Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2011

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

April 30

[Posted] Gaddafi's son dies in airstrike

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


  • Support as nom -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support unusual that a sitting head of state's family was targeted.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe Gaddafi was only several hundred metres away. Perhaps this was a mistake or something. Nonetheless, this is pretty newsworthy. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Correction, I confused Said al-Arab with Saif-al-Islam. Still a huge story, for the direct attack on the dictator's family, and for the death of his children and grandchildren. Still a big deal for the ongoing civil war, for public perception of foreign intervention, and for NATO's role. Ocaasi c 00:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, let's hold our horses. Do we have independent confirmation of his death? And by "independent confirmation", I mean a source other than Libyan state media. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
it is all over WP:RS HJ . that is what counts. All the dictators of the world probably are waiting to read about it on WP. it appears gadhafi was in the same house but was "not hurt" even though the house was flattened.(VoA)--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The article is short and was only created recently (since the war started), and even then only ostensibly because he's a son of Gaddafi and apparently got into a fight. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the article would probably fail AFD if it was nominated in circumstances other than the current (because we all know that developing news stories always survive AFD nowadays). I would prefer for the focus of the blurb to be on the Libyan war, and not Gaddafi's son. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 00:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I've come full circle over this one. This blurb was the first I have heard about it and I thought inclusion was a no-brainer. Then on reading up I see he is one of six sons, and the lowest profile of the lot. At that point I was questioning whether this really is significant enough to merit inclusion by itself. But remembering my initial reaction I now figure that plenty of people will want to read up about him to put the story into context. That is the very point of ITN: to highlight content pertinent to what the mass media are reporting.
    I do understand HJ Mitchell's concerns but do not share them. For many countries the word of the national government would be regarded as authoritative in its own right. Here that may not necessarily be the case but here I feel we can take the facts as established. The Libyan government would look idiotic if someone who is dead reappears alive and well - they simply aren't going to make that kind of error or propaganda stunt. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
    • "That is the very point of ITN: to highlight content pertinent to what the mass media are reporting." Not quite. I believe we're working on moving away from that and towards highlighting good content pertinent to the news. This article is anything but, at the moment, and does not meet the update requirements yet. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 00:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
      • That is essentially the self-serving viewpoint. The other would be the user-centric view. Any news story is subject to ongoing developments. The article in question is unusually active but that reflects the level of interst in the story. Bear in mind that "Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi" is not a name that the average western ear can readily commit to memory and actually transcribe a period of time later. How many people are going to come here looking for "Gaddifi's son... can't remember his name"? We have basic biographical details and some additional context of the form not usually carried in news reports - why should we not promote that? Trust the reader to be able to see this is an ongoing story and exercise judgement accordingly. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The article is not stable at the moment, it needs to settle down a little before posting. RxS (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose even assuming he's really dead - and his death was caused as claimed in a state-controlled media - children of world leaders who die are generally not newsy - this guy's barely notable much less of the caliber of noteworthiness to report in the ITN deaths. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • A very valid point. Why are we relaxing ITN death standards "just because" the guy's Gaddafi's son? He's not seemingly inherently notable, and definitely far less notable than any of the recently-dead people nominated for ITN below. Double standards, much? Agree fully with Carlos. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 00:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The news is not notable because he was notable, but because his death occurred in the context of a major assault in an ongoing conflict. The death in the context of the war is what's notable. If he died during a car accident on a peaceful Sunday, it would not be news. That's not what happened. Ocaasi c 00:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Exactly. His notability is not just that he was the son of Libyan head of state. It is that he is the first son of a head of state ever to be assassinated by NATO. most western countries generally frown on targeted killings of dictators/family. this appears to be a targeted attack in a residential district.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
          • In which case, then surely either the "major assault" or the "ongoing conflict" would be the article to bold, and not the person who died. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 01:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
            • would have no problem with that also.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
              • That would be my preference. I'm not in principle against posting this story, since it clearly is huge, but how we present the blurb is important and I would oppose any blurb focussing on the dead man or which did not state that these were only reports. Just to be clear, I support the story, just not in its present form. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 01:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I would suggest the blurb be refocussed and take HJ's concerns into account: Libyan state media report the death of Muammar Gaddafi's youngest son in a NATO airstrike on Tripoli amid ongoing conflict.
    Updated accordingly. Ocaasi c 00:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: This certainly sounds like a targeted killing, in which case it may raise a stink with several countries, especially since the initial UN approval was taken saying that Gadaffi won't be specifically targeted. In addition, this guy led the assault against the rebels at the start of the uprisings IIRC, so he was something like a de facto top level leader in the Gaddafi regime. Chamal TC 03:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, right... my bad. It seems he didn't hold any political positions either. But according to this he was involved in suppressing the rebels as well. Chamal TC 03:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The man seems to have been sixth in line to the Libyan throne and kept a low profile. It may raise a stink but the stink hasn't happened yet. --candlewicke 04:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    We're rewritten the blurb to reflect that the airstrikes were the main event, not just the death of Saif al-Arab. In sum, the death of three members of the regime's leader's family by a NATO strike is the news. Ocaasi c 04:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • "Sixth in line to the Libyan throne?" Unless you're talking about the Senussi family, can we keep a lid on the political commentary? Nightw 06:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - notable story and getting substantial news coverage. Jusdafax 08:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support if and only if the airstrikes are the main event. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, notable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 15:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
oppose and pull''' its not confirmed yet [1]Lihaas (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Lihaas, we give attribution and this story is all over the news. We could perhaps emphasize the 'report' slightly more, but this is newsworthy at the moment, even if it's a tactic (which the article on his death actually discusses). Ocaasi c 17:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Death of Ernesto Sabato

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

  • I unfortunately see very little in the writer's article that makes him exceptionally notable, and he did die of natural causes at the age of 99. He may be very notable in Argentina, but I can't speculate on that.--WaltCip (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I don't see the notability either. I would also expect his "notable works" (in the sidebar) to have decent articles, but that isn't the case. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. It isn't always the case. BBC - "very influential in the literary world throughout Latin America" and "won some of the most prestigious prizes in Hispanic literature". Canadian Press - He "led the government's probe of crimes committed by Argentina's dictatorship" and "received the French Legion of Honor, the Medici Prize of Italy and Spain's Cervantes Prize, the most respected award in Spanish letters". World reaction to his death, including "he had surpassed the world of literature to gain a more iconic status". Reuters - "His first novel, "The Tunnel," was hailed after its release in 1948 as an existentialist classic and won him fans including Thomas Mann and Albert Camus" (Nobel laureates 1929 and 1957 respectively, if anyone didn't know who they were). --candlewicke 19:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
    • This is all very interesting. I wish it were included in the article.--WaltCip (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
But it is? --candlewicke 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
To the extent in which you detailed, not really. I saw various mentions of awards and fellow writers, but not really any establishment of their notability until you brought it up here.--WaltCip (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Which part of the above is not in the article? --candlewicke 01:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose This death, at the age of 99, is not significant. It is material suitable for "recent deaths" -- linked to from ITN -- but not ITN itself. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Dead from old age => send to recent deaths. Thue | talk 11:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think he's significant enough as a death to be posted here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. His list of awards seems pretty significant. He got front page treatment on El Pais and there's been plenty of coverage.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Miki Ando wins Gold medal

Article: Miki Ando (talk, history)
Blurb: Miki Ando beats Yuna Kim of South Korea with less than half a point for the gold medal at the 2011 World Figure Skating Championships. (Post)
Article needs updating
Source for this news.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional support, only as an update to the current blurb and changing the present item to a more standard "X wins the men's and Y wins the women's event in Z sport". Strange Passerby (talkcont) 13:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I say post ASAP.--HelloKitta (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
support it is or should be on ITNR as the world cup of its sportiLihaas (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Question: At the moment, we have a story that highlights the record score. Otherwise, there are four events here - men, women, pairs and dance, so posting just men and women would do the other two injustice. Postion all four winners would make the blurb too long. So I'd stay with the present blurb. --Tone 17:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for Strange Passerby's proposal. I understand Tone's concern but while I'm no expert when it comes to figure skating, it seems the men's and women's titles are the ones with greatest prestige. An unusually close result does not amount to a record IMHO. Mention of the hastily re-arranged hosting following the Japan earthquake would be welcome as well, but again I recognise the same space constraints make that difficult. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support update to current blurb, oppose adding it as a stand alone blurb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RxS (talkcontribs)
The singles' events are by far the more prestigious of the championships. Similar to how we post the singles' winners at a tennis major, but not any of the three doubles titles. Courcelles 00:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I woudn't agree with that analogy to tennis, but the singles titles are the main ones.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Update? I don't see an update, so I removed [Ready]. -- tariqabjotu 05:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment If we post this item and don't post the Apple vs. Microsoft story below we look to be in a position where we are going to posting more figure skating stories than we've posted business stories since January. That's absurd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 05:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand then we have a situation where we published the mens gold medalist news for figure skating but not the womens winner. We cant discriminate against females. right?--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
This one is just waiting for an article update and has no opposes, that's different from Apple vs Microsoft which has seem several opposes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Well to be fair I think it's an issue of sport vs business, not figure skating. And also I think the consensus is here that teh blurb will be updated, not added. Which I support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Possibly I was just a little annoyed this morning. I don't think too much needs reading into my point here :). There is more productive discussion on WT:ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Unproductive discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose - after the massive opposition here to posting Cricket World Cup success, this is a ridiculous proposition. US-centrism again, because Americans skate but don't play cricket. Pathetic. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
My concern surrounds the obvious excitement (and hence bias) here over this sport. I am not stupid. I know the winner is Japanese, but the above posters aren't. Did they support the cricket nomination? Somehow we really do have to address the massive bias here towards things that Americans know and like. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - after the massive opposition here to posting Cricket World Cup success, this is a ridiculous proposition. US-centrism again, because Americans skate but don't play cricket. Pathetic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

April 29

Death of Erhard Loretan

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

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

Impeachment of Merceditas Gutierrez

It seems she has resigned now. When they voted to impeach her it was posted. --candlewicke 01:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Syria update or sticky?

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

Support sticky Look at this for the response at international level to what has been going in Bahrain, Yemen's capital has been flooded with 100,000 protesters and Libya has been quietly invading Tunisia. --candlewicke 00:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Support sticky lots happening in Syria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Support sticky per Eraserhead1 and Candlewicke -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
And the others? --candlewicke 20:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the rate of events occurring elsewhere in the ME don't quite warrant sticky yet and should be nominated individually. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 00:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose repressive regime slaughtering protesters has become so commonplace to hardly be "news" - will this be above the fold in any quantity of respected newspapers? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Which is why this is now a sticky, rather than rolling updates on ITN. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 01:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

[Article updated] Apple Inc makes more profit than Microsoft

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

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

  • Oppose - Limited interest business story.--WaltCip (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Seriously? Apple and Microsoft have been rivals for a very long time and both companies have been extremely innovative in the tech spec and have a huge prescence. And we haven't posted the rise of Apple before. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • From the Guardian: "The overshadowing of Microsoft's financial might by Apple will be seen by some as marking a key moment in the industry" [2]. It then goes on to talk about the meteoric rise of the iPad and iPhone. And of course, almost all of us on PCs are using MS Windows. As the nom notes, Apple was already bigger by value and market capitalization [3]. We did not post the last turning point, with one person saying (word search Apple) that revenues were the real metric, which is what we have now. Others opposed because the two might trade spots. I'd say with the iPad doing so well, Apple should be on top for some time. Support posting.--Chaser (away) - talk 13:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: So Apple's ridiculous overpricing has finally paid off... ;) One of the industry giants overtaking the one that has been in the lead so far is a big event and the media is making a big deal out of it, but Apple has earned most of that through products like the iphone and ipad, an area where microsoft is lagging behind. Microsoft gets the majority of their earnings from their software, mainly windows, where it beats Apple easily. Because of this difference, I'm not sure if this is as big as they make it out to be. But then I suppose it's the end result that counts, and this is what the experts say. Chamal TC 14:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
According to this article, Microsoft's downfall is largely due to their losses in the Online Services Division. Apparently, otherwise it could have been a different story. Chamal TC 00:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This isnt that big bit of news in the scheme of things. This was an eventuality which was expected some time soon. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • When are we ever going to post a tech/business story? Or are silly issues going to be found every single time? Microsoft vs. Apple is a classic business rivalry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I have to disagree: this event marks a shift in the long-time rivalry between Apple and Microsoft, which reflects and builds on the market mood, consumer preferences, technology development directions, etc. If this shift needs to be noted ever, this is a good occasion, although it might be only a symbolic milestone. Crnorizec (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support this really capstones the transition of an entire of the entire computing/tech/mobile industry. Not every event has a 'bam' quality to it. Some creep up over years and years and then are just pointed out as markers of the change. Ocaasi c 18:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • As the article's now updated marking [Ready?] as I'm WP:INVOLVED. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
      • No there is not even a weak consensus. I have removed it until actual consensus solidifies. There is not deadline this is still timely for several days yet. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: significant shift in the technology market. Crnorizec (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Apple was all but dead some years back. This is a remarkable story of major notability. Worldwide interest as well. Jusdafax 01:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Marking [Ready], only one non WP:IDONTLIKEIT oppose and lots of support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • You shouldn't be the one making that decision. There's a reason why admins who participate in AFDs aren't the ones who close them.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
        • When I did it the consensus was very clear. Theres no point in bureaucracy for bureaucracies sake. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
          • I agree with WaltCip there - this was not a routine addition. You'd already added it once, it was removed, and you then added it again, despite as you acknowledge being an involved editor. You were also very dismissive of contributor's positions: you could argue that they WaltCip's position was poorly developed but it is a valid evaluation of the blurb. Adding a ready tag also has the effect of closing off debate at a point in time favourable to you. In any case, the administrator's guidance for this page is clear - it is their responsibility to decide if and when a valid consensus has been reached. In that respect any Ready tag is completely pointless. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC).
            • At the point of it being added yesterday morning there were five well argued supports including the nomination (support !votes don't need a bold support to count) and a weak support (though one that was well argued). On the other side there was one WP:IDONTLIKEIT oppose and one well argued oppose. At best for the opposes it was 5 supports (including the nomination) vs 2 opposes. And that misses the fact that the substantial oppose !vote had two (at worst) counterarguments made against it. No uninvolved person could realistically have judged consensus at that point any other way that I did given the facts so being involved shouldn't have been an issue.
            • First I had added a [Ready?] which just means that I think the article was updated as the consensus at that point was less clear - Next time I'll use [Article updated] initially. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 04:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Single quarter reports cover a too short interval. A temporary increase in profits can come from the release of a single product (e.g. Ipad2) without being an indication of the overall situation. Don't post until/if Apple has a yearly profit greater than their current main rival, if you absolutely must post at all./Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
    • You realise that Apple are in the lead over Microsoft by 700 million dollars? And that the media won't cover it again. Additionally the iPad 2 only came out at the end of the quarter, so its unlikely to have made a particularly big impact to Apple's profits. Additionally their iPad business over the whole quarter only made $2.8 billion in revenue. So what you've got to argue is that the iPad made an additional profit of 25% of that value which they wouldn't have ordinarily made, which is rather far fetched. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Alright, not the Ipad2 then. As usual I made the mistake of using an example to argue a general point. The general point: A quarter is a too short interval of time to be an indicator of a general situation. If the media covers quarterly reports instead of yearly ones, then they are unfortunately looking for easy news instead of doing things properly and analysing actual long-term trends. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
        • even generally - when MS isn't about to release a new version of Windows or Office the chance of them making up 700 million is implausibly low. Especially when they beat their estimate too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The update needs some work. There's a lot of specualtion phrased to make it sound authoratative (like the whole sentence starting "One of the reasons for the change...") and a tendency towards praising Apple. I know it's difficult to write an account of David beating Goliath without making David sound like a hero, but it has to be done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll make some more effort today. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
apple didnt make the highest profits. they just made more profit than microsoft in 3 months. they are not really competing exactly in same areas and the time frame is quite small. singling out a company beating another will seem awfully biased of ITN. hence oppose -- Ashish-g55 18:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
And MS is their key rival. There will be no media coverage of the annual profit, and as pointed out above they are leading by 700 million dollars - which is a hell of a margin and as pointed out to Coffeeshivers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is a popular mass media comparison but how relevant is it really? Apple and Microsoft are in essentially different sub-sectors - one is primarily a hardware and consumer electronics company, the other primarily in software. That makes direct comparisons hazardous especially on quarterly earnings since the natural cycle of companies in different sectors is different. For example, IBM's earnings were broadly comparable for the previous quarter, but are much lower this time around. What does that tell us about the companies? Nothing, except they receive income at different times of year. Wait for the annualised figures that may show something of interest, and that might then be something worth posting. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC).
    • Apple is a CE company, so their highest profits usually come in Q4. Additionally they are leading by 700 million dollars, as pointed out to Coffeeshivers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
      • It the are "leading" that implies they haven't "won" yet. We don't post results half way through a race. Wait till year end results are out if at all. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Noone will care at the end of the year (and anyway, which year, Microsoft's financial year - ends in June, Apple's financial year - ends in September, or the calendar year - ends in December). Leading is only used because Microsoft and Apple don't pack up and go home now, they keep competing. Obviously in the future Microsoft may re-take the lead, but they are extremely unlikely to do so next quarter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support In the public's eye these 2 companies have been rivals for decades. This will interest our readers (and serve an interest that's already there). Not sure if the article is there yet but this is a natural. We're not here to be business analysts but to pick out articles that will draw readers in. RxS (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm still divided on this one. I think that it's important, and I'm personally not opposed to tech items at all. This story though, it seems so... small, for some reason. It's two specific companies. Would we theoretically post a story about Ford vs. GM, or something like that? I don't think that we would... This is just too... "operational".
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Two very important companies, that have a very well known rivalry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Right. It's just... nothing has really happened. I can understand that you're frustrated about this due to the history about posting this or similar items, but... I don't know. It's not as if one of them is going out of business, or anything like that. Sorry.
        — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
          • But, hey, I did some copy editing on the article section. :)
            — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


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

With such a little number of shuttle launches left, I don't mind posting them all. The article is in good shape. Maybe we can highlight the equipment it is carrying to space, Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer is a very decent article. --Tone 15:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see why not! Marcus Qwertyus 16:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - per above. Jusdafax 16:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The shuttle launch is WP:ITNR, although that's gotten some criticism recently. Support mentioning the AMS, which is a $1.5 billion instrument that may answer some important scientific questions (e.g., the existence of one type of dark matter). Giffords attendance seems a bit trivial, but it's overshadowing Obama's attendance at the same launch. Other thoughts on that?--Chaser (away) - talk 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and mention Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. Second-to-last, featuring Gifford's husband, which is a fact widely discussed on the media. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should highlight the AMS, since getting it to this point has been such an ordeal. Hell, the AMS is the reason this flight is taking place at all.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Scrub for today, turn around at least 48 hours probably longer. RxS (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, but hold for at least 48 (I read at least 72 somewhere) hours until the mission is ready to launch again. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 18:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Placing this on now for preparations for the subject to be placed on ITN at midnight perhaps, and the "two royal weddings within a year" hook might be good.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
If anyone opposes this I'll hit him/her with a baseball bat lol –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with you on that. Perhaps the "two royal weddings within a year" hook might be good.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Why would it be placed on ITN at midnight? -- tariqabjotu 14:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A story that was ascended one year ago with its epilogue impatiently expected all the time through the media is a pure ITN topic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a Note: Dont need supports for this. It will be posted -- Ashish-g55 14:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
says who? this is not ITNR and its not a given.
that said futile op[pose not int; noteworthy. he is NOT the king of any realm.Lihaas (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
For the love of god, everyone should take a refresher on what "international noteworthy" means and how that phrase has been abused to death in this page. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
And just who says he has to be king for this to be posted, Lihaas? Your oppose is clearly POINTy. StrPby (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
There's really no reason arguing with oppose points unless they become more numerous. -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support story on Royal wedding in the UNITED KINGDOM (not England! Old Liz is the queen of the United Kingdom and it's dependencies). As long as it's changed to the U.K., or not mention the country at all I'll be happy to support. However, I oppose including the fact it's the second Royal Wedding in a year - the two weddings were in entirely different countries and are completely unrelated. --tblack93 Talk ·

Contributions 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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

April 28

2011 Marrakech bombing

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

  • Support - definitly itn material.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Someone who knows French should farm some information from the French version of the article. -- tariqabjotu 19:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Support in principle. Oppose otherwise - article is no more than a stub and is largely unsourced and of quality otherwise unfit for the Main Page. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 00:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

First verdicts: Protesters sentenced to death by military court

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

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

Haiti election

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

I don't know. It's undergone only trivial changes since another admin declined it further down this page. The general criteria for updates still apply to recurring items like elections.--Chaser (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
There's still no prose update. Very little is said about the victory, and the lead doesn't even make it sound like Michel Martelly was elected president. -- tariqabjotu 02:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It's fairly old news, aswell... Nightw 04:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
botht he election and the lead section and updated with quite a few paras. weve posted court psotgns with less of an update.Lihaas (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Too late. Regardless of whether or not this should have been posted, posting it now would make us way out of date.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

April 27

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

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

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

  • Since a figure skating score is subjective, rather than this being an objective record (fastest 100m sprint, for example), I'm not keen to add it. Maybe if it were a perfect score, a la Nadia Comăneci. --Golbez (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This is actually a perfect score. He competed only in the Men's single competition and obtained the first place in all Men's single events. And for all events he set new world records (in his first ever title in a world championship).--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a perfect score? So no one can ever score a higher score, they can just tie him? --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment To have a more compact view, I suggest to include in the report the fourth world record of the day, the total performance of Savchenko/Szolkowy in pair skating.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Mh, seems like the German replaced this to another world record. I am not sure if it is conformable to add it above (whereby the blurb has to be changed and the title to be linked elsewhere) or to create a new ITN.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Surely it'll break the current wording, but seems like mentioning the all world records broken confers a better vision of the competition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It's a series of world records broken indeed and albeit some may claim it as subjective, it's a performance that has never been reached. I also rely my support on the fact that the sport is underrepresented in the ITN, although it's one of the most watched winter sports. Another important fact that probably makes the World Championship more significant is that it was scheduled to be held in Tokyo at the end of March, but was cancelled due to the devastating earthquake and rescheduled a month later to Moscow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Ready to post. However, no results in the ITN blurb, just mentioning the record. --Tone 19:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support he posted new world records in several programs at a World Championship. --PlasmaTwa2 22:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Conditional support records iff the ISU officially recognises them and actually keeps a tally of them like the IAAF do. If they're arbitrary records not officially recognised and ratified, then support only posting the men's and ladies' singles titles winner as per ITN protocol for other sports. StrPby (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is officially added in the PSB scores [4]; however, the news on the official website of the ISU were not updated (only the short program, two days ago.) --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC) and here [5]. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Records like this should be posted. The personal opinions about the importance of certain records are irrelevant here.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    Wrong. Nothing "should" be posted. ITNR with regards to records only extends to records that are "in an event such as aquatics or athletics" and are "broken either: by an unusually large margin, after a very long time period, or in a highly publicized event". Anything else, like this one, must be judged on its own merits. StrPby (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    Oooook. Well, I didn't intend my statement to have that meaning, but since you brought it up... this is an athletic event, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any margin higher then breaking a world record. Frankly, your statement above makes me... question your judgement.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    Clearly you don't understand what a margin is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    Figure skating is not an athletic event. This does not appear to fall under ITN/R, as StrPby said. That doesn't mean, of course, that it can't be posted on its own merits. -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I doubt that this will be an easy score to beat in the coming years. I would have normally said no to this story, however, because these records are beat on a fairly regular basis -- Plushenko set the Short Program record last year (91.30), while Takahashi set the Free Program and Overall records in 2008 (175.84 and 264.41) [6]. But, to smash them all in one competition by a fairly wide margin? That's worthy of a post. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support if the update is expanded a bit. Figure skating is a major sport and should be represented at ITNR IMO. This seems to be a major event in that sport.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Article has had page views with no less than 200 until maybe prior to the competition, but after the record-breaking performance, the article page views soared to ~6,000. Now I dunno if that;s good enough but that still a pretty high spike considering the previous views. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yemen: At least 12 killed, more than 100 wounded

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

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

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

[Posted] Tornado outbreak in Southern United States

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

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

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

Support in principle, clearly a very notable outbreak having killed almost 200 people, but the article as it stands shouldn't be posted to the Main Page. And I agree with comments above by David Levy and Eraserhead among others about the absurdity of opposing such a major outbreak simply because there was another tornadic event recently on ITN. StrPby (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Support Enormous tornado outbreak and sadly, a high death count; 183 last check.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Revised Support Regardless of my earlier objections, overnight this has grown into something in a class by itself. Still occurring. HJ is right though, most of the table information is uncited which is a problem. RxS (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Such a high casualty count – in a region well prepared for tornadoes and equipped with advanced medical facilities – shows how grave and unusual this situation is. Chamal TC 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: latest news reports say over 200 people are dead. This is the deadliest tornado outbreak in decades. KnowitallWiki (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Article seems to look better now...should this be marked as ready? --Ks1stm (talk) [alternative account of Ks0stm] 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The fatalities are only for April 27 and 28. Up to 264+.[8] ~AH1 (discuss!) 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Update. Smithville, MS tornado has been rated EF5. - CWY2190(talkcontributions) 13:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • This isn't part of the blurb now. Are you suggesting adding it to the blurb?--Chaser (away) - talk 13:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Normally EF5 tornadoes are notable enough to be mentioned in the blurb. Its also likely there will be at least one more rated EF5 which would make it only the third day with multiple (E)F5 tornadoes. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 14:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Also the AP is reporting this is the deadliest since 1932 the article has been updated the blurb need to reflect it as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC
    Done. —David Levy 19:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    This is a bit misleading. It appears that April 27 was the deadliest tornado day since 1932; however, an outbreak in 1936 produced 200 deaths on April 5, 1936, and another 200 the following day. I'm not sure how the blurb should be phrased to reflect that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for catching this. I noticed mentions of the deadliest tornado day since 1932, but I also saw articles in which this was referred to (evidently in error) as the deadliest tornado outbreak since then. I've self-reverted. —David Levy 20:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    Would "deadliest tornado outbreak since 1936" be accurate? —David Levy 20:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    The casualties figure keeps creeping up, so now it is essentially sure that we exceed the 1974 Super Outbreak. As such, yes. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
    Okay, I've updated the blurb accordingly. —David Levy 18:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Hamas and Fatah reach deal for unity government

Article: Palestinian National Authority (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Palestinian rival factions Hamas and Fatah announce a deal to form a unity government ahead of elections. (Post)
  • Hamas and Fatah has in secret meetings agreed to a unity government ahead of the elections. Israel says Mahmoud Abbas has to choose between peace with Hamas or peace with Israel.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Obvious support big step forward for peace in the middle east. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a huge step, and likely to be historic given that admission to the UN as a member state is on the tables come September. Nightw 23:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - a very important piece of news and will have relevance to people all over the world. --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 23:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Updated the section hash-linked in the blurb, plus a smaller update to the history section. Nightw 23:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
ditto, whats the use of these silly nominations without an article? were not going to post a story on itself, thats what te media is for.Lihaas (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This should be posted immediately. This is huge news.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I assume the Palestinian National Authority article, which has been updated a couple sentences worth, is the target article. The article itself is substantial, and though I could wish for a bit more info in the article, I think what we have will do, and no doubt get added to very soon. Jusdafax 02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - They have been fighting for more than 4 yrs now (almost a civil war kinda of thing). Hope someone will post it soon. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This has...¿cómo se dice...legs. The section in the main article is updated and the article over all is pretty good. RxS (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 04:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Petraeus to head CIA; Panetta to become Secretary of Defense

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

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

  • If this gets posted, tomorrow might be the best time, when the announcement will be made.--Chaser (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Support important news, who the head of the world's richest defence department is is a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support these positions are important and have significant influence, even internationