmaTwa2 05:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
He doesn't seem to be getting major news. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Seriously? Washington Post, NY Times, Reuters, Wired, etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't this create a slippery slope? People who have accomplished great things die every day. If we tried to include everyone who had an obituary in the New York Times and the Washington Post, there would be several deaths added every day. I'm not necessarily opposed to this entry, but there needs to be some sort of clear standard, or there's going to be an overload of death stories. NoIdeaNick (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
A common cited concern which can be addressed: please read WP:ITN/DC. (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the classic case of where bickering over rule definitions would deprive us of an important entry. We are all so fond of waving about WP:NOT#NEWS perhaps this is a time it actually supports inclusion. As Madcoverboy said, he has been claimed to be one of the most influential scientists since Newton. This is an encyclopedia. Including such a noteworthy topic on the main page, especially on the event of Lorenz's death, is what is best for ITN and WP. On occasions of deaths, we often dispute whether or not the candidate is important enough to their field. In this case HE WAS the field. As a pioneer in what he did he essentially re-wrote the book on many aspects of science. Though its true that I supported Clarke and Hillary, I would not hesitate to say that this is more deserving of inclusion than either. Random89 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Support We have an article that provides useful background about a notable person who has recently died. --Elliskev 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

John Wheeler died recently (a days ago) as well. Let's stick him up too. support this going up if and only if Wheeler is also added. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's add the recent death subbox to ITN per the recent discussions, and add Lorenz there. AecisBrievenbus 12:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a much better idea. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not? I thought this was a good idea from a long time back.--Pharos (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Support iff Wheeler is also included. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support - Not for the death, but for reminding people of his work, which I believe to have more practical and general implications in math, science, and engineering than Special_relativity. Doug Youvan (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I've never heard of either person, which may reflect more on me than on them. But I'm afraid their inclusion may reveal what a "systemic bias" in favor of certain -- for want of a better word -- geeky topics. I don't know if the death of a person of similar notability in another field, say, religion or real estate, would be nominated for ITN inclusion. I note neither man won a Nobel prize, and while Lorenz is the lead obit in the New York Times, he's not mentioned on the front page of the NYT website. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you entirely. Science fiction writers, chaos theory, EVERY International Space Station story immediately goes up without even so much as a discusion, etc. I think this is something we should try to address. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
He was, I recall, on the front page of the printed New York Times. Surely that counts for something.--Pharos (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Is the Nobel Prize the only criterion for notability or importance as a scientist? Lorenz won the Crafoord Prize which is also administered by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences if you have a fetish for Swedish awards. The Kyoto Prize is only awarded every 4 years in each field, so one could say (like the Fields Medal) it is probably more prestigious than that Nobel Prize they just give away every year to a couple people at a time. Perhaps if a person of similar notability in religion or real estate, The Times of London would say something along the lines of: "Professor John Wheeler had a singular reputation in modern physics, ranking with Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller. ...He was one of the giant intellects of the 20th century." I doubt feudal systems in Sark, an ousted PM in Haiti, or elections in Korea and Italy made it on the front page of the NYTimes either, but since when were we constrained by their criteria for importance? At what point do we stop splitting hairs and engaging in pissing matches and do the right thing? Madcoverboy (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I also want to anticipate and rebut the next wave of criticisms: "But then we'd have two deaths of scientists up at the same time!" Please count how many space stories have been up at the same time, how many elections have been up at the same time, how many political controversies and resignations have been up at the same time, how many natural disaster stories have been up at the same time, ... and then return here and tell us again why we could not put up the deaths of two immensely important scientists who both died within a day of each other? Madcoverboy (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
In response to Mwalcoff, I'm sure both the Pope and Trump would be ITN upon their passing. Your knowledge on specific fields of science should not and is not the criteria for inclusion ITN. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The Pope and Donald Trump are extremely well known. My guess is these guys are known to and are of interest to a quite small portion of the general public. If Stephen Hawking died, it would be different. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but he hasn't even won a Nobel Prize! ~ UBeR (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because Stephen Hawking is more of a public personality, that doesn't mean that his science is more important.--Pharos (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should stop trying to decide what people should care about or be interested in and start acknowledging what people do care about and are interested in. The only argument that matters is what the media coverage has been of this death. If we decide that it has been of enough international interest, the story should go up. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider article quality as a deciding factor? --Elliskev 23:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely, but I think we should include the deathbox or whatever we're calling it now, so that we don't have to have significant updates to the person's article (other than the death of course) before we include the blurb somewhere on ITN. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted my concerns about the process in changing this to Jimbo and he has responded. Let's make this happen already. Post the two scientists like a standard ITN items since we already have a strong consensus for their posting and to break to logjam over policy. Let's discuss the merits of the various proposals for implementing a "death box" and come to a decision on that in the next week. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's please do it. SpencerT♦C 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

John Archibald Wheeler

Support Madcoverboy (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Support We have an article that provides useful background about a notable person who has recently died. --Elliskev 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Support adding Wheeler to the main ITN box if and only if Edward Lorenz is also added. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Support iff Lorenz is also included. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Support iff the sun comes up tomorrow. Random89 12:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

US Lethal Injection

Not international but notable as US is one of few western nations with Death Penalty. --Lemmey (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there an updated Wikipedia article about this case? If so, I support putting this up. Something along the lines of: "The Supreme Court of the United States allows/upholds the use of a lethal injection as a means of capital punishment.", with allows or upholds as the bolded link to the article about the court case? AecisBrievenbus 16:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on the reword, but the 3 drug method should be noted in headline as they (the two plantiffs/murderes who were sentanced to lethal injection) were not challenging the use of CapPunish or even LethInject, only that the durg mixture used constitued (or possibly constituted) cruel and unusual punishment --Lemmey (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to avoid confusion: did they rule that it does constitute cruel and unusual punishment, or that it doesn't? There's a difference between your proposal of 15:57 and this post of 16:12. AecisBrievenbus 16:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The court ruled It does not constitue cruel and unusual. It is upheld. --Lemmey (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The case article is updated. LI#cruel and unusual is in progress.--Lemmey (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - not an internationally notable event. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
How is the death penalty not internationally significant/notable? Our international rule of thumb doesn't mean "only post events that take place in at least two countries." AecisBrievenbus 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI according to capital punishment US and Japan are the only two western nations with the death penalty. according to Lethal Injection, LI has been introduced around the world over the last decade. (IMHO you wouldn't start implementing it unless you were going to start it as a prefered method) --Lemmey (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
What about Russia? AecisBrievenbus 17:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hold on, Japan is a Western country? Do you mean developed country? If so, you missed Singapore, and probably others... Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
How does it make it notable is a better question? The death penalty in the United States has been around for years. This is not significant outside the United States. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose:

This barbaric practice is prohibited in all countries that are members of the Council of Europe (Russia is). There hasn't been an execution in Russia since 1996, although the penalty isn't yet off the statute books. If they reinstate it, they'll have to leave the CoE (that's Council of Europe, not Church of England). Singapore, which I would call a "western" country, also has the death penalty.
This would seem to me to be a story of international interest, even if does strictly speaking pertain only to one country. As described above, the persistance of the death penalty in the US (very progressive in most areas) has attracted considerable international interest. Support, if a suitable wording can be found. Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Russia reserves its special secret death penalty for reporters and former inteligence officers, use is often firearms or in one rare case radiation poising. --Lemmey (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, they're just as bad, if not worse. Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think that, simply because Japan and America are the only Western countries left, that this is notable. --PlasmaTwa2 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Just it SCOTUS bans throwing to the lions and burning at the stake, Vatican divided on ruling. --Lemmey (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On another note, I love how SCOTUS released this while the pope is here. I'm sure he's thrilled. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the lifting of the moritaurium on the death penalty has been lifted by this ruling, and that should be noted as well, especially since this is pretty much the only way we do it anymore. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm ok with whatever word choice, FYI the moritarium as I know it was not offical in any way. --Lemmey (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There was a stay on using this three-drug method until this case was decided. Since this is the method used in virtually all US executions, there was a de facto moritaurium on the death penalty in this country. Not official, but certainly significant. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Support While this may not be personally relevant for anyone outside the US, (actually, I would hope it would not be personally relevant for any of us) it is a story of interest for many, because, as previously noted, almost no democratic countries still allow the death penalty. Random89 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually there are quite a few mostly democratic countries that still practice the death penalty Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Support per Random and Badgerpatrol's arguments. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions this vote in a single sentence. For ITN things, it needs to be expanded before it even has the possibility of going up. SpencerT♦C 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The decision was released today and is part of a 97 page document that has to be poured over by legal scholars. I promise you the article will be getting updates in the next few days. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose this wording. When I read it, I wonder "why is this notable?" Grant has answered this question: it is notable because it ends a de-facto moratorium on the death penalty in the USA. If there hadn't been the de-facto moratorium, there is no way it would make ITN. I propose something along the lines of:
The United States takes a 7 month break from executing prisoners and it becomes international news. No thanks. This still remains a non-notable event. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In fairness, I agree...I'm reading all these proposed wordings and if I were a casual ITN reader I would be struggling to understand why this is notable...I didn't realise that this moratorium has only been in effect since late last year, and I didn't realise that it was de facto rather than official. I still weakly support this, but I'm wavering a bit. Badgerpatrol (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. There are lots of non-international events on ITN that we include because they are supposedly of international "interest." While the debate over the death penalty in the U.S. is not international in and of itself, it is of huge international interest, judging from the frequent EU missives to U.S. governors against executions and European demonstrations against the death penalty in the U.S. and other "retentionist" countries. This ruling means capital punishment will continue in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they probably do that with everybody, to be honest. The reaction to the recent grisly demise of Saddam springs to mind, as do debates over handing over suspects captured in Iraq and Afghanistan to to the local justice systems (and indeed to the US) if they may be killed (it is strictly speaking illegal for British soldiers to do this, for example). But yes, I do agree that the death penalty in the US arouses international interest mainly because it's such a striking anachronism- if this is a major milestone in the history of the practice then it should go up. Badgerpatrol (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone saying it is not notable because it is not an international event, but rather that internationally, it is non-notable. Capital punishment in the United States has been, arguably, de jure since the inception of the United States Constitution. When the United States bans capital punishment, feel free to put it ITN. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply - Events that don't change the status qoe can be notable too. When SCOTUS makes a decision it essentially says this is OK and it is used as precident for lower courts and furutre SCOTUS cases. SCOTUS has reversed (Plessy vs Fergason to Brown vs board of education = ~100 years)itself before but it means the status qoe will be around for a long long time. --Lemmey (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. It is internationally noteworthy. Just like George W. Bush's decision to allow waterboarding was. The German Wikipedia has it in the news section. --Bender235 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak support probably noteable but some of the arguments have been inaccurate. For example Japan is not a western country and there are still a number of largely democractic countries who practice the death penalty. The US is perhaps one of the only developed, Western liberal-democracies to practice the death penalty though Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
(Japan is widely considered Western, but that's moot.) ~ UBeR (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Will this be the first time a pope has addressed the UN?--Lemmey (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There are two circumstances that I could even consider supporting this; a) if it genuinely is the first time a Pope has addressed the UN (and even then I would be dubious); b) if his other official visits have been up on ITN previously, especially the Turkish visit (which was mired in controversy as I recall) and Brazil, which has 139 millions of Catholics compared to around 75 millions in the US. (Someone can check if these went up- I imagine the Turkish one at least must have done). Even then, I'm not convinced that this is ITN-worthy. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not the first time, a quick scan of the web seems to reveal. JPII addressed the General Assembly in 1995, and there may have been numerous others. No support from me (unless he says something in the speech that is itself potentially ITN-worthy). Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait until after the address and we'll reevaluate it then. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the visit itself is not ITN-worthy- but what he says or does, potentially may be. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
PS- the first female Pope will definitely be ITN-worthy. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
What if, because of protests, china's international security police decides to extinguish the pope and put him back in the popemobile? --Lemmey (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That would definitely be ITN-worthy. Not only that, but it should be a sticky blurb and stay on the main page for a year and a half. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Only if they drove the Popemobile over the Mexican border. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Badger, we've already had this conversation. It is my belief that something like the Pope being extinguished, even if it only happens in one country, is of enough significance to the world's Swahili speaking population that it should qualify for ITN, even though few people care about it. Stop having anti-American bias. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't mean to be a bugger or nothing, but way to ruin the laughter, Grant :P. I give this one a weak support, since it does seem to be a big deal, and I'm not even Christian (I watch the Colbert Report. Thats the only way I know this was happeneg) --PlasmaTwa2 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Visit will be cited in future as a touchstone for a number of touchstone issues (sex abuse, human rights, middle east peace, etc.). Update for UN speech as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Doug Youvan (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Support We should talk a bit about what happens though, including the session with child abuse victims. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

April 15

Energy Crisis

1. Could you please rephrase this so that everyone can understand this? All I read is "energy crisis", but I have no idea what the crisis is about. 2. Is there a substantially updated article about this? AecisBrievenbus 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
your units are off 1014KW is 100000 TW whereas the WorldEnegy article says the entire would consuption in 2004 was 15TW. (KWH and KW are the same thing.) --Lemmey (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
kWh are a unit of energy, kW are a unit of power. 1 kWh = 1 kW * 1 hr. 10^14 kWh per year = 10^14 kW * 1 hr / 1 yr = 1.1*10^10 kW = 11 TW. Dragons flight (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll construct the calculation on the discussion page of Energy_crisis where there is a slightly more verbose sentence high up in the article. The headline is based entirely on math and the conversion of energy units with internal references to known values already in the WP that are linked in this headline. With all the zeros in these large numbers, a check by other editors would be good. This also comes into play, "Is NOR Synthesis applicable to math and physics?". kWh and kW are confusing, and kWh per year is essential number.Doug Youvan (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, Dragons flight has it. All Dragon has to do now is put $4 of gas into kWh and we have independent verification of the calculation. Doug Youvan (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The math in the proposed blurb is part of the problem. It makes the blurb virtually incomprehensible for 99% of our readers. Is there a way to come up with a simple headline that covers the content of the article, while avoiding the math? AecisBrievenbus 21:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah the only way this has any chance of getting up is if the blurb gets a significant rewording. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
So my F150 holds 30 gallons and at 33kwh a gallon that equals 990kwh but I put it in there in only 5 minutes. With 1 $4 gallon of gas equal to 10% of world GDP. (30*10%=carry the 2 ->300%) I've got 300% of the worlds gdp in my truck. Take that Belgium. --Lemmey (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me why I dropped math back in high school ;) AecisBrievenbus 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I just fixed the gasoline link in the headline; it should now take you to a page that says 1 gal gasoline = 125,000 BTU Doug Youvan (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I read it and thought, "What?" weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Conversion_of_units 1 BTU ~ 1kJ, so 125,000 BTU = 125,000 kJ = 0.125 MJ, and 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ Doug Youvan (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Didn't we already have a debate about psychological thresholds and the price of oil? Madcoverboy (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Finally, 1 gallon of gas is 3.6 / 0.125 ~ 40 kWh, and it costs $4.00 per gallon, so that's $0.10 per kWh. Doug Youvan (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain, without using digits, what has happened that should be mentioned on ITN? Yes, 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ. So what does that mean? Is gasoline more expensive than ever before? I can't tell heads from tails. AecisBrievenbus 00:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bearing with me. I don't have the reference in hand, but I think health care is ~ 20% of the GDP. If I said energy costs were 1% of GDP, that might be suprisingly low. If I said energy costs were 200% of GPD, then we would know that the ATM fee is simply for the price of the ink. 10% makes sense, and here is it backed by a calculation. If gas goes to $8.00 per gallon, or in this case, if the mean price of energy worldwide goes to $0.20 per kWh (all forms: nucelar, oil, wind, etc.), it would match health care. The apple has only so many slices. Doug Youvan (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me get one thing straight: whose calculation is it? Is this your calculation? If it is, it is original research, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. At the moment, I see nothing but vague projections, assumptions and calculations. Nothing fit for ITN. AecisBrievenbus 00:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I can recap if you want, but all the numbers came from our own WP articles, not me. I have done conversion of units, multiplication, and division. Such math and physics was discussed here: "Is NOR Synthesis applicable to math and physics". I might not be good at writing a headine, but there is something to be said when energy costs reach 10% of world GDP. $0.10 for electricity is probably low compared to what you see on your electric bill, and the energy units are probably obfuscated and normalized. Gasoline at $0.10 per kWh is clear. Capital cost for nuclear probably make nuclear greater that $0.10 per kWh. Green Energy might be more expensive (wind power). The unspoken sideline is that 'dirty energy' from burning coal in many countries might be cheaper than 10 cents per kWh, but the consequences are pollution, global warming, etc. Hydroelectric in New Zealand is great, but not available to all of us. The idea is to get a headline that makes people think and to become educated on the actual costs of energy. Some of those costs are human lifes. Doug Youvan (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In view of the above, this is definitely not fit for ITN. We don't have a scientific, peer-reviewed study claiming this, all we have is your calculation. We have no way of verifying that it has indeed reached 10% of world GDP, all we have is your calculation that it might very well be the case. The discussion you are referring to above cited Wikipedia:Attribution#What is not original research?. It says: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions." The above is not a "straightforward mathematical calculation or logical deduction", the figures are not attributed, it requires additional assumptions beyond what is in the source and it requires specialist knowledge. Basically you have synthesized material (though perhaps not in order to advance a position) to come to new findings, which violates WP:OR. AecisBrievenbus 01:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN Doug Youvan (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this has been withdrawn by the nominator and it seems we are all pretty much in agreement that this should never have even been proposed, can I delete this without offending anyone? I mean the blurb wasn't even a properly grammatical sentence. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer closing it, so that it can be archived for future reference. AecisBrievenbus 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see why this would need to be referenced. There are already examples of imaginary thresholds being turned down. There never was a proper blurb, and it was all based on OR, and the nominator withdrew it realizing that was the case. But if you think it should stay, that's fine. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, in case someone else proposes a similar item, we can look back at this. SpencerT♦C 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Using my own OR I calculated the national avg price of gas and diesl and used WP 2004 statemens for gallons used (2004) and came up with an esitmate for 2008 that the US will spend over $650Billion this year. Thats more than the budget for the DOD, SS, HSA or any other single budget line item. Also using the payroll estimate that there are 180million non-agricutual workers and an average wage of 48000 (2008) I estimated 5.9 trillion dollars of anuall American worker income (2006 Income Tax recipets ~1.1trillion total reciepts 2.1 trillion. National debt 9 trillion). Now using OR that means on average American consumers are using over 10% of their income on gasoliene. (Its a little off because of corporate ground fuel usage but should be around that amount)--Lemmey (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, but by no means ITN-able. If nothing else it is an arbitrary phsychological barrier. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Discussion is now here. Doug Youvan (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

DRC plane crash

Weak Support I wish the article was a bit longer... SpencerT♦C 00:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The casualty number appears to have gone down from between sixty and ninety to a few with most people surviving. AecisBrievenbus 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If it is 60 casualties, than I support, as that is a large-scale plane disaster. If the count has indeed gone down to "a few" then I oppose. Random89 20:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Support finally read article. Ran off the end of the runway on takeoff. support as there are survivors, high casualties, and the rarity of such a crash --Lemmey (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The latest BBC story mentions at least 40 casualties, with more bodies feared in the rubble. AecisBrievenbus 21:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest:
AecisBrievenbus 21:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think "overshoots the runway" is the best way to phrase that here, as (in my mind at least) it seems to imply the plane was landing, not taking off. This may be a bit verbose, but how about something along the lines of:
Posted as
--PFHLai (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Delta and Northwest Airlines Merge

I can't believe I'm saying this, but we should wait until they actually merge, because this is exactly the kind of thing that would get vetoed by the US Federal Government. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This article says "Delta, the third-largest U.S. carrier and Northwest, the fifth-largest, still have to get the deal past antitrust authorities, which have scuttled previous airline merger proposals, and overcome objections from pilots' groups and other employee unions." So it appears this isn't exactly an open and shut case, and there is more of a precident for mergers being overridden by the government than election winners not actually taking office. I think we should definitely get this up as quick as possible if it does happen, but until then (or if the government comes out today and announces its backing of the merger, or another equally unlikely occurance) I think we should hold off.
Also, I'm changing the blurb to better meet policy if/when this gets posted. The new airline will take up the Delta flag, so the Delta article will have all the details of the merger. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
have agreed- present tense. I'm invoking the president elect clause on this one. Name the last merger of two American companies vetoed by the Fed. The AT&T - Bellsouth merger took over a year to approve from the FCC but ultimately was approved with no major shakeups of the deal. That one had much larger anti-trust issues than this one. (and having done contract work at Bellsouth during that time it was obviously clear who was calling the shots in spite of actual legal authority). The article from CNBC is reads like a pre-obituary written up over the last month while rumors were circulating. Both Delta and United have been in talks for the last few months, if the FAA, Fed, or anyone else in gov't had serious issues with a merger it would already be in the article. --Lemmey (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
First, "have agreed" is the present perfect tense of the verb "to agree," so technically we're both right, but we should use the present tense and not a variation of it if at all possible. Second, the top dozen results from Google for "delta merger" are all stories about how the various unions involved are all against it. I don't know the circumstances of the merger you're referring to, but it doesn't sound like there were as many labor questions as there are here, but I could be wrong. Finally, I've changed "merger" to "buyout"" because I think that is a more accurate description of what is happening here, but, again, I could be wrong. As I said about the president-elect clause, I think there is more precident for anti-trust action regarding mergers/buyouts than there are election winners (in the modern industrialized world, I mean) not actually taking office due to anything other than death. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Anything with the word perfect in it is more better than anything without. -- Perfect Lemmey (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Grant. This is big news, and should definitely be put on ITN, but not now. This merge still needs to be ratified by the US authorities. And does the EU have any say in this as well? I think they did in the case of the last big merger, IIRC. There are still many reasons why this merger could fail, and a failed merger is not ITNable. So I suggest holding off on this one until the merger is irreversible and official. AecisBrievenbus 10:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The story isn't that they are one company running joint operations. The story is the merger, merger is ubiquitous with beginning the merging process, which includes the legal approval process.--Lemmey (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. That's what I've said, the story is the merger. But at the moment, we're still talking about merger plans. The two companies still require the approval of the authorities, so we're not at the stage of the actual merger yet. When they get the approval, the merger is final and we can put it on ITN. But as it stands, it's not final yet. AecisBrievenbus 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Which is why my headline was have agreed to merge--Lemmey (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the point is that announcing plans to merge, simply isn't notable, whereas actually merging is. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger vs Buyout: from merger Whether a purchase is considered a merger or an acquisition really depends on whether the purchase is friendly or hostile and how it is announced. In other words, the real difference lies in how the purchase is communicated to and received by the target company's board of directors, employees and shareholders. As the corporate head of NW is onboard with the agreement I think its a merger as apposed to anything else. --Lemmey (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Neutral As Lemmy points out, the antitrust approval is just a formality like the presidential political convention. I don't see how the merger wouldn't be approved given its history of not opposing other major mergers and the fact that this is a very pro-business administration. With regard to promoting it when the merger "happens", it's difficult to ascertain when a merger is "done" and even if there is press release, how much coverage will this "completion" garner? You'd have editors saying then "This story is n months old", "the page hasn't been updated", etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
After literally 20 seconds of searching, I was able to find out about the blocking of a proposed merger/buy out of a company called US Airways by United Airlines that was blocked by the US Federal competition agency. This was in July 2001. When this actually does become a formality, I think that the creation of the world's largest airline is definitely ITN-able. It doesn't seem to be a formality now, per the above comments. No support at present. Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In your defence, it does seem that the deal is very likely to go through- but it's not a fait accompli. Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If the labor issues get resolved and the administration comes out and supports the merger, then this should go up immediately, but until that happens, comparing this to a legitimate election is apples and oranges. No support for now. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at Delta Air Lines-Northwest Airlines merger --Smallbig (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding United - US airways. The merger was killed off in July 2001 (pre9/11, pre bankruptcies, pre oil shocks). There was a tech bubble that had just burst but economically and politically it was a completly different world. The merger would have given United a monopoly on 30 routes. 1 Delta+NW only share 8 routes and those are between major cities (no monopoly). Justice approved a merger between US+AmericanWest in 2005 2 . Reports surficed again in 2007 that United is again looking at US. 3 --Lemmey (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Support with the wording "agree to merge." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

April 14

Italian elections

It's a general election, and it's just announced, so it's added.--Alasdair 20:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reworded it, as the alliance led by Berlusconi has won the elections, not Berlusconi himself. PM in Italy is not an electable office. AecisBrievenbus 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is this on the main page before Italian general election, 2008 is updated with the results first? The tables are almost empty there. Is ITN a news-ticker now? -- (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was curious about this too. SpencerT♦C 00:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know when he assumes office? Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

World Food Crisis

I know this is pretty darn unweldy. Edit this as apropos. It's a huge and important topic for several hundred million people who don't get a lot of press in the developed world. T L Miles (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
support. Seems like a definite "yes" to me. Obviously ditch the list of countries, rephrase and fix typo. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If this is put up, we have to remove the link to the article from the blurb about Haiti, to prevent linking one article twice on ITN. AecisBrievenbus 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The main point in the Haiti entry is the ouster of the Prime Minister. I don't think that should stop an entry whose focus is on the food crisis. They are both very important events, each with their individual merits to be in the news section. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I would be open to supporting something like this, but there's not really a proper candidate right now. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

::::::This doesn't seem like a true news story tow me. It would be like saying "Since 2007,The Economy of the United States has been in recession" right now. Unless there is a single event that involves this (And the Haiti one looks pretty filling), Oppose --PlasmaTwa2 18:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is there was a constitutional crisis in Haiti, a general strike in Burkina Faso, an army mutiny in Cote d'Ivoire, riots that involved people getting killed in Egypt and Senegal, and major politicial crises as far afield as Indonesia and the Phillipines: all over the same thing. I agree it is hard to sum up into one line, but groups from the UN to press groups are wrapping this up as a single crisis which may get profoundly worse in the comming year. Just a heads up. T L Miles (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking that as well. A better wording would be:
per e.g. this. This is a news story.. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That is a appropriate heading. I change to Support if Badgerpatrol's proposed wording is used. --PlasmaTwa2 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Tone 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Strong support, and thanks to Badger for rewording. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(re-indent) Support but recommend leaving out the graph. It's a bit small. Also, the Haiti blurb will need to be removed or fixed. SpencerT♦C 00:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree about changing the Haiti blurb. The change in the leader of Haiti deserves to be up there, regardless of the cause. It is a unique event, because as far as I know this is the only change of government caused by the food crisis. I dunno, I still think it needs to stay up unchanged, unless we get a consensus on how to change it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Doug Youvan (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Trevor Immelman (could be cropped and flipped to face left)
It is one of the first four majors. Only the Open Championship was added last year which is strange because all four tennis majors are added. Also, the champion is from South Africa and is the most prestigious of the three American majors. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 01:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Support and there is a free photo. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Perhaps consider rewording as:

"In golf, Trevor Immelman of South Africa wins the 2008 Masters Tournament by three strokes, defeating Tiger Woods."

I'm torn on whether to mention Tiger or not, but I think we should mention South Africa. We could always just cut out everything after the second comma if consensus doesn't like Woods. Random89 02:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I just copied it from the British Open line. Defeated might not be best because he didn't just beat Tiger, he beat 92 other people too. Normally the second place person is mentioned when you include the margin of victory. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 02:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I say lose everything about tiger. He won the tournament by 3 strokes, including Tiger makes it seem as though it was in a playoff. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I love how it always includes Tiger. I'm half expecting someone to suggest "Tiger Woods loses the 2008 Masters Tournament". Not even include the winner. :P --PlasmaTwa2 04:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Here ya go: Tiger Woods loses the 2008 Masters Tournament by three strokes. ;-) Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest linking "strokes" to Stroke play. SpencerT♦C 10:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, there are rules (or at least suggested rules) somewhere for the inclusion of sporting tournaments- if someone knows the page and can link to it it would be useful. I suspect this would be covered however- if the Open went up, then really all four majors should. Weak supportsupport. Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It's WP:Sports on ITN. This has to go up. If we include all the tennis grand slams we need to put up all the golf ones. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Posted. AecisBrievenbus 15:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice wording. :) SpencerT♦C 00:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

April 13

Le Ponant

"French special forces capture six Somalian pirates who had taken the crew of the sailing yacht Le Ponant hostage in the Gulf of Aden." AecisBrievenbus 22:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How important is this in the course of global events? SpencerT♦C 01:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It is quite notable. Somalia is one of the hotspots of modern piracy, along with Nigeria and Malaysia/Indonesia. It affects both cargo ships and yachts such as this one. Add to that the fact that this occurred on a very busy shipping route, between the Indian Ocean and the Suez Canal, and the appeal of piracy brought about by films such as Pirates of the Caribbean. The Google News hits are probably a good measure for the international interest in this event. AecisBrievenbus 01:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that precisely the point though? If Somalia is a hotspot for piracy then doesn't this thing perhaps, happen quite a lot? Is it really so rare that pirates are captured or otherwise any suggestion this a special event and it isn't really just 'business as usual'? For example, are there any suggestions this is going to reduce piracy in Somalia one bit? It seems to me it's likely part of the contiouining battle between pirates and the authorities but I admit, I know little about modern piracy. P.S. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems the more notable thing about this story may be because of 30 hostages were taken since while hostages are not uncommon I believe 30 is on the high end Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain why? Is it the state of the article or the event itself? AecisBrievenbus 11:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In the case of something like this, I think there would have to be a series of arrests or something (like when they take down a child pornography ring or something). I would support this if it was like "the leadership of XYZ pirate crew, the largest such organization in Africa/Indonesia/wherever, are arrested/raided by French/US/whoever forces." Does that make sense? -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to say no. There are thousands of pirates. Maybe I'd support something a little more massive, but on this scale, it's not good enough for me. SpencerT♦C 11:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

South Korea

Very late, but: "The Grand National Party of President Lee Myung-bak wins a majority of seats in the National Assembly of South Korea." AecisBrievenbus 22:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it could go up...4 days isn't too late. SpencerT♦C 00:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Four days is fine, sometimes we even argue about stuff for that long... Support Random89 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This needs to go up now. Support. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Posted. AecisBrievenbus 15:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Quentin Bryce

Quentin Bryce is named as the next Governor-General of Australia, after the incumbent Michael Jeffery announces he will retire. She will be Australia's first female Governor-General.

While the election of a new PM for Australia would indubitably be featured here, I don`t think the GG merits mention, as she (or he) has little real power, Opposed. Random89 07:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
"Little real power"? Perhaps the Govenor-General has less influence than the PM, but in terms of power, the GG has the most power in Australia and is basically the head of state of Australia - performing/representing the role of the Crown (Queen Elizabeth II). Surely a new head of state of Australia (or at least the person who carries out the power of the head of state, though this list mentions GGs as heads of state) deserves a mention on the English-speaking Wikipedia?
Support for turnover. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Unless I'm mistaken, no Australian Governor General has done anything significant constitutionally since the dissolution of Gough Whitlam's government decades ago- which was massively controversial and will never happen again. This is a symbolic position. Either we accept that we should attempt to select according to the ITN criteria or we should blank the criteria page and ignore them completely. Until we have a better system (which we need) I prefer the former option. Selecting this kind of story is exactly what prompts the kind of extensive debate we have seen recently.
Australia's first female PM will be notable. This isn't. Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking over the archives today and I've noticed that there has been an ongoing effort to change the ITN criteria for literally 18 fucking months. Changing this kind of policy takes eons. You should know because you've been involved in some of these discussions, Badger. It's an international story because QEII appoints the Gov-Gen, and Bryce will be the supreme executive in Australia. We don't just cover elections on ITN, we can cover changes in leadership in countries that happen by other means. She's also the first female to hold the office. I mean in a strict practical sense you could make the same arguments about "real power" in regards to the monarch of Britain, couldn't you? Again, support with a phrase about her appointment being effective Sept. 5, and if someone says we should wait until it actually happens, while there are no other good candidates right now, I'm going to throw something. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed that is so- but until they are changed we should stick to them, otherwise we have a recipe for chaos, as we have seen. The Queen appoints the GG on the advice of the Prime Minister, which basically amounts to signing a form and giving him (or her) a congratulatory phone call. Bryce is nominally the supreme executive in Australia and can exercise power just as the US electoral college can make Ralph Nader president. Ralph Nader is not going to become president. This is a purely symbolic position. If the head of state of Australia was changing, that's an ITN story. If the Prime Minister of Australia was changing, that's an ITN story. This is not a change in national leadership and it would demonstrate a massive misunderstanding of the operations of constitutional monarchies were we to represent it as such.
The arguments about "real power" indeed apply perfectly to the Queen. When she dies, that story will go on ITN certainly not because she has any power whatsoever, but because she is a head of state, and changes in head of state by convention always go up on ITN (and per the accepted death criteria). Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I still support based on the accepted consensus toward turnover on ITN. If nothing else this is a case of "ignore all rules" in order to keep the main page from becoming stale, and in recognition of a sustained drive toward increased content turnover on ITN. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
IAR is the most abused policy on Wikipedia and we should get rid of it immediately. "Ignore all rules" does not mean "do whatever you like". Ignoring all rules > putting up stories about Scandinavian airlines, Australian GGs, the Pullitzer Prizes or minor US transport hiccups > endless internecine debate > everybody gets annoyed and nothing gets achieved. We need to stick to the rules unless there is an ABSOLUTELY COMPELLING reason not to. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
<super snarkey>But, Badger, until the policy is changed shouldn't we stick to it!?</super snarkey> -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Support-This is essentially Australia's head of state. The female part can get thrown out because, frankly, we don't care. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't. If you think it is, you don't know what you're talking about, with respect. The Queen of Australia (who herself has no actual power) is Australia's head of state. The Governor General (who has absolutely zero power in today's world) signs forms when Kevin Rudd tells him to and gets to live in quite a nice residence somewhere in Canberra. That is the extent of his or her influence as representative of the Crown.
Ambassadors also directy represent the head of state in foreign countries. I gave up counting on Ambassadors of the United States after I had got past 100 names (many of them red links). I guarantee that once we put up the appointments of every US, British, French, Japanese, Chinese, Indian and German ambassador along with those of every other country we will no longer have ANY problems whatsoever with turnover of stories on ITN!!
Sooper dooper! Let's get cracking on that and see how far we get! Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hence the word "essentially" I'm fully aware of Australia having a queen. Though powerless, they wield more power than the "official" head of state. But whatever. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The Governor General can be dismissed at any time at the whim of the Australian Prime Minister. So hopefully we can all see who in fact holds the power. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Question: If Australia was a colony, the new governor general would've been a big deal, but since it is now a symbolic position, it really doesn't matter, right? It's like the President of India, the Indian PM holds the reins of power. --Howard the Duck 16:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The Australian Governor General dismissed the legitimately elected government in 1975. He (an Australian, as all Governors General have been for getting on for a century) did this completely of his own initiative, largely because he was frankly a little bit mad. He wasn't prompted by the Queen or London in any way and the only reason he managed to get away with it is (as I understand it) because the government of the day considered the possibility so unthinkable that they were essentially outmanoeuvred- had the PM so chosen he could have telephoned Buck House and had the GG removed virtually instantly. So, they theoretically do retain some power (although the man responsible was all but crucified in Australia, had to leave the country to escape the opprobrium, and died a broken alcoholic, mainly as a result of his disgrace). Similarly, The Queen (in the UK) theoretically has the power to do more or less what she wants politically. But that's not how our constitutions work. It is impossible for such a situation to arise again in the UK, Australia, or any other Commonwealth nation. It is important to realise that the Governor General represents the Queen of Australia, not the Queen of the United Kingdom. This is not in any way a colonial issue- she happens to live in London eating cucumber sandwiches and drinking tea, but she might as well be living in Sydney sneaking shrimps off the barbie with a tinny in each hand (apologies to Australians for the blatant stereotyping). Since a long, long time ago (well antebellum) it has been established that the UK government has zero influence over the political affairs of Australia (as well as Canada and various other Commonwealth realms). This is indeed now a wholly symbolic role, although as with most aspects of politics and constitutionality, it's quite complicated.
Note that I'm not an expert in this matter and others with more knowledge feel free to chip in and point out if I have the wrong end of the stick. Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Still, power or not, he has a high position. It's like if The King of Spain died, we'd put his successor up, despite him having little power. The same for the Emperor of Japan, even though he has no power. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
But the kings and emperors aren't like the governors-general. Kings and emperors are, well, kings and emperors, while governors-general represent these kings and emperors. Although for a time some governors-general were more powerful than the kings/queens/emperors they represent.
Also, is this big news? If it isn't then that's another reason not to take add this. --Howard the Duck 17:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The only compelling reason I see to put this up here is to get some turnover, which would be appreciated right now. However, that does not outweigh the reasons to disqualify it, such as precedent and consistency, the lack of the GG's power, that she's not actually the queen, and the fact that no one really cares who the governor-general of Australia is. My apologies to Grant, put I think hes just supporting this so vehemently because of his previous disagreements with Badger. Random89 20:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to take the opportunity to characterize my support for this item as anything but vehement. My chief support for this is that it's a woman for the first time ever, but mostly for turnover. I really don't care if this goes up or not, I was just weighing in. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall adding something like this up for any Commonwealth country. Oppose --PlasmaTwa2 21:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm undecided about this. Strictly speaking this is a significant position. But the reality of it is it that she will basically be an ambassador. It is, as outlined above, a mostly symbolic position. AecisBrievenbus 21:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one who submitted this. I think a lot of you are underestimating the power that the GG has, probably due to the fact that the GG is said to be "representing" the Queen. In reality, the GG might as well be the Queen - whatever powers the Queen supposedly has, is given to the GG. I think one or two of you said that this should be put up when she actually does become GG (in September), but this is not consistent with how the results of elections are put up: for example, when Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party won the election last year, that got mentioned. Then, when the GG swore in Kevin to make him officially PM about a week later (winning the election isn't what makes you PM - it decides who will. You only become the PM when the GG swears you) that also got a mention. The GG is the equivilent of a president of a parliamentary republic. Just because there are no elections like a president has in many countries doesn't mean a change in GG is not important.

As outlined ad nauseum above, the Queen has zero power. The GG indeed may as well be the Queen, but they aren't actually the Queen (i.e. they aren't a head of state) and they aren't an internationally significant figure (which are the two reasons why a change in monarch would most likely go up on ITN). As I state above, ambassadors also have plenipotentiary power on behalf of heads of state- of course it would be ridiculous to put up every ambassadorial appointment.
There are indeed I think 14 other Governors General throughout the Commonwealth (including, in the Bahamas in 2002, the first female GG in the entire Commonwealth- did this go up? Canada has had a female GG since 2005- did this go up? New Zealand and Jamaica changed theirs in 2006- did these go up? Saint Vincent changed theirs in 2002- did this go up? and so on...) - I haven't seen these going up in fact and I wouldn't want to set an unfortunate precedent here.
A decent turnover of stories is important for ITN- but the long recent arguments (and these arguments have gone on and on and on for years) would have been avoided if we had a consistently applied set of criteria. There's currently one story up that contravenes these rules and probably shouldn't be there, which will no doubt cause a whole heap of trouble way down the line. Let's not compound the problem. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ambassadors aren't able to dismiss governments. I think you're vastly misunderestimating the power of the Governors-General. My roommate and best friend is Canadian and when I asked him about this he was able to talk for like half an hour about how political the Governors-General and the Lieutenant Governors (royal appointments that do what the Governor-General does only on the provincial level), can be at times, at least in Canada. Apparently, and please correct me if my roommate was just blowing smoke up my ass, the Governor-General of Canada has had significant power at different points in recent history (late 70s on), having dismissed parliaments a half-dozen or so times. The point is that I think these offices (in major countries like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada should be added to ITN regularly. Also, my roommate made one comment about the whole "first time it's a woman" thing, he said that it has been commonplace for Governors-General and Lieutenant Governors around the Commonwealth to be women since there has been a female monarch, so maybe the fact that it's finally a woman given the recent trend, makes it particularly notable. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think your room mate is having a little joke with you, Grant. The Canadian Governor General has emphatically not dismissed half a dozen parliaments since the 1970s. I think it is their ceremonial function to dissolve parliaments at the Prime Minister's request when he wants to call an election, a purely symbolic role which is conducted here by the Queen. (Possibly in the US the Speaker of the House of Reps performs a similar function in this regard, I'm not sure how it would work with fixed term parliaments?)
Do you really think the people of Canada would put up with having an unelected Governor General who regularly brings down governments on their own whim? The last time the GG "dismissed" a government in the sense you mean was I think in the 1920s, although I'm not sure of the details. Like in Australia however, I don't think it went down to well at all.
I think some of this confusion may be being caused by misunderstandings between those with no experience of Prime Ministerial parliamentary system and those with little understanding of a US-style presidential system.
He's just plain wrong about the sex issue though I think- seemingly the first female GG anywhere was in 2002. I can't speak for Lieutenant Governors General, since I didn't realise such a post even existed. There certainly haven't been regular female GGs since 1952, anyway.
Appointments by the Canadian GG presumably are political, because they are made on the orders of the Prime Minister of Canada, who is a politician. The Governor General's role is to sign the form. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I might have slightly misunderstood what my roommate said, while at the same time not properly communicating what I meant. Here goes try number 2, as I've been reading some relevent articles on the matter. From looking at Governor-general_of_canada#Controversy, and yes I know we're talking about Australia not Canada, but bear with me, it becomes pretty clear that in Canada the position has (in the last decade or so) become a bastian of republican sentiment by those who hope Canada transitions to a fully representative system, which has caused several political controversies relating to the role of QEII in Canada.
(Spacing to make clearer the distinct points I'm making. I think this should become more common practice) One thing that certainly is true is that Canada has a closer relationship with Britain than most other Commonwealth nations, largely because the Anglophone community was galvanized by the Francophone community's percieved hostility towards them (see October Crisis, Quiet Revolution, Quebec referendum, 1980 and Quebec referendum, 1995).
The point here is that if the Governor-General is seen as a symbol of the diminishing power of the monarch in a country with a close relationship with Britain, then in a country like Australia, where they've actually had a referendum about abolishing the monarchy, the Governor-General is more significant than I think is realized.
Also, let me be clear that I'm only supporting a precident involving 3 countries: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, as the rest of the Commonwealth Realms are small islands in the "West Indies" or South Pacific, which, intending no offense to these fine people, are not exactly world powers. So we're hardly going to have one of these appointments every other week. So, while this might not be the most important story in the world, we don't have a lot that's better right now, and the concerns about precident are not that serious IMHO. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, the whole point of having fixed terms in our Congress is that nobody has to dissolve it. That's one of the upsides to not having to pretend that your government is democratic. Ours actually is, both by law and practice, but that's another argument. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
haha, I'll take that in good heart with a pinch of salt, Grant. I think we're all quite happily chuntering along in our "pretend" democracies.
Please send me the list of addresses for the entire US electoral college so that I can get a mailshot out and begin my "Nader for President" campaign as quickly as possible. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The measure of democracy isn't measured if the legislature can be dissolved. If the President and Congress doesn't agree on several issues the government will be screwed until the next scheduled election, while in parliamentary democracies if there is a deadlock they can dissolve parliament and call for elections -- the thing is if the election doesn't come up with a strong government they'll still be screwed up.
And I'm still not convinced if this is important enough, sure they have lots of power theoretically but in practice much of the power is on the PM's hands. --Howard the Duck 14:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
To both above: I'm glad you understood I was kidding, Badger. Unfortunately, the Electoral College is 1) not a standing body. It is what is actually elected when people cast their ballots on election day in November. 2) They are duty bound, on at least the first ballot, to vote for who they were sent to vote for. Most states use the state's popular vote results to decide the whole slate of electors, while Nebraska and Maine use congressional district vote totals to decide independent electors. So no one can tamper with results like that, even within the context of jokes. The difference I was getting at with my pretend remark, was that the Commonwealth has its own Commonwealth:Ignore All Rules, where legally speaking the Queen could do whatever she wants, even appointing Daniel Craig Prime Minister and nobody can do fuckall about it. Now Supreme Courts ignoring the Popular Vote aside, we actually have a democracy, whereas people in the Commonwealth just make-believe. :P -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm- what about faithless electors then? Duty bound is not constitutionally bound- I'm still Rooting for Ralph in '08! Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Half the states have made doing so illegal, and whenever there is an issue, the state involved almost immediately rectified it (like the guy from Minnesotta who voted for John Ewards (sic) for President, rather than John Edwards for Vice President as they were pledged to do (it was probably a mistake). Immediately afterwords the state made it illegal to vote against the pledge. It appears we're both right. But I'm righter. :P -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
John Ewards would have made a great president, I hope he runs again. The quiet man of politics for sure- but do not underestimate the determination of the quiet man! They've only made it illegal after the fact, I believe- only two (?) states have actually brought in legislation to retroactively change faithless votes. (I should specify that I am not a political science student and much of my knowledge on this subject comes from the notoriously unreliable online source, Wikipedia). Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, but the point is that as these incidents happen (all of them caused due to death of a candidate or one or two guys making a protest) more and more states make it illegal to do something like this and the various state supreme courts have ruled that states can retract votes if they want, so it's largely a moot point (you could get all the voters that could dissent to dissent and I don't think you could elect anyone president). -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[Unindent]. Good, you've just summed up exactly how the system of constitutional convention works in a parliamentary democracy and why the office of Governor General (etc.) is completely irrelevant. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, from reading the articles you probably have, the present Canadian Governor General appears to be a republican, which probably tells you everything you need to know about the position. As I have outlined elsewhere, this is not a colonial issue and has nothing to do with Canada's relationship with Britain. There is a Queen of Canada, a Queen of Australia, and a Queen of the United Kingdom. These happen to be the same person, and she happens to live in Windsor. That is the extent of the British connection.
There are republican movements of some form in the UK and all over the relevant parts of the Commonwealth, and it's quite possible that the GG has become a totem in Canada for republican sentiment as you say. I don't see the relevance for our purposes. There are numerous individuals that personify political causes in one way or another, I don't think they automatically become ITN-worthy as a result.
Without meaning to read anything into what you're saying that may not be there, I can't help but think that you are looking at this from a US-presidential style perspective. Perhaps you look at lists of powers like "this person can dismiss governments" "this person is the commander in chief of the armed forces" "this person appoints the Prime Minister" etc etc and assume that these things are actually true, as if it was a codified US-presidential (with checks and balances) style system. It isn't. They can't actually do any of these things. They have no domestic powers, little or no foreign profile, and the role is a purely symbolic constitutional shortcut.
Precedent is important, because when we ignore precedent we get into conversations like this, which are (genuinely) jolly interesting and informative, but have nothing to do with ITN.
The UK is also a "major" Commonwealth Realm, although we have much nicer weather and a more relaxed lifestyle than the likes of Saint Lucia, The Bahamas, Barbados et al. so we try and keep it quiet in case they get jealous. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
To treat the situation as though it occurs in a vaccuum with regard to seperate monarchies of Commonwealth Realms, while simultaneously emphasizing the de facto power of the Governors-General and ignoring their de jure powers is contradictory. Either we examine the real-world context or we don't. Personally I think context is important, and so this has an undeniable Commonwealth aspect to it, at least from where I sit. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I doubt if we'd even put the Commonwealth Secretary General up on ITN. I don't even know who it is, and I imagine hardly anyone else outside of his immediate family does either. This is an Australian story and not a particularly major one. End of. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
haha- in fact it seems that the new Commonwealth Secretary General took office at the beginning of this month. So that's the importance we here at ITN (and the international media) place on Commonwealth stories. I hope his mum didn't forget to go to the investiture. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This reminds of the Britocentrism, and by extension, Commonwealth-centrism, Wikipedia is currently having but everyone denies. --Howard the Duck 04:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Really? Please provide some examples of it (the Britocentrism/Commonwealth-centrism). (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
As one of the most ardent critics of anti-American bias on ITN, I have to say I disagree quite a bit, Howard. I think people in the Commonwealth (specifically Britain) have been the biggest opponents of this item going up, largely because they know how unimportant it is. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"In my experience, it's been the Americans and Austrlians who have been the most stubborn, not the British. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, everyone gets stubborn about stories they have a particular interest, regardless of where they're from. Everyone is guilty of this. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Everyone denies everything on Wikipedia, that's half the fun of it. I have to say I can't actually remember a Commonwealth story of any sort on ITN recently (or in fact a British-centred one either to be honest), although I don't doubt there have been some. I realise you probably had your tongue firmly in your cheek Howard, but for the record, of the named editors in this discussion, four (two from Canada, one from the Netherlands, one from the UK) were against and two (from America) were broadly in favour, with you as more or less neutral/leaning to oppose. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Northern Rock nationalization would probably be the most recent one I remember. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't have gotten my !vote. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries, cause it was balanced by Bear Stearns a few weeks later. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
And in fact having looked at the discussion (from February) there was no consensus to add it anyway. If admins add stories without consensus (like NR and to a certain extent the Pullitzer story) then there's not much we can do about it. We need to tear down the rules and build ITN again. I would support a switch to a straight news ticker synchronised in some way with Wikinews. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

April 12

Jacques-Édouard Alexis

Jacques-Édouard Alexis receives a vote of no confidence and is ousted as Haiti's prime minister. ~ UBeR (talk)

Support with the proviso that his successor be in the headline, if anyone knows. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Is it my turn to be prime minister yet, I know we've got to be getting close. --Lemmey (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You can find a reliable source here. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Are the articles updated to show this? SpencerT♦C 02:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Support putting this up a) if there are suitably updated articles; b) when the successor is announced or the story develops further. Badgerpatrol (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If there will be new elections, put this up now, and then put the new PM up when the elections happen. If there won't be new elections and in a few days we will know who the new PM will be, it should go up when we know who the new PM will be. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
There are no elections. The PM is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Legislature. --Lemmey (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
How long is that process expected to take place? -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing says it has to take place at all. A no-con vote for the PM is essentially a no-con vote for the President. If so inclined the President or Legislature could refuse to appoint or confirm an appointment for the remainder of the Presidents term. The legislature forced the PM out over high food prices, its likely they will milk this conflict with the President for a while to win support from the people. --Lemmey (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay so put this up now and if a new PM is picked in the next few days we can update. Strong Support. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Support when... the new PM is appointed and confirmed by parliament. We can hold of until then, because that will give the related articles time to develop anyways. Random89 07:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds good. SpencerT♦C 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Like it was said above, there is nothing to suggest that a new PM will even be appointed by the president. It should be added now. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I support putting this up now. We can always update the blurb when we have a new PM. AecisBrievenbus 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose adding: "Jacques-Édouard Alexis is ousted as Prime Minister of Haiti following riots over the price of food in the country." AecisBrievenbus 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I would remove "in the country," as I hope he wasn't ousted for riots in another country. Strong support. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Support SpencerT♦C 11:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Posted. AecisBrievenbus 15:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cesar Laurean

Please tell me you know what everyone is going to say to this... Oppose --PlasmaTwa2 21:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It meets the international rule. --Lemmey (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Still ain't important. --PlasmaTwa2 23:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Laurean was born in Mexico, but became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2003. It's not known whether he retained his Mexican citizenship. Mexico will not extradite criminals to the US unless the death penalty is off the table. However, with the recent Supreme Court case, Medellin v. Texas, North Carolina is not bound by the foriegn treaty. Crimes involving extradition can be watermarks in foreign relations, especially when it involves one of Mexico's Native sons. --Lemmey (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose not notable enough. SpencerT♦C 02:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, unless this develops into either an interesting story or something that significantly affects US/Mexican relations in some way. Of course the Oklahoma City bomb would go up, as would e.g. a massive car bomb in Iraq, human rights protests in China, or suicide bomb attacks in London, because all are events of international importance or interest. Badgerpatrol (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I moved the question to the appropriate talk page; I needed Lemmey to clarify for me, I was confused. SpencerT♦C 02:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The supposed international criterion is not the be all and end all of our inclusion guidelines. Tjere are plenty of cases, even excepting elections, where we have conventions to circumvent this supposed standard. While I would be in favour of removing this, it is not really up to me. What I do know is that in many cases we implement WP:IAR to circumvent the restrrictions. It would be preferable if certain users stopped assuming it was the only guideline ITN has... Random89 07:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Junk news (albeit a sad story). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

April 11

Airlines, again

This headline could wait for more news - the credit crunch appears to be a new twist. Doug Youvan (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It keeps on coming up, and it's going to keep on getting denied. --PlasmaTwa2 21:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, we could beef up the underlying articles in case there is a catastrophic collapse of the industry.Doug Youvan (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Needs a much better headline. 4 Airlines have ceased operations in the last two weeks, a fifth Frontier has filed for Chap 11 but continues operations. Frontiers troubles are a direct result of Wells Fargo demands (and infact withholding) more credit card payments upfront. Wells Fargo's terms change are a result of its Sub Prime mistakes. --Lemmey (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Swimming again

Support Tis a world record. --PlasmaTwa2 21:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak support I see that other records weren't added, but still I support. SpencerT♦C 22:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I was hesitant about proposing the other world records, since they involved some of the less important/prestigious distances, such as the 400m individual medley. But the 50m freestyle is the most important distance of the tournament, along with the 100m freestyle, similar to the 100m in athletics. AecisBrievenbus 22:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose He only broke the short course record whih is of relatively little importance. Especially considering none of the long course records of late have been included there is no way it should be. (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
We included Alain Bernard's record set at the European LC Championships 2008, but we didn't include the subsequent world records set by Eamonn Sullivan. AecisBrievenbus 23:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment:Also, four other records besides this one (5 total) were also broken at this swimming competition. SpencerT♦C 02:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nepal election

The article is not updated yet but when it is, the post goes on ITN. But I suppose we shall use the wording proposed in yesterday's discussion. --Tone 16:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Does not meet the international clause. --Lemmey (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Changing the system from absolute monarchy to a republic is notable, surely. See the post below for more discussion. --Tone 17:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe Lemmey may have a bee in his bonnet about what he perceives to be anti-Americanism in the selection of, for example, historic elections in Nepal versus some planes breaking down somewhere in America, hence his attitude. As far as I'm aware it's a well set precedent that elections are notable for ITN standards. This one particularly so, as it seals the abolition of one of the few remaining absolute monarchies after a troubled time for the country, and is a regionally and internationally significant step. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Support per the discussions above and below. National elections are ITN-worthy by definition, and elections such as this one, changing the political system of a country, even more so. AecisBrievenbus 18:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
To clarify: I support putting up something about Nepal, but as outlined by Therequiembellishere, simply being the first is not all that important. I suggest we wait until the official results are in. AecisBrievenbus 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose what Lemmy means, Badgerpatrol, is that the first declared winner of an election is not nearly as important as the actual election wait for them all tot come in. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Lemmey has made several points on elections but this one is only about the international clause. Lemmey likes to point out when people make conflicting arguments. Lemmey also likes talking in third person using a handle but its kind of pretentious. Surely all of the 2008 National elections / governmental reforms are important and should be noted. My issue is that the criteria seem to be applied unequally. I feel that the candidate ITNs should be notable (either historically, politically or simply by having a far reaching impact) and that their notability is far more critical than whether they cross an arbitrary line on a map or not. It seems that the international clause is only applied to the US. As the US is one of the largest English nations in terms of population and geography it is unduly punished simply because it has a larger box. --Lemmey (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The interest gauge is an arbitrary and ill-measured criteria. If accurately measured this would be 'man gets hit in nuts with football video' as an ITN every other week. --Lemmey (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
On a final note I don't feel the current event article requirement is truly needed. I find that a large number of very poor articles have been created by this policy (January Stock downturn, Gaza Border Breech, Gaza Crisis 2008). I propose that when relevant encourage a subsection of a relevant existing article. Obviously for some events such as plane crashes the current policy is more appropriate but I think the majority of candidates can be linked to existing entities. If the section becomes large enough and of good quality it will spawn an article of its own we can link to. --Lemmey (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand policy. There is not now, nor has there ever been as far as I'm aware a requirement that we have a new article for ITN. What we do require is a substanial update to an article, whether new or existing. I agree that people split articles far to fast in many instances, which often ends ip in a mess. However this has little to do with ITN, and much more to do with many other problems such as the fact people still don't understand that wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it's not necessary to add every single late breaking detail to an article Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment:While I'm not arguing for the inclusion or exclusion of this item or any other item, you seem to have missed the point. Firstly, as far as I'm aware, there are no winners in the US elections yet. Yes, there have been winners in primaries, but this is NOT part of the election. If your not sure of the difference. I suggest you read up a bit about the various forms of government. Perhaps it will help if you think about this point. If Hillary/Obama/McCain, don't gain the presidency, their victory in any primaries will be irrelevant and they will have no power as a result of their victories in the primaries. However, whatever happens in the rest of the election, Prakash Man Singh will remain a member of the constiuent assembly. The second thing is the argument that this is a historic election because it involves changing th country from a absolute monarchy to a republic. On the other hand, the US primaries are just primaries as happens every 4 years. If there was something historic about them, e.g. the US was changing to a parliamentary democracy then things may be different. The actual outcome of the primaries, i.e. who is eventually selected as a candidate may be historic, e.g. the first woman/black candidate from a major party. But in any case, I don't think there is any disagreement on including who is eventually the Democratic candidate, as we did for McCain. In other words, while your welcome to comment on either case and I'm not saying you have to support one or because of the other or either, it would be helpful if any discussion avoids excessive flawed comparisons. Personally, I'm not sure if we should include this until we have a clearer result in any case (for example Prakash Man Singh is from the Nepali Congress, but that party has only that seat so far so if we emphasise him, it seems a little unfair)... Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason the US elections have to be treated differently is that it is an objectively provable fact that there is more international interest in the US elections than any other election in the world. Even the primaries are covered more than almost any other general election in the world. Did you know that if there had been 1% less turnout in the Iowa caucuses four years ago there would have been more reporters covering the caucuses (international and domestic) than caucus-goers themselves? That was last time around. There were thousands more reporters in Iowa this time. Comparing the US elections to any other elections isn't just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to orangatangs. Especially these elections, because there is no incumbant President or Vice President for the first time in a long time, and turnout has been up something like 50% because of the historic nature of the candidates in the race. First viable Black candidate, viable woman, Latino, Mormon, etc. Also the immense unpopularity of Bush both in the US and abroad has supercharged the world's interest in and anticipation of who his successor will be. On top of the fact that it lasts longer than every other process, will end up costing a billion dollars (and has already cost half that, so the total including the general might be 1.5 billion), and so on. Any way you slice the pie, ignoring the primaries would be ignoring the largest story in the US for an 18 month period, and one that has been covered by a significant portion of people outside the US. It might not have international involvement, but arguing that it hasn't generated international interest is an exercise in futility. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The primaries are just part of the process though. Ultimately, the only reason why anyone cares about the primaries, is because they care about the final result (who is elected US president). Internationally at least, few people give a damn, or even understand, what the primaries are all about. You could very well say we should put the US election on since it will gain a lot of interest, but I can assure you we won't. We will only put the final result on. In any case, this has absolutely nothing to do with my point, which was that it's simply ridicolous to compare the primaries to the Nepalise elections. These are completely different beasts. One is electing the government. The other one is basically just deciding who might be elected the government. If you want to argue to include the primaries then do so, but don't pretend that there is no difference in the outcome of the primaries and an election. Indeed, I don't think your going to convince many people if your only argument is that the primaries are of greater international interest then nationwide elections (which in this case are going to result in the abolition of the monarch) Nil Einne (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems there is a pre-existing consensus to include more coverage of the American election than just the final result- Grant can link to the discussions. I do not share that point of view and I don't think it's right to make an exception for any one country. However, if the consensus exists then I suppose we have no real choice. Badgerpatrol (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fire at Clinton Headquarters

The next thing about presidential campaign that goes on ITN is who will be the candidate of the democratic party. This arson is not notable enough. --Tone 16:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for now. First of all, there is no updated Wikipedia article for this news event. Secondly, it appears that it was a local campaign office, not the central campaign office. And thirdly, I think this would only be ITN-worthy if this was arson, and that is currently being investigated. AecisBrievenbus 16:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless its on the Indiana/Canada border this candidate fails the international clause. --Lemmey (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as the international clause, we just use that as a rule of thumb for notability. But nevertheless, oppose. Random89 17:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the "international clause" nonsense --Imagemonth (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose A fire at a campaign headquarters has little notability, though if it was arson that could posssibly be argued... Now, if the White House burnt down (Not to give anyone ideas), then we have something notable. --PlasmaTwa2 19:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually the White House was burnt down. Thats why its white now. I don;t think it was an ITN though. --Lemmey (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure we would have put it on In Ye News :) AecisBrievenbus 19:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

April 10


This has already been proposed, see the first thread of this day. AecisBrievenbus 12:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nepalese elections

Support as nominator We also need to work in an angle about the new constitution, federalism, and the fate of the monarchy. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Party X wins a majority/plurality for the Nepalese Constituent Assembly, marking a transition of the country from a monarchy to a democracy. Something like that? Support, sure. --Tone 06:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That would imply that there is an inherent contradiction between being a monarchy and being a democracy. It marks the transition from monarchy to republic. AecisBrievenbus 11:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It could read absolute monarchy, wikilinked as appropriate, with much the same wording. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

American Airlines

American Airlines cancels about 2,000 flights after the Federal Aviation Administration raises concerns over the wiring of the company's fleet of McDonnell Douglas MD-80 airplanes. AecisBrievenbus 11:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support but apparently things that happen in the US aren't internationally significant anymore. --Lemmey (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Now you're thinking like an ITN-er :/ Oh, and support because if the same happened in Germany or France, we'd be all over it. Oh wait, we did cover a European airplane grounding [October] for the de Havilland Canada Dash 8. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It would have to be "Germany and France" or it still wouldn't be international. --Lemmey (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it would indeed. Europe-is-not-one-country. As noted by the admin responsbible at the time, he accepted that it shouldn't go up (because it din't have international scope) but did so anyway because he was desperate for new stories. We are not desperate for new stories today. I don't see the relevance to be honest. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Things that happen in the US aren't internationally significant, unless they have international significance. US presidential elections are internationally significant, because they affect the lives of potentially most of the world. Major military developments are internationally significant, for the same reason. If this model of aircraft is widely used worldwide and the problems are systemic, then the whole fleet will be grounded, in which case why not put it up on ITN. (My only arbitrary objection would be that a wiring problem on aeroplanes is dull dull dull as a story). However, it seems that this story isn't to do with a failure of the aircraft model, but rather with a failure by one company to inspect its planes properly. No offence, but why, why, why, should a person munching pasta in Palermo or wurst in Wiesbaden be interested in that, and why does it have any significance outside of one country? As an analogous event; last Christmas, a very major arterial British railway route (the West Coast Mainline) was closed for repairs which overran significantly due to corporate incompetence, causing massive transport chaos. A major London terminus was closed.
Was this event sufficient to tear the good people of New Dworkin, Pennsylvania or wherever away from their Christmas hotdogs and baseball games? Somehow I think not, and I doubt if it got anywhere near ITN (and nor should it have, although if someone can prove me wrong I shall suitably redact my words). Many things that happen in the US are ITN-annable and there is certainly no anti-Americanism from me. But things don't become ITN-annable because they happen in the US, they become ITN-annable because they are ITN-annable. No support for this one, unless the problem spreads. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, Anything that disrupts air travel for (at last count) 40000+ people cerntinally has more impact on econmic, political(faa regulation and pass bill of rights), and human levels than a Korean going into space (at least her flight was on time). As to the rest of your comment on Britsh Trains and Chistamas hot dog pasta, I have no idea what you are talking about. --Lemmey (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I did try and be clear whilst attempting a little bit of levity to lighten the mood, however if you specify exactly which bit was particularly intractable, then I'll try and be clearer still. The selection of ITN stories is not decided according to economic, political and "human" factors, they are decided by the ITN criteria. The Korean astronaut (the first Korean in space, participating in a mission to the International SS with Russian and American participants) and with a substantial update, manifestly meets those requirements. The AA story, in my opinion at least, doesn't at this stage. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This isn't an issue of the planes being unfit for flight, it's an issue of the FAA cracking down after being found to be too close with the airlines, so this won't happen anywhere else in the world. Also, people in Italy and Germany are probably not checking the English language Wikipedia, so our highlighting process should take that into account. Remember, ITN isn't part of the encyclopedia itself, but rather it is intended to recognize articles that have been significantly updated because of current events and developing stories. The point is if something like this happened all over Europe, this would go on ITN. Don't punish the US for being a large, unified country. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, when you think baseball, think cricket. Does Britain have cricket matches on Boxing Day, or do you have football matches? This just shows that while you make no effort to understand American culture, Americans are all accused of not understanding anyone else's. Christmas hotdogs? Good one. -- Grant.<;font color="#002868">Alpaugh 23:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[Unindent] Grant, you clearly are quite grumpy about this and seem to have taken exception to my (admittedly as always, quite feeble) attempts to brighten the mood. I have been to America numerous times, it's a very interesting place, and I fully appreciate that you do not play baseball and eat hotdogs as traditional Christmas experiences. I daresay that not every Italian eats pasta and some Germans may well be vegetarians as well. It was a joke, Grant (fyi, we play football on boxing day, as you are probably aware- and cricket matches would be unlikely to go down particularly well in much of Britain, as you also may be aware). If something like this happened all over Europe, then it would have a manifestly international dimension. No-one is "punishing" the US for being a large country, but there are rules for ITN and this doesn't seem to meet them (you yourself seem to concede that this is a domestic story). If you don't like those rules, go to the relevant page and petition to have them changed, and then if they are I will stick up for those revised rules just as vociferously. But we can't just chuck the rules out because we don't like them. This story doesn't seem to be a particularly big one (it seems to be a significant but not crippling transport snaggle as much as anything), which is of secondary importance, but it seemingly only really has significance within one country. That is of primary significance, per the ITN criteria.
Personally, I rather enjoy he stories from outside the Anglophone world that appear on ITN. I haven't seen any recognised consensus to particularly deprecate those sorts of stories, and it would be a shame if such a consensus exists. Apologies if my attempt at levity was innappropriate, as you seem to have taken offence. That was not my intention. Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm well aware of what Brits do on Boxing Day, that's why I was pointing out how insensitive your "joke" was. We don't have baseball games in the winter just like you don't have cricket matches in the winter. We both play our respective forms of football.
Now the actual pointpoint is that if over 3,000 flights in Europe were cancelled this would be a huge story and would go on ITN because most European countries are so small as to make almost all flights necessarily international ones. That's what I mean by "punishing the US for being a large country." We have several states that if they were independent nations they would be world powers in economics, military power, political influence, etc. I think it would be unfortunate if we considered all of the EU to be one country, and while I don't think that any story involving two US states should make it on ITN, I think that big stories that would go on ITN if they happened accross many nations in Europe, should not be kept off ITN because they happen to take place over one large country.
Second, if I appear grumpy it is because this kind of thing is what ITN regulars in the US have had to deal with for some time. I first became aware of it during the Barry Bonds HR record issue, which is when I became an ITN regular. Since then we've had the whole US Presidential primaries fiasco, leading to countless hours of argument that resulted in a tentative consensus (much of which I've tried to make you aware of from our discussions on Ireland). I think it's very frustrating that many people have a definition of "international" in their head that means "not the US," and that comes from the elitist attitude that many Europeans I've encountered here and elsewhere have toward the US. This is just the latest issue we've had problems with, and so if I appear to have tunnel vision I do apologize. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Grant, if you genuinely consider it insensitive that someone might jokingly suggest that baseball is sometimes played in the winter, then you are a very, very, very sensitive person. I heartily apologise for any great offence this may have caused you.
"International" means "more than one country". The US is one country. Stories pertaining exclusively to one country with no interest or importance to anyone else should not go on ITN. If you don't like the criteria, then get it changed and come back. Until then, those are the criteria and we are sticking to them. I do not see a disproportionate amount of Indian or Chinese stories on ITN, both also massive countries with great power. The size of the country and its wealth and power are not, as far as I can see, directly factored in to the existing ITN criteria. I currently count 5 stories on ITN (out of 6) that have an American angle, including the Pulitzer Prize story which manifestly is an American domestic story and shouldn't be up there. You have also established that a consensus has been arrived at whereby multiple stories will be posted for the US elections, unlike any other nation on the planet. So I think you can frankly have few complaints, to be honest. If you perceive anti-Americanism on ITN, the evidence suggests that you are deluding yourself. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I was simply pointing out that you, like many other Europeans (especially Brits) I've come across on ITN/C, seem to have a negative view of Americans, without knowing a whole lot about us or our culture. At least not enough to know that baseball isn't played on Christmas. What I'm trying to say is that most Europeans don't know their ass from a hole in the ground about the US, but seem to know enough to dismiss us all as fat, ignorant slobs. If I seem sensitive to this, allow me to try to explain (again) why I am this way.
You seem to have selective reading ability. Everyone besides you has pointed to several stories we had on ITN that strictly speaking shouldn't have gone up because of the international criteria. Plane crashes in Brazil, Banks in the UK, Barry Bonds HR record, etc., etc., etc. The point is, you're not the first, and much to my chagrin you won't be the last person to parachute into ITN and try to argue against certain top stories from going up because of one technicality or another (not international, American exceptionalism, death criteria, etc., etc., etc.). The problem is that the one thing everyone can agree on is that there is not enough turn over on ITN, so for no other reason than keeping things moving, criteria are sometimes ignored or fudged in order to get by. We've been trying to build consensus to change the policy but look at the talk page if you want to see how well things like that go. Changing Wikipedia policy is a nightmare that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies, so the dozen or so people that are here most often seem to have developed a trend toward turnover and we generally respect that.
I've been a regular here for 6 months and have worked for consensus on including or not including many different items, but it seems to me that the most common reason against putting something up is that it doesn't have anything to do with anyone other than the US. We've had numerous arguments about this mostly involving the fact that the US has the largest population of native English speakers or the fact that the US shouldn't be punished for being a large, unified country. Your arguments about China and India miss the mark because there are not a ton of English speaking Chinese, and while there are a large number of English speaking Indians, we don't get a lot of suggestions about India because either we don't get a lot of traffic from there (doubtful) or we don't get a lot of coverage of Indian stories in the English press (a proven fact). The bottom line is that we can only work with what we're given and we should try to keep turn over up with what we have. Because there are a lot of people on ITN from the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, etc. we will get a lot of traffic from there, and since I just named the vast majority of the native speaking English population, that's where most of our press, suggestions come from. We do the best we can.
I realize I've been rambling a bit, but it's 7 am here and I haven't gone to sleep yet. I'd like just one more moment to explain that we can't afford to waste time every 2 months endlessly debating pro or anti American bias for the same reason the US Congress can't endlessly call votes on resolutions to withdraw US troops from Iraq, at some point we have to get something done. Endlessly rehashing the same arguments wastes everyone's time, and that's why we have consensus. The fact that people made jokes at the top of this story about how it would surely start a fight because it happened in the US, is indicative of what I'm talking about. If you think I'm wrong about this, please everyone (not just Badger) let me know and I will reexamine the archives to see what consensus actually is, but as of right now I think I've hit the nail on the head. I'm not trying to call you a bad person Badger, I'm just trying to let you know what has been going on here over the last few months so that you can better understand where I'm coming from. Now if you can excuse me I need to get some stuff done so I can watch Arsenal beat United tomorrow without worrying about homework. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
One last thing about the elections (as you might have guessed I'm a political science major and take an interest in this subject particularly), we had to fight tooth and nail to establish consensus not to completely ignore the most internationally covered election on the planet, especially the most historically significant one in a generation. Not doing so would have been monumentally stupid, as well proof that blindly following policy can be foolish. All but a dozen or two international elections are completely ignored outside the country they are in, yet we dutifully report them, which I have no problem with, but if we have to do so at the expense of the largest, longest, most expensive, and most covered election in the world, the policy is flawed. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[Unident]. With the best will in the world Grant, you're wrong. I do not have a negative view of America, I have spent months there, travelled extensively, relentlessly watch your excellent films and television programmes, buy your products, read your books, listen to your music, and greatly enjoy Whopper with cheese meals or Dominoes pizzas to the point of gluttony. The same goes for everyone else I know. I, and indeed virtually any educated person, knows their ass from a hole in the ground about the US, to a greater or lesser extent. If you have travelled abroad and you had your eyes open, then you'll already know that. NOBODY IS CRITICISING AMERICA, AND THIS IS NOT A MANIFESTATION OF ANTI-AMERICANISM (if such a thing even exists on a large scale, which I severely doubt). THIS IS A MANIFESTATION OF A NEW POLITICAL MOVEMENT I CALL "PRO-ITNISM". As I have demonstrated, there are currently 5 American or somewhat American stories up and yet we are still arguing about your perceived anti-Americanism in the selection of ITN stories. The world (especially but not only the English speaking world) is saturated with American culture and I would strongly suggest that in the western world American culture, history and politics are so widely known as to be second only to one's native country (if that). The average person is plenty well versed in US culture and traditions. I WAS JOKING ABOUT THE HOTDOGS AND BASEBALL GAMES, GRANT. I have also expressly pointed to stories that should not have gone up on ITN, like the SAS airline story (which unfortunately did go up, albeit with qualifications), like the UK trains story, and like the Terminal 5 story, so I humbly suggest that it's YOU who has the selective reading ability, without meaning to get personal. Your definition of a "native" language is questionable- English is an official language in India and everyone with any level of education speaks it fluently, a level which would to my mind make it a "native" tongue. We do not have parades of people complaining about anti-Indian bias- and as you say, the reason for this, and the prolonged discussions of perceived anti-Americanism AND for the disproportionate appearance of American-themed stories is simply because the Wikipopulation is mostly American and understandably have American stories prominent in their mind. BUT THE ITN CRITERIA DO NOT SUPPORT THIS OUTLOOK. If the rules are changed so that level of coverage becomes the dominant criterion (so that ITN actually does become a "news ticker") then even more American-themed stories will appear than do now. If and when that happens, we won't have to worry. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE NOW. (In fact, I would support exactly that sort of change for ITN). Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
And I will be watching the Rangers game tomorrow, if I watch anything at all. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The only reason I'm still posting is that I'm absolutely fucking astounded (excuse my French) to read your comments about the Sark story, Badger, while you still continue to argue against the inclusion of this. The fact that you're arguing for puting something in that you admit, strictly speaking violate the criteria (on educational grounds no less) proves my point entirely. In order to improve turnover or link to interesting stories we sometimes bend the rules. Your argument about the Pulitzer acts as though American columnists don't get routinely syndicated all over the world, while simultaneously emphasizing that anti-Americanism can't possibly exist when US culture pervades everyone else's. Your argument is a walking contradiction. We've had the Barry Bonds story, the Writers Strike, the Primaries, the Pulitzers and a dozen other common sense examples of how things in the US can have international significance in a broad sense, while not being strictly speaking international stories, thus meriting inclusion ITN. Even if they're just for educational purposes. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Without meaning to be rude Grant, are you mad? In fact I said the opposite regarding the Sark story- the abolition of feudalism in Europe is clearly a story that international readers will be interested in. I do not think our readers will be interested in the American Airlines story. The reason that my support was weak was because there's an unofficial and largely arbitrary convention that ITN stories should be of quite sizeable magnitude- the Sark story isn't. I do not admit that the story violates the ITN criteria. You are wrong and you're reading a subtext into my comments that isn't there. American columnists do not get routinely syndicated in my country, in fact I don't believe we have any such system. Perhaps it exists elsewhere. The point of the Pullitzer story is that foreigners cannot win. These are awards for Americans. We have a number of national awards ceremonies for various things- I would be aghast if I saw them up on ITN. The Pullitzers are not the Oscars or the Grammies. I claim that anti-Americanism doesn't exist because anti-Americanism to me implies a racial bias against Americans- which yes, I don't think exists, to be honest. You should not conflate criticism of America with a predisposed racial bias against Americans. It has nothing to do with the pervasiveness of American culture, which I only mentioned to rebut your specific comment that non-Americans know nothing about the US. That is simply not true, as I hope I've demonstrated.
I hope you will admit that there are PLENTY of American themed stories going up on ITN all the time. An interesting exercise would be to tot them up. For the last time, my argument is not against American stories going up on ITN, it is in FAVOUR of maintaining the rules (which, in my view should be more strictly and uniformly enforced precisely to stop this kind of debacle). The rules do not state that it has to be an international story, but it has to be a story of international INTEREST. Do you really believe that someone sitting in Inverness, Beijing, Rome or Kyoto is interested that American airlines have cancelled some of their flights?
As a general point, please don't try and read a subtext into my comments that isn't there. I mean what I say, and I say what I mean. There is no contradiction and there is no hidden agenda.
Enjoy the game. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you really arguing that the NATO story and the ISS stories are American stories? Just because the US is involved in the organization doesn't mean the story is an American story. And do you really mean to say that a story about the government of an internationally insignificant nation in the English Channel is a story of "international interest," while still arguing that the cancellation of 3,000 flights in the US isn't? I think your assumption that we're putting things up that people might or should find interesting or educational is flawed. ITN reports stories that have already recieved a fair ammount of coverage and the articles get significant updates. Unless I missed something, I doubt there are people banging down the doors of their local newspaper demanding stories on the Sark story. While I agree with you that the same thing hasn't happened about the cancellation story (or any other for that matter), everything else we've put up has already recieved a significant ammount of coverage.
I think it's interesting that your definition of international events and a story of international interest are so at odds with each other. My point is simply that if the Sark story is interesting enough to go up, then the cancellations have to go up for the same reason. I'm in favor of anything, within reason, that improves turnover on ITN, but I think under your standards it's pretty clear either both types of stories should go up or they both shouldn't.
On a larger point, that I think you might have missed due to our petty attempts to one-up each other, you are technically right about the cancellations and other stories that didn't go up, or went up and shouldn't have. My contention is that you are like the traffic cop that gives speeding tickets for people that go 1 mph over the limit. While you are technically right to do so, the general consensus around here is that if we need to bend the rules in order to put up exceedingly covered or important stories. You have parachuted in and ignored all that, and it seems that every 2 months or so someone like you does so and sticks around for a week and then never comes back again. As I've said numerous times, the one thing that people seem to agree on more than anything is that ITN goes unchanged for days at a time, and that should rarely, if ever, happen. Allowing the Sark and cancellation stories go up accomplishes this. I really hope you stay with us on ITN, but if you do I think you will soon find that your interpretation of the so-called "international clause" is in direct opposition to the consensus of everyone else who cares about ITN. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think they are "American" stories, I think they are stories with an American dimension (except for the Pullitzer which is a straight US domestic story). And therefore...that is what I wrote. Seemingly, it's not what you heard however, although these seem to be two separate things. There are always arbitrary judgements to be made in the selection of ITN articles. I didn't strongly support the Sark story, but in my judgement a quirky story about the end of feudalism is more likely to elicit interest than a fairly routine transport snafu in the US.
I have not been trying to get "one-up" on you. I don't know where you got that impression and I'm disappointed that you did.
Frankly, I agree that ITN should become a straight news ticker where the stories are selected solely according to a measure of the extent of coverage- we should get rid of the criteria completely, or at the very least radically alter them. They are currently useless.
I have been contributing to ITN (infrequently) for some years now, so I think I'll be staying around "with you" for some time to come.
This conversation has run its course and this is my final input. Thanks for the discussion, Badgerpatrol (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
We covered train problems in China, prop-plane groundings in Sweden, and lots of transportation accidents/disasters that all should be rejected under the "international" criteria that is almost always trotted out whenever it is a US story. I'm not saying these shouldn't have been promoted, indeed the Terminal 5 fiasco could have justifiably been promoted as well, but I take issue with handicapping of American stories on the international criteria when a similar event in another country is given a pass. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about the train problems in China, please provide a link to that one. The admin who promoted the SAS story specifically stated that he was making an exception for purely practical reasons and he shouldn't have done it (admittedly however the story was described by one person as "unprecedented in aviation history"). As you say, the Terminal 5 fiasco hasn't been up and nor I think did the West Coast Mainline story that I allude to elsewhere- and nor should they have; these were major stories in one country but have no international dimension. It swings both ways. I don't think that's evidence for an anti-UK bias. The rules are the rules. Looking at today's ITN, I see four (international) stories that certainly have an American dimension. I do not see any evidence of any anti-American bias, but rather a committment to stay as far as possible within the ITN criteria. If you don't like those criteria, then petition to have them changed. Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting story, and one that could be suitable for ITN. But can I read about it somewhere on Wikipedia? There doesn't seem to be an updated article. Narayanese (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

American Airlines has been updated to include the story. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, now I see it, got fooled by that 2006 date. Weak support Narayanese (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
To some of the above: if this involves so many flights by one of the largest airlines, if not the largest airline, in the world, it is definitely notable, and it definitely has an international impact/interest/significance. What I haven't been able to find yet, is a list of flights cancelled. Does it include any notable/significant connections? AecisBrievenbus 20:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was wondering too. How many international flights were cancelled? SpencerT♦C 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
MD-80s aren't used for international flights, but the domestic mess can lead to missing international flights. --Lemmey (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I'd say that this is pretty important. SpencerT♦C 23:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean oversea flights, Aecis? Surely these things must fly to Canada and Mexico. I'm on the fence about this one. I don't recall something being put up about the disasterous first day of Terminal 5, but that doesn't really count against this one... Weak support, I suppose. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
We will not find a reference, but I really think this an excuse for not burning jet fuel - as posted in the airline shut down story (below): The Jet Fuel Price Index is now at 367 (based on 100 for year 2000). Doug Youvan (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Speculation. --PlasmaTwa2 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this Salon article will help, not sure, but it explains international disruptions from the grounding of all United Airlines Boeing 777s recently. As ITN has no time limit, this needs a little work: American Airlines cancels nearly 2,000 flights to check wiring, following groundings for safety this year by other U.S. carriers including United Airlines, Southwest Airlines and Delta Air Lines." -Susanlesch (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If this were to go up, I think that is way too long. The orignal proposal is the best. --PlasmaTwa2 02:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Let's forget about the international argument for a second. I just don't think the cancellation of flights, even 2,000, reaches the ITN level. If AA goes bankrupt and ceases operations, that's different. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this is kind of like the Bear Stearns or Northern Rock stories, in that these are massive companies that serve as part of the fundamental infrastructure to the US and worldwide economies. Them being shut down grinds part of the country and the world to a standstill, as well as having government issues as well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not, though, like the cancellation of 2,000 flights means the complete stoppage of part of the US. Most passengers could get other flights. This does appear to be more of a minor inconveniance then anythign else... --PlasmaTwa2 03:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: "The average nationwide price for wholesale jet fuel in March 2008 was $3.172 gal, up 42.4cts gal from February 2008 and up an incredible $2.235 gal from March 2003, or 238.7%." [14] Doug Youvan (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


The Channel Island Sark abolishes the last remaining feudal system in Europe. AecisBrievenbus 10:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Support...but isn't this just the date the Privy Council ruled on it, and then the first elections are later? SpencerT♦C 10:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The Chief Pleas of Sark had decided to abolish the feudal system back in February. Yesterday, the Privy Council approved the decision, making it official. The first democratic elections on Sark will be in December. AecisBrievenbus 10:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see. SpencerT♦C 21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Camptown (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless you mention that it was done to meet EU conventions, this article fails the international clause. --Lemmey (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No it doesn't, let's try and be rational and objective. The abolition of the feudal system in Europe clearly is an event of (admitedly weak) international interest. The Channel Islands are not part of the European Union and EU treaties don't apply to them unless they want them to. I am sitting on the fence a little about this one but I will give weak support anyway- it's a nice quirky story with a potentially high education value. Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding. --Tone 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse this being added. An interesting and unique story pointing to article that otherwise many people would likely never visit. Also, as I said above, there is no "international clause." Random89 17:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

April 9

2008 Summer Olympics torch relay

Entry should be updated to reflect multiple disruptions:

Protestors objected to more than China's human rights record...I've heard about China's support of the Government of Sudan as another cause. SpencerT♦C 02:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That might be true, but you have to admit that most of the protests (and most of the coverage of the protests) highlight the Human Rights issue. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
And also, what about these: International Tibet Independence Movement and Free Tibet Campaign? This doesn't really have much to do with China's human rights record, although some of the problems are intertwined. Here's even a comment from a news article: "The protest-marred Olympic torch relay and international criticism of China's policies on Tibet, Darfur and human rights have turned the Beijing Games into one of the most politically charged in recent history and presented the IOC with one of its toughest tests since the boycott era of the 1970s and '80s." (emphasis on the three main reasons)source SpencerT♦C

Brian Cowen

Brian Cowen has been elected Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, which apparently means that he will be the next Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach), starting on 6 May. This is certainly ITN-worthy, but I'm not sure how and when to list it. Is he really automatically going to become Prime Minister, or do we need to wait for the president to make a formal offer or something? Pruneautalk 12:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

will support on May 6th --Lemmey (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest waiting until May. Becoming leader of the party isn't ITN material while becoming PM is. --Tone 12:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't waiting until 6 May be similar to waiting until 20 January to announce the new American President? We usually list newly elected officials on ITN on the day they are chosen, not on the day they are sworn in or enter office. Pruneautalk 12:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Brian has been elected the leader of his Party, not the nation. As the current guy hasn't offically resigned yet I'm not certin the title of Prime Minister elect applies automatically. (president elect beint the title of the winner from Election day to Inaguration day) --Lemmey (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the Irish system per se, but in a parliamentary democracy the Prime Minister is never elected "leader of the nation". The electorate votes for a party, not a person. If Cowen is the leader of Fianna Fail then (I presume) he automatically becomes Prime Minister until at least the next election, which potentially could be as far as away as 2012 I believe. However, like the above I agree the time for this to go up on ITN is in May, not today. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken Gordon Brown had to wait for a few days after assuming the Labour Party leadership to become PM. --Howard the Duck 14:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That's because in the United Kingdom Prime Ministers serve at the pleasure of the monarch- she has to appoint him, by convention. She doesn't have to appoint the leader of the largest party, but in practice will always do so. In the Irish Republic, Prime Ministers are nominated by the lower house of parliament, in which FF have a significant relative (although not absolute) majority. I suppose they could potentially vote against themselves...but it's not likely ;-) Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, Badgerpatrol. In that case, I suppose we should list it when he is endorsed by Parliament. In the meantime, withdraw the nomination. Pruneautalk 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We (and by that I mean precident and consensus exists for us to...) showcase elected officials on the day they are chosen rather than the day they officially take office. That is when most of the coverage of their election is done, necessitating the largest number of updates to the relevant articles. The sitting PM has already announced his resignation, effective May 6, so I think this is rather tantamount to something like the election of a new leader when the old leader is term-limited. It's a foregone conclusion that the current PM is going to step down, and we now know who will replace him. Also, since this is going to go up eventually, in the interest of simply moving things along, I support putting this up now. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

the time to put it up is the time when he actually is officially chosen. Which (whilst it may be a foregone conclusion) doesn't seem to have happened yet. Howard's example above is a good case in point- I doubt if Brown was put up in ITN when he became Labour Party leader, but rather when he became Prime Minister. Badgerpatrol (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with grant on this one. We featured the previous pm's resignation even though it is not officially effective until May 6th. By extension this should go up now. Random89 05:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It should take the form of:

It needs to go up now because this would be like waiting until January 20th to announce the new President of the United States, which there is already consensus against doing. Thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not like that. The US President is elected by the people. Once the votes are counted, he or she will be the President as of January the 20th, unless they die first. The Irish PM is elected by Parliament. We all know who is going to win. But it hasn't actually happened yet. (I'm presuming they haven't actually gone through the process yet- if Parliament has sat and approved Cowen as PM, then ignore me, and go ahead and bosh this entry up). In a Presidential election, the outcome is decided on election day (hanging chads aside). Technically, this election hasn't happened yet. When the democratic process has actually run its course, then the entry should go up. Badgerpatrol (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In the US the Electoral College officially elects the President, in much the same way Parliaments elect Prime Ministers, so instead your advocating waiting until December when the Electoral College meets, rather than January 20th. Either way we have consensus generally to announce when the leader is known and all but formally placed in power. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm sorely mistaken, there was not a new Parliamentary election, so if Ahern's party had the sway to keep him in power (absent corruption, of course) then there's no reason to believe they won't have the sway to keep Cowen in power, regardless of whether they have an absolute majority in the Parliament, therefore the choosing of Cowen to lead the party is the de facto choosing of the new PM. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe I'm right in saying that it's constituionally unthinkable for the electoral college to contravene the popular vote? As mentioned below, it is possible although highly, highly unlikely, that Cowen could not be selected, for a number of reasons (FF only have 46% of the seats in the Dail). He is the de facto PM- but what's the harm in waiting until he's the actual PM, and thus avoiding looking pretty stupid in a "Dewey Beats Truman" kind of way? Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
So your argument, if I follow it correctly, is that while it is highly unlikely (oh I'm sorry highly, highly unlikely that he will not become the PM, you're still opposing it? Why didn't we wait until May 6 to put up that Ahern was leaving? The point is that political uncertainty inherent to the parliamentary system when you don't have an absolute majority is the only thing that should prevent this from going up. Merely waiting for ceremony and formality should not keep it from going up. I didn't realize that there are significant questions about the political certainty of Cowen being PM, so if that is the case, then fine it can wait, but as soon as we know who will be the PM, we should put it up. As an interesting aside, Badger, you should check out John Quincy Adams and the election of 1824 to see how, though technically possible for the electoral college to circumvent the popular will, the resulting backlash early in US history has rendered it more or less moot as a possibility. That's why I say waiting for the electoral college to convene in December would be silly, as (short of death) there is nothing but formality keeping them from being President. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[Unident]. Reasons to wait: 1) It is possible although highly unlikely that he may not be appointed for whatever reason;2) It is confusing, since Ahern has another month to go and we would effectively be stating that there are two PMs at once; 3) It respects the Irish democratic process which has not yet run its course. Reasons to put it up now: None. That is all.
Yes, I now understand that the US electoral college is not constitutionally bound to vote for the highest scoring candidate (it is instead morally bound, akin to what we would call "constitutional convention"). I therefore look forward to the pending Nader government and a brighter future for us all. ;-) Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The point is that both blurbs make it clear this transition takes place on May 6, so there's no confusion about two PMs at the same time. Second, the liklihood of Cowen being PM is slightly higher than Nader being President. Third, I've conceded that because there is political uncertainty about this we shouldn't put it up. My disagreement with you is over whether formality should prevent something from going on ITN. I strongly believe we should post things that short of the official's death are certainties, and want to make sure you agree with that standard. If you don't I want you to be aware that consensus is against you, you can find it at the McCain debate in early March. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Fianna Fáil leads a coalition which holds only a very slim majority in the Dáil Éireann. Any number of events could prevent Cowen from taking office, including the deaths of only a small number of TDs. While this is clearly unlikely, it is not impossible. Also, while unlikely, it is quite possible that the Green Party or the Progressive Democrats or any of the independents supporting FF could choose not to support Cowen. I think it would be more prudent to wait until Cowen's actual election as Prime Minister. NoIdeaNick (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Political reasons are the only thing that should keep this from being up before May 6. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I support adding this on May 6, when it occurs. The wording would be something along the lines of "* Brian Cowen succeeds Bertie Ahern as the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland." AecisBrievenbus 09:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If you guys are really hell bent on adding this now, the blurb should mention he won't be PM until <insert date here> when <old PM> steps down. --Howard the Duck 09:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Howard, read the blurb up the page. It says exactly what you think it should. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Did the outgoing PM indicated he's giving the post to Cowen? --Howard the Duck 12:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

April 8

US- Columnbia Free Trade Agreement

Support as nominator. Majority of United States free trade agreements have occured under President Bush, this is the first one to be voted on by the opistion party. Notable as Senator Clintons doesn't support the bill, but a member of her staff lobbied the Columbian govt on the issue. --Lemmey (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Even if the bill had been voted, I'm not sure we would include it. But a bill being sent to Congress and a candidate's staff member leaving her campaign are not ITN-worthy. Pruneautalk 14:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Political interests within the US have made a mountain out of this molehill. Limited notability outside of involved countries, poor precedent for future trade agreements, and the agreement hasn't even been approved/rejected by Congress yet. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for now. I don't think the president sending it to Congress for a vote is significant enough for ITN. The Congress vote itself would be another matter, but I'm undecided about that at the moment. Suggest renominating when Congress has voted on this. AecisBrievenbus 20:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, especially for now. When it is voted on and if it becomes a major news story than maybe we can reconsider. Random89 05:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ready...Oppose. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

General Petraeus testifies before congress

  • General Petraeus testifies before the Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the situation in Iraq. (Link testify to article that I'm sure will exist shortly.)

Support as nomiator. All 3 candidates are senators and will be asking questions during the meeting. McCain supported the surge that was managed by the General. Clinton voted for the war but opposes it now. Obama states the war was wrong and is endorsed by MoveOn who ran the General Betrayus adds. --Lemmey (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reasonably familiar with American politics as an outside observer but even I don't understand what you're talking about with your closing sentence (with respect). What is the actual result of this and why is it going to markedly change the status quo internationally? Many more troops? Many fewer troops? No troops at all? Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
End Result? Why the end result as with all politics is nothing. The left may claim to be against the war and want to bring the troops home, but even with majorities in both houses of Congress they refuse to even bring the motion to a vote. As such the troop levels will exist at surge levels until July and then go through a 45 day review process to determine if reductions are possible. The notability is that it gives all 3 presidental candidates an opprotunity to make an offical Congressional statement and to ask questions of the General (A statment in front of God and Country in Washington as opposed to an unchallenged statement of how things should be infront of the Red Hat ladies socity in Harrisburg). An opprotunity that from a political they must take, it represents a possible hingepoint in the DNC and possibly the election as a whole. --Lemmey (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I don't really fully follow your terminology (DNC? Red Hat Ladies Society?). However, if your angle is that this is of prime relevance only to the American Presidential Elections, then it's not ITN-worthy. When the election is decided, the story can go up on ITN, as per precedent. If this story significantly changes the situation in Iraq however, then it sounds like it could be ITN-worthy as it stands...but you seem to be saying above that the end result of this is that absolutely nothing has changed and won't do until July. Which...doesn't sound like a very interesting story, to be honest. However, I do accept that today's address by General Petreous has garnered some international attention- I just don't see why it's a story for ITN. Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick comment. DNC is the Democratic National Committee (which has become shorthand for the Democratic party, mostly as an equivalent for GOP, the Grand Olde Party, or one of many variations, as an abreviation for the Republican party. Additionally, the "Betrayus ad" refers to an a controversial full page ad put out several month ago in the New York Times and paid for by, a left wing group that opposes the war and everything else about the Bush administration and recently endorsed Obama, that was officially condemned by Congress for accusing Petraeus of selling out the country in favor of the Bush administration (it was part of a play on the pronounciation of the General's name "Gen. Petraeus, or Gen. Betrayus?")
The point is, while this is certainly the biggest story of the news cycle, at least in the US today, there are not significant edits to the correlating articles to justify inclusion on ITN. That's just not how this is set up to work. I grant you that it was a huge hearing that had the potential to blow things wide open on the debate about the war, etc., etc., but the simple fact is that the General and the Ambasador were as standoffish and tightlipped as any of the dozens of Bush administration officials who have appeared before Congressional hearings before, so all-in-all there really wasn't a lot of news out of this whole thing, regardless of McCain, Obama, and Clinton's involvement in the proceedings. As for the Red Hat Ladies Society, you're on your own. Oppose.-- Grant.Alpaugh 07:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I would urge you to familiarize yourself with the accepted standards for posting the US Primary results on ITN, here and here to see that whenever the Democratic primaries are resolved, or when it becomes clear it won't be resolved until the convention, we will be posting it on ITN as there is consensus to do so. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I seem to recall a similar discussion regarding the French presidential elections that specifically decided that nominations were not ITN-worthy in themselves. However, the nature of precedents is that they have to have a beginning. If this is the new precedent for elections on ITN then fair enough. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The consensus stems from the undeniable fact that the US Presidential election process is longer, more expensive, recieves more international media coverage, and is more important than any other election in the world, so treating it in the same manner as every other election is inappropriate and would be anti-American bias. More than a billion dollars are expected to be spent on a process lasting almost 2 years, which will culminate in the top story in every news medium worldwide, and will determine the person in charge of a military that is more expensive than the rest of the world's combined, not to mention one of the largest economies and populations in the world. To force it to comform to the same precident as the parliamentary elections in Belgium is ridiculous. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well Grant, Americans are indeed exceptional, in a whole number of ways. (I mean that as a compliment, of course ;-) I'm not sure how having the American elections conform to the same standards as those everywhere else constitutes a bias, and the size of the story should not matter to ITN. However, if that is what's been decided, then so be it, it doesn't bother me. As an aside, the Belgian elections were particularly important in the sense that the country is (or was) very close to breaking up along more-or-less "ethnic" lines. That is certainly an ITN-annable story. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The size of the coverage of the story is of paramount importance on ITN. And like I said the US Presidential elections are the only elections that are going to be above the fold on the newspapers of record in the US, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Korea, etc. That is precisely what we care about most on ITN. I'm not saying anything about Americans as a people, I'm saying that this one process is exceptional, and to say that it isn't is silly, biased, or both. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[Unindent]. No, the size of the coverage is not important, only that there is a degree of international interest. ITN regularly features the inverse of this situation- elections of heads of state in (for example) far flung Micronesian Islands with populations the size of an average-sized European town. These stories elicit next to no interest in the international media, but the election of a head of state will always have an international dimension, thus it makes the cut. I suspect that, for example, French, British, German, Japanese etc etc elections will also make front page news in serious newspapers everywhere in the world (although I don't disagree for one moment that the American elections will and do make a much bigger splash). I just see no reason to change the rules in favour of one particular country, and I think it does set a bit of an unsettling precedent. However, Wikipedia is an American project and it is perfectly understandable that American stories are prioritised. Badgerpatrol (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
First, elections are sacred on ITN, so we've made the decision to include all of them, regardless of the coverage. Second, we care about verifiability on Wikipedia, so the best measure of international interest is the coverage by the media, whose job I remind you is to bring people the information they care about, and they are very good at it.
Third, I'm not suggesting pro-American bias. Instead, I'm arguing in defense of consensus that has been established over the last few months, which has chosen to recognize the objective fact that the US Presidential election process is longer, larger, more expensive, and more covered than every other election in the world. No other country spends a billion dollars electing their leader in a process that lasts almost 2 years, and involves more than 100 million people, while being covered by every international media outlet in the world. It is simply and objectively a unique and exceptional process, which deserves the appropriate coverage. Thus, we include a 2 one-liners about the nominees in addition to the final election results once every four years, we're not exactly trying to re-invent the wheel or bring about violent, worldwide revolution, here.
Finally, I'm not suggesting that American items take priority. This is a constant source of debate that myself and others get into frequently around here, and while there are those who argue that as this is an English language encyclopedia, and ITN is not part of the encyclopedia itself, but something more akin to a topical table of contents, we should place priority on those items that are especially relevant to those in the English speaking world, I assure you there are as many people arguing that there is anti-American bias as there are who believe there is a pro-American bias. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I've never seen the Japanese (or anyone's other than Russia, Britain, or France) elections anywhere on the front page of papers in the US. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
(..and I only just noticed that it doesn't actually have an article anyway...from looking at General Petraeus his previous testimonies don't have their own articles and his own article hasn't been updated with details of today's events). Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
WP Article or not it is the most mentioned news story of the dat according to GoogleNews--Lemmey (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That may be true but it's irrelevent for our purposes. ITN is not a news ticker, etc etc etc. Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose What WP article would link to this event? This isn't a turning point or even a milestone in the war, just a regularly scheduled briefing with no major proposed changes in policy or revelations in resolving the conflict. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Madcoverboy; I highly doubt it would have its own article. SpencerT♦C 10:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

First Korean astronaut

Quick Support--Lemmey (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. We had an item about the first Malaysian astronaut a few months ago. Do we need to mention the Russian cosmonauts? Pruneautalk 14:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
They're not really notable (Nobody cares about Russia). They're mentioned in the article as is the Korean she replaced at the request of Russian flight school personnel. --Lemmey (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. She is not only the first Korean astronaut, but also the second Asian female to fly to the space. yey!--Appletrees (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Adding. --Tone 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Opps wording issue - according to the article she is a Spaceflight participant. She is the first Korean in space but is not acting as an astronaut as part of the launch mission. Not quite a tourist but is she really an astronaut? Is she an astronaut on the Station but not on the Soyuz?--Lemmey (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says astronaut... but isn't that someone who goes in space anyway? She's doing research there so I see no problem here. BTW, can someone upload her photo to WP, it's time to change Jules Verne image now we have new space news. --Tone 17:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
See Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor for a similar case. My understanding is she would probably be regarded as an astronaut by most people involved and undergoes the full training of an astronaut but is not officially refered to as an astronaut. (Also Talk:Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor has some further discussion). Also as Tone has noted, she will be carrying out research on board, unlike self-financed space tourists. Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't Korean linked to South Korea? AecisBrievenbus 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I often find that Korea is used when it obvioulsy only refers to South Korea. Its one of those weird 'yes we're two countires, but only one people' things. --Lemmey (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Texas Polygamous Ranch

I have no real opinion on this, but an anon suggested it on Main Page Talk, so I thought I would bring it up here. Apparently 401 children and 133 women were removed and it was mentioned on Xinhua and the ABC (Australia). Random89 05:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Support if there is an article. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints contains some information on the raid. Warren Jeffs could be linked as well, but doesn't contain any information about this. AecisBrievenbus 11:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Theres some things on the YZF ranch page about the raid.
Also, there is an article on wikinews. (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Support adding in some shape or form. Hobartimus (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Biased Support if an improved article could be found.FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Support as long as article is improved and more information from Texas officals is quoted. I do have issues with the warrent if they still haven't found the 'girl' who they claim called 911. Potential slander article of a church. --Lemmey (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The best article to use would probably be YFZ Ranch; it's the most specific and has the most detail and citations about the raid. --Herald Alberich (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose adding: "Authorities raid the YFZ Ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Eldorado, Texas, amid allegations of physical and sexual abuse of children." AecisBrievenbus 10:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't know why this hasn't already been promoted given the previous supports, but I fail to see the international aspect of this. Media narratives seems to frame this more as a salacious sex scandal, potential redo of Waco or Ruby Ridge, and/or instance of crazy fundamentalists — really nothing of encyclopedic import, just a peaceful, large-scale law-enforcement action. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"America is a nation too". I interpret the international clause as "don't just post American ITNs" but not "only report ITNs that have impacts outside of America" But if you want impact: The US was founded on a belief of religious tolerance, has been the center of free speech and free assembly, and historically been a place where people can live as they wish. Though it hasen't yet been cited in this case; a high profile raid is often cited by dictators around the world as an excuse for what they do to political or reliigous minorities. (tibet, zimbabwae, lybia) --Lemmey (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Not internationally significant; I suspect that in three days, even the Americans won't be talking about it anymore. Of course, American news can be ITN-worthy (we had the Spitzer scandal on last month, for example), but this isn't, and I have to disagree with your interpretation of the criteria. The criterion means exactly what it says: the item should be of international interest. As for the rest of your point, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Pruneautalk 16:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

April 7

Pulitzer Prize

Support in Theory I'm not judging the quality of the articles or the wording, but I support some version of this going up. Random89 21:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless six is a record I would prefer something more like the CBC headline: "Debut novel, Alcott biography win Pulitzer Prizes: Bob Dylan gets citation for music, Washington Post earns 6 awards". Also Reuters won its first Pulitzer. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The record is seven for the New York Times in 2002. Six is the most by far of this year, and I don't see anything spectacular in the other awards, so I think using this as a hook makes most sense. AecisBrievenbus 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. OK with me and thanks for looking up the record. Sounds like the Washington Post earned a headline. Bob Dylan's was a special award and that article is an FA in case it comes up later. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Support WP wording. I also think Dylan merits a mention as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Support for sure Washington Post wording, on fence, leaning support, for Dylan. SpencerT♦C 02:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe: "The Washington Post wins six awards and Bob Dylan is cited in the 2008 Pulitzer Prizes." or 'The Washington Post wins six Pulitzer Prizes and Bob Dylan is cited for his "impact on popular music and American culture".' Too much Dylan? -Susanlesch (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Biased support :) --JayHenry (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The event should be added, but I'm not sure about Dylan. For example, when the Oscars were announced, we didn't mention Robert F. Boyle's Academy Honorary Award. A quick look at online newpapers gives me the impression that most of them focus on the Post and barely mention Dylan. Pruneautalk 14:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Forget what I wrote: many papers actually have two articles, one for the Post and one for Dylan. I'll support Spencer's first wording. Or maybe change it to "The Washington Post wins six awards and Bob Dylan receives a special citation in the 2008 Pulitzer Prizes." Pruneautalk 14:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's keep it simple: "Winners of the 2008 Pulitzer Prize are announced." But is this too US-centric? -- (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that one is too short, and provides too little information. As far as being US-centric is concerned, I don't think that is an issue here. The Pulitzer Prize is the leading prize in journalism, and the winning newspapers are among the leading newspapers in the world. This is no more US-centric than the Academy Awards or the Grammy Awards. AecisBrievenbus 10:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Still waiting for this to be promoted... Madcoverboy (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The difference between the Academy Awards and Grammy Awards and the Pullitzer Prize is that in the former two, foreigners (films, people, companies) can win. They can therefore justifiably be thought of as globally significant awards. I suppose it is conceivable that a foreigner working for a US organisation could win a Pullitzer (perhaps this has happened in the past?) but the prize rules specifically preclude non-American newspapers and organisations. It is US-centric, although I wouldn't necessarily rule it out just because of that, but it is difficult to see how this story satisfies ITN C3. I can't immediately find this story anywhere on the BBC's news website, for example. Badgerpatrol (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This is essentially correct. London-based Reuters won one award. One of the winners, Latif is Pakistani.[15] Another, du Cille, is Jamaican.[16] But it's an American award more so than an Academy Award or Grammy, and it's not even clear to me why Reuters was eligible. --JayHenry (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
reading between the lines, both of those guys may actually have American citizenship (one is said to have immigrated to the US in 1980, the other is apparently a native of Jamaica but went to senior school in the US and has worked there for many, many years). However, I think you're right- you don't have to be an American, but the newspaper etc. you work for does, and surely >90% (probably more) of winners are from America. Not sure about Reuters- they are seemingly now owned by a company with its head office in Connecticut, although apparently nominally Canadian. Reuters is such a global brand I suppose the prize panel just interpreted their own rules liberally. Badgerpatrol (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Would someone be so kind as to direct me towards some other "international" prize for journalism and music composition that has the same prestige and breadth as the Pulitzer so that we can cover that instead? If an Australian won a Walkey and a Pulitzer, which would be mentioned first? Same for Filipinos and the Magsaysay, Brits and the British Press, etc. My point is this is the most prestigious (journalism) award in the world and it is not exclusively American. I'm disappointed that the specter of US-centrism torpedoing this perfectly legitimate nom. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It is exclusively American, qualified as outlined above. A person writing for The Times, Liberation, or The Sydney Morning Herald simply can't win one, it's against the rules. These aren't just American prizes, they're prizes for Americans. Badgerpatrol (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Olympic torch extinguished

How about: "Protestors extinguish the Olympic torch during its relay through Paris."? AecisBrievenbus 13:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
According to this BBC report, the torch was not extinguised by protesters: "Officials twice extinguished the torch and put it on a bus for safety reasons". Gandalf61 (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but the fact that officials had to extinguish the torch (possibly four times) is truly unpresidented. --Camptown (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Support, try: Olympic torch extinguished in Paris during relay - Doug Youvan (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, there are at least 20 more stages on the relay, there are likely to be protests on most of them, why include Paris? --Tone 17:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Because in Paris, the torch got extinguished for the very first time. --Camptown (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, the Olympic Flame only went off twice before in history (1976, due to rain, and 2004, due to wind). This is exceptional, so support. Pruneautalk 17:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is different from any normal protest. If the torch actually went out, strong support. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
While I'm not denying this is noteable enough for ITN and the extinguishing of the torch very unusual, I don't think it's as simple as you make out. The two cases mentioned are when the torch was accidental extinguished by natural causes. Clearly, the torch is purposely extinguished all the time, for example while travelling in aeroplanes and overnight (as the article you linked to mentions, there is a backup flame in a lantern for this, indeed I would suspect more then one). What makes this unique is that it appears to me (however this isn't referenced anywhere) that it is one of the first times the torch has been extinguished during an actual leg of the relay, and without any planning at that Nil Einne (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, but it seems the whole reason it went up is because it was extinguished like this. It's not common knowledge that it is exinguished that often, and it's only happened two times unexpectedly. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to go too OT, but it seemed obvious to me that it would be extinguished on planes... I'm sure I'm not the only one Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact the flame is kept alive in miner's style safety lanterns on planes, but the torch is indeed extinguished (as it is numerous times anyway over the normal course of events, and relit using one of the back up flames ignited from the same source at Olympia). See the BBC's in-depth report here. Thank goodness they're using our licence fees to research key issues of he day and not just to bring us useless trivia. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
they also used those fees to tell you that your future king wasen't dead yet (update at 11), he was just fine serving in an artillary battery 80km east of Kandahar. Nope no risk reporting that, BBC. --Lemmey (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You have that completely wrong, in fact. Firstly, Prince Henry is highly, highly unlikely to ever become King (granted, his chances are a bit higher than yours or mine, but that's about it). Secondly the BBC certainly did not breach the reporting embargo that was in place for his Winter skiing holiday to Afghanistan. Initially it was an Australian magazine that broke the story early this year, but the real damage was done by an American website run by Matt Drudge who picked up the story I believe from behind the scenes sources at the CNN network. In no way was the BBC at fault at any stage. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Here's a link from the AP: Nevermind, not mentioned. SpencerT♦C 22:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Very important and exceptional news. On a side note, three people just climbed the Golden Gate Bridge and hung a Free Tibet sign. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. I like Doug Youvan's non-confrontational version by the way. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps mentioning other torch disruptions...? SpencerT♦C 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose and Remove - The entry for ITN does not even mention is was extinguished. It only says it was protested and in Paris. Well news for you: it's been protested many other places, perhaps even more notable places than in Paris, and will continue to be protested. Another thing to keep in mind is that we do not even have an article for the protests. The main link just goes to the relay. And if you look at the article, there have not been significant or at least any meaningful expansions. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment, it was also disrupted in London, I think that should get a mention. --Philip Stevens (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes- surely "The Olympic torch relay is disrupted by protesters in London and Paris."? (Would be useful if we could spell "protesters" correctly as well).(I take that back- seemingly it can be spelled both ways in fact.) Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't mention the San Francisco protests until they happen. We can't tell yet whether they will be newsworthy. Pruneautalk 14:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

China-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement

Support, although I think that should be "China's first comprehensive free trade agreement ...". -- Avenue (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Agree with avenue, we need to say what's notable. SpencerT♦C 10:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It's notable because it's the first FTA between China, the world's largest developing economy, and a developed country. The question is how to express that in the most clear and concise manner. - Shudde talk 10:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment New article specific for the free trade deal: China-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement.--Sir Anon (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - As long as well worded. - Shudde talk 10:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's an alternative wording suggestion. -- Avenue (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment "its" can be confusing. China's or New Zealand's? – PeterCX&Talk 12:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This works
but sounds a bit funny to my ears (its almost as if the New Zealand bit is an afterthought)... In any case, would wikilinking first to the list be helpful to clarify that it is indeed the first? Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, tacking New Zealand on the end does sound odd. How about something more explicit?
Or is that too long?-- Avenue (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Avenue's version is great.-gadfium 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems a bit too specific. SpencerT♦C 22:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
How about: (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
That's good. That should go up. - Shudde talk 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it's wrong. The agreement hasn't been ratified, just signed. It's also in past tense. How about:
-- Avenue (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Object - NZ is the 60th largest economy in the world. NN. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that its direct effect will be minor. However it is notable as a milestone in China's trade liberalisation. There are deals under negotiation between China and Australia, South Africa, Singapore and other countries.[17] Perhaps in isolation each of these is not of global importance, but the broader pattern is certainly significant. -- Avenue (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's notable. It's a major FTA; it's notable because it's the first one between China and a developed country. If it were the second, maybe you would have a point, but it's not. - Shudde talk 10:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

April 6

Summer Olympics Torch Relay

Thousands of protestors disrupt the 2008 Chinese Olympic torch relay in London, United Kingdom, on the torch's first leg of it's world journey. (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. There were protests at the lighting of the fire already and probably there will be more on the next stations. London isn't special. --Tone 16:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Tone. Who knows how many other protests during the torch run there will be. SpencerT♦C 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Probably Torch Relay itself is already notable. After all, Olympic Games is a world event. – PeterCX&Talk 02:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It is, but that doesn't mean we have to mention every international stop it makes (which would basically mean it's on ITN for an entire month). The lighting and perhaps when it reaches Beijing is enough Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
How about: Police is confronted by protesters during the Olympic torch relay through Europe. --Camptown (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
See Subject-verb agreement. SpencerT♦C 11:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion if protests are not notable, perhaps simply something like "2008 Summer Olympics torch relay is started in Beijing"? – PeterCX&Talk 12:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit pov, but how about: "Protests against China's handling of the recent unrest in Tibet overshadow the relay of the Olympic torch through London and Paris."? AecisBrievenbus 12:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not just unrest, it's also China's general human rights record and invasion of Tibet that's causing some of this...which is why protestors hang signs that say "Free Tibet". SpencerT♦C 11:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Should we mention the first round of the presidential election in Montenegro, once the official results are in? AecisBrievenbus 16:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the convention to only mention the final results? If someone is elected at the first round, we should mention it, but otherwise, wait for the second round. Pruneautalk 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Current President and regime candidate Filip Vujanović of DPS CG wins the presidential election in first round. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This certainly goes up when the results are more certain. As far as I know, this are still projections. I would propose a wording like: Montenegrin president Filip Vujanović of DPS CG wins the second term in the first round of elections. --Tone 20:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Regime candidate? Regime? AecisBrievenbus 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Projections, but Filip has declared victory and all other three candidates acknowledged it - therefore, it's evident, even without official results.
Of the ruling coalition. I don't see anything quite negative about the connotation, but drop if you find it bothersome. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Wiktionary, regime "is often used as a pejorative". Anyway, I'm not quite sure what "regime candidate" is supposed to mean. Was there something special about Vujanovic, apart that he was the incumbent? I suggest:
I would also be more comfortable if we waited for the article to be updated with some numbers before we put it up on ITN. Pruneautalk 22:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Multi-parliamentarism was restored with the collapse of Communism in 1990. Ever since then, the Communists (or their successors) have been continually in power. Therefore, in Montenegro the government has become known to represent one political course - and the entire opposition - the other. Locally, the rulers (how to name them?) and the opposition no where collaborate. Vujanovic is the government's candidate. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There are numbers in the article. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess you mean it's a Dominant-party system? I don't know if it's necessary, or wise, to summarise that in the ITN, I don't think we've done it before with any of the other ITN items Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment on wording: First round of what? SpencerT♦C 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
We missed "presidential election". Isn't it obvious? ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
How about: "Filip Vujanović (Democratic Party of Socialists) is re-elected as President of Montenegro."? AecisBrievenbus 09:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Or, if we use the picture: "Filip Vujanović (pictured) of the Democratic Party of Socialists is re-elected as President of Montenegro."? AecisBrievenbus 09:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The wording sounds good. SpencerT♦C 10:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Support this wording. Thanks. Pruneautalk 10:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding. Plese, upload the picture here so that we can add it as well. --Tone 10:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have hidden this blurb for the moment, as the article Montenegrin presidential election, 2008 hasn't been updated yet. Because of this, the ITN blurb is not supported by the article. It still says that "A presidential election will be held in Montenegro..." and "Polls and analysts claim Vujanović will most surely win the largest number of votes and face-off with Medojevic in the second round." The section #Results only contains some uncited preliminary results, no final results. AecisBrievenbus 12:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia moves

Wikipedia moves from Florida to San Francisco - 50MWdoug (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a website; it can't move. I think you mean Wikimedia. --Jedravent (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. This is nothing special, just moving the headquarters. Pretty much internal Wikimedia thing that won't affect the rest of the world considerably. --Tone 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Charlton Heston

On April 5, a great actor, Charlton Heston, passed away. I think this is notable enough for the main page, considering the man made tons of hit movies in his lifetime. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Support adding Charlton Heston. Hobartimus (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering the controversy surrounding the lack of adding Pavarotti and Edmund Hillary, to name two, I doubt this will find enough of a consensus. This is a moot point, however, while the article remains insubstantially updated. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Given his place in popular culture due to his movies and his views on guns in America, I think this should go up. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Your rationale doesn't jibe with the ITN section's purpose (to highlight articles that have been created or substantially updated to reflect major news). ITN isn't a newswire, though we do have a sister site called Wikinews. —David Levy 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Support, I just wish consensus wasn't meaningless in ITN. Teemu08 (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I wish that people didn't confuse "consensus" with "whatever the most people vote for." —David Levy 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Getting an ITN entry is not some kind of lifetime achievement award. Old dude did what old dudes do. No substantial update to article likely to occur. The Tom (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Putting Heston in while not putting others just makes the debate heated. The guidelines still aren't perfect but we should work on them, otherwise we will have a long debate here every time someone prominent dies. Remember Arthur C. Clarke last time? --Tone 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Does not meet ITN inclusion criteria. This includes the lack of a substantial article update, which is relevant even if we ignore the death criteria. —David Levy 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. I would be the first to admit that Heston may not have had impact on films like Hillary or Clarke had on their fields, but we need to start somewhere. There is somewhat of a consensus that something should be changed with regards to deaths, setting a precedent for inclusion is a start on making such a change. Random89 17:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, even if we ignore the death criteria, the article hasn't been substantially updated to reflect Heston's death. —David Levy 18:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That is true of any non-assassination or suprise death (pretty much), Just claiming that sort of contradicts your previous statement that some natural deaths could be included. Random89 01:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed a modified format that would allow for the inclusion of items for highly notable people's deaths that don't warrant substantial article updates, but such a change has yet to be adopted. I'll once again stress the importance of not including such entries alongside the other ITN blurbs without clear demarcation (because this misleads readers to believe that substantial article updates have occurred). —David Levy 06:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm going to revive the discussion over your update template on the discussion page, it seems like the ideal solution/ compromise here. Random89 06:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again...why didn't we ever adopt this suggestion? SpencerT♦C 18:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry not possible under current rules. Others more notable have not been included. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. The other more notable deaths should have been included as well. Like Spencer, I think it's high time we find some way of including deaths of major figures. Pruneautalk 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree it would be high time to allow deaths to appear, but, with respect, this is not when to start. Where is a change in rules best discussed? -Susanlesch (talk)
Main discussion and suggestion is here: Template talk:In the news#Dispute. Note: It's somewhat down the link. SpencerT♦C 00:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. As Ingmar Bergman was not posted. --Camptown (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Airlines shutting down

I don't know if it's international, but three airlines went bankrupt this week: Aloha Airlines, ATA Airlines, and Skyline, I think. I think this has some significance; it's not every week you see three airlines go bankrupt at the same time! Especially because ATA was supposed to take the passengers originally flying Aloha back home. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - Try to construct headline that includes historic oil prices and airlines outside the USA, perhaps on a longer time scale - 50MWdoug (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak support, provided you find a good headline and a central article that has been updated enough. --Tone 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: Skybus, not Skyline. How about: Aloha Airlines, ATA Airlines, and Skybus Airlines abruptly cease operations, citing rising oil prices and a decline of business. (Link for "decline of business"?) SpencerT♦C 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Support if all the articles are updated. Spencer's text is excellent. Maybe "declining revenue". -Susanlesch (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak support. It would be great if we had a 2008 aviation crisis article. Maybe link "oil prices" to Oil price increases since 2003? Also, the articles on the airlines don't say anything about the decline of business; the Skybus article cites the "slowing economic environment". Pruneautalk 23:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
ATA Airlines mentions a decline of business. SpencerT♦C 00:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: The Jet Fuel Price Index is now at 367 (based on 100 for year 2000), but I don't think we cover that internal to WP. [18] - 50MWdoug (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: Bloomberg Article citing these three and "Champion Air, a carrier based in Bloomington, Minnesota, will cease flying May 31..." [19] - 50MWdoug (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Support - removing previous objection when it was just aloha. --Lemmey (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

April 4

Suriname plane crash

Tragic, but hardly deserving of an ITN mention. At least, not until more details emerge about the cause.--WaltCip (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Airline crashes often go up and the article seems to be in good shape. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think the reason commercial airline crashes often go up is because they are generally major incidents. Crashes (as opposed to more minor ground incidents) of large commercial airlines are very rare, and when they do occur, not surprisingly often involve a major loss of life. However crashes of smaller turboprop aircraft is sadly a lot less rare, more so in Africa then South America perhaps. They also don't tend to involve such a major loss of life for obvious reasons. Whether this should go up I don't know, it's closer to borderline then most aircraft crashes but I'm not opposing it either Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nil. I'm on the fence for this one. SpencerT♦C 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. Death of 19 people in a plane crash seems sufficiently notable to me. Which continent it's on isn't terribly relevant to deciding notability.-gadfium 23:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I would argue if this were in Africa I would be even lessmore reluctant to support it. Not because African lives matter less then anyone else but because (as I hinted at above) many African airlines have a very poor safety record so crashes are far too common. (Obviously if this were an African airline but one of the large ones with a good safety record like South African Airways, that would be a different matter). But since this is in South America that's not really relevant. There is definite relevance to the location when it affects the frequency, when deciding notability. For example the death of 5 people in a terrorist attack in Iraq or Afghanistan is sadly not usually noteable enough for ITN barring other factors since it's far too common there. A terrorist attack killing 5 people in the US, UK, Australia, Singapore, Japan, South Africa, Brazil and many other countries would probably be noteable enough for ITN because it's something that's a lot rarer there. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Although I'm afraid this doesn't add much, I am also neutral, perhaps leaning towards no as most people had not previously heard of Blue Wing Airlines and it has been largely overshadowed by other events in most media, i.e. Zimbabwe and the Olympic torch/protests/potential boycotts. Random89 06:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Plane crashes are very sad, but they happen often. I've found 12 crashes in 2007 with over 20 fatalities each (including one helicopter crash and two military plane crashes): Adam Air 574 (102 fatalities), Africa One (51), Air Moorea 1121 (20), Atlazjet 4203 (57), Balad crash (34), Garuda Indonesia 200 (22), Kenya Airways 507 (114), One-Two GO 269 (90), PMTAir 241 (22), Lungi helicopter crash (22), Shatoy crash (20), TAM 3054 (199). There could be more that I missed.
I doubt we listed all of those on ITN and I think that having a plane crash once a month would be too much. Unfortunately, the Blue Wing Airlines crash isn't unusual enough. Pruneautalk 08:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April 3

Jules Verne docking

Wasn't this on ITN when the shuttle was launched? I think one mention is enough. --Tone 17:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the first fully automated rendezvous of two spacecraft by optical means. And it's done by Europeans. Right, who cares ? (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry I wish this could be but Jules Verne's launch was on the main page. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Striking oppose per Aecis below (maybe eventually space rendezvous will mention this?). I haven't read enough to support but space is good and this has nice free image. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose mentioned already. SpencerT♦C 20:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. While the launch has been mentioned, the docking is an entirely different affair, which is in many ways much more complicated. I believe the launch shouldn't have been mentioned, because the docking is much more special.
Support. I'm not aware of any rule saying a subject can only appear once. It's common to include both launchings and landings of a spacecraft, for example. However, since a Soyuz is due to launch fairly soon, I'd be happy for this to be included and then replaced with the Soyuz launch when it happens.-gadfium 08:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. The article says that it was the world's first fully automated docking maneuver to the space station. That's ITN-worthy, in fact much more than the n-th launch or landing of established spacecrafts. MikeZ (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. This is actually very big news, it's a Space First! Joe Davison 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. If it had been just another docking, yes, just mentioning the launch would have been enough. But the first fully automated space rendezvous is a major development, warranting a separate entry. AecisBrievenbus 16:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Support: same argument - I think the first automated RV is worth mention. Habbit (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrvoje Čustić

"Croatian footballer Hrvoje Čustić of NK Zadar dies after colliding with a concrete wall during the First Football League match against HNK Cibalia." AecisBrievenbus 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sad story. There is one more story from Croatia, general Ivan Korade comitted suicide after being besieged by the police. But I don't know if any of those two stories would fit on ITN. --Tone 17:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, unfortuantely. Oppose --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The Italian and Scottish? footballers that died were not added. Neither was the American football player who was murdered. Not to mention other high profile celebs and important scientists not added. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The article only has a sentence or two describing the death anyway, so it doesn't really meet the standards. SpencerT♦C 20:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
A sad story, but not within our scope. Oppose. Random89 21:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ledra Street

I would prefer "Greek and Turkish Cypriots open a crossing at Ledra Street, a main shopping street in Cyprus' divided capital Nicosia." since the bit about symbolizing partition is not referenced mentioned in the article. Narayanese (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Tone 11:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
How about: Greek and Turkish Cypriots open a crossing at Ledra Street (pictured), a main shopping street in Cyprus' divided capital Nicosia. --Camptown (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Support I've fixed a typo (devided). Narayanese (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. However, I feel that the picture doesn't add anything, so I'd rather we keep the pic of Ahern. Pruneautalk 13:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding. The picture is too detailed so it's unclear in low resolution. --Tone 16:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The [[Cyprus|Greek]] ... Cypriots link seems redundant, mentioning cypriot people twice. Nevermind, I get it now. SpencerT♦C 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it not be better to mention that it closed within hours of opening? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Nah, it opened again. Narayanese (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2

2008 NATO Summit

In Bucharest, Romania, in 2-4 April 2008 is held the 20th NATO Summit. Because this is an very important event, I suggenst to be added into the news template on main page. Paulnasca (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The main news from the NATO summit appears to be that NATO will invite Albania and Croatia to join the organisation. Ukraine, Georgia and Macedonia will not be invited, Ukraine and Georgia amidst a dispute with Russia, Macedonia amidst a naming dispute with Greece. I suggest using this hook for an ITN blurb. AecisBrievenbus 10:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Proposed blurb: "At its summit in Bucharest, NATO invites Albania and Croatia to join the alliance." AecisBrievenbus 11:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait for official invitation that is expected to happen later today. Otherwise, support, surely important. --Tone 11:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like it's official now. [20] Pruneautalk 14:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Posted. AecisBrievenbus<;/sup> 10:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the more interesting news is the Greek veto on Macedonia than a rather expected invitation for Albania and Croatia. Please expand. --Avala (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Botswana elections

Support Didn't see the election, but new head of state is obviously notable. Sorta wish we had a list of these elections every year or something so we could be thorough. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
We do: Electoral calendar 2008. For the past, we've got Electoral calendar 2004, Electoral calendar 2005, Electoral calendar 2006 and Electoral calendar 2007, and for next year we've got Electoral calendar 2009. AecisBrievenbus 23:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. Is adding the capital absolutely necessary? SpencerT♦C 02:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Support but remove the mention of the capital. Pruneautalk 08:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Zimbabwean elections

Endorse with the addition of however, Mugabe refuses to leave office without a fight, or words to that effect --Hadseys ChatContribs 17:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Support but election article needs to be linked and also needs cleanup. --Lemmey (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Support with greater context for both presidential and parliamentarian elections. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment, isn't the electoral result unclear? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment/ Hang on There are no official presidential results yet, wait for that then bundle it with the parliamentary results and put it up. The blurb above is (as of now) simply untrue. Random89 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Support after final election results. SpencerT♦C 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Random et al, let's wait a bit longer and see what happens. The parliamentary victory is definitely significant but it's only part of the picture and it would be good if we could put the whole picture rather then saying no one knows for the rest of it Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment, Movement for Democratic Change one the legislature by a majority (officially) but no official word on the Presidency. gren グレン 04:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Support provided certain modifications: I think that the parliamentary victory is noteworthy, especially considering the possibility (not certainty!) that the elections were rigged and the opposition won anyway. Thus I think that we should say something resembling:
The Movement for Democratic Change secures a majority of seats in the Zimbabwean parliamentary election, defeating current President Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF. Results in the presidential election remain unclear. Lockesdonkey (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Support posting parliamentary results for now. We don't know how long it's going to take the presidential results to get sorted out, but we can at least post some news in the interim. Lovelac7 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding. --Tone 16:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment, The MDC didn't really secure a majority of seats, haven taken 99/210. The opposition (in general, including the breakaway faction of the MDC) got a majority over ZANU-PF. Random89 21:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
In that case, "majority" should be changed into "plurality". Pruneautalk 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
But the article for Movement for Democratic Change includes both the Tsvangirai and Mutambara factions, and it's not like they're going to actively oppose each other in Parliament. The MDC as a whole has a majority, which we might want to reflect. Lockesdonkey (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahern resignation

Support, although I would use the present tense "announces" instead of "has announced". Also, I wonder whether it would be better to say Taoiseach than Prime Minister. The term Taoiseach is used uniformly in Ireland, but many non-Irish people may not know the term. NoIdeaNick (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Support, using prime minister would probably cause less confusion (if it is acceptable to use this term). --Tone 11:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. How about: Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern (pictured) announces his resignation, following allegations of corruption. --Camptown (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Yes, present tense would be better. I redirected Prime Minister to Taoiseach, but I have no preference as to which one is used. Yorkshiresky (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. I don't like the flow of that sentence/headline. The comma gives me a feeling of stumbling. __meco (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How about:

How about simply removing the offensive comma: Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern (pictured) announces his resignation following allegations of corruption. __meco (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Dennisc24 (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Support --Lemmey (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April 1

Shall we consider adding a humorous made up or humorous real event in this section just for today? DYK already has some amusing but real items. --Tone 16:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If its a madeup event it should include Wikipedia.
  • 'Wikipedia starts wiki-Tube: videos anyone can edit'
  • 'Wikipedia starts O'wiki-bama: change anyone can edit'

--Lemmey (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, what about: Wikipedia introduces a new feature, video articles and is looking for volunteers to present articles in front of the camera. Apply now! --Tone 17:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I love it. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I like it, but it might have been more useful about 15 hours ago. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Support if you want to go for it for 8 hours or so. I for one missed the plan. -Susanlesch (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Adding for a couple of hours, let's see the effect... (always possible to revert) --Tone 17:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC) guys should have had it throughout the day but I think its too late now. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it stayed on the Main page for 5 minutes. BTW, I am going to archive March because none of the recent proposals does not seem to have enough support and the others are just too old now. --Tone 06:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Too old? How about the Zimbabwean elections? People are still counting the votes. -- (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, missed this one... Anyway, we've already agreed that this goes on as soon as the results are known (we will see the wording then). --Tone 11:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)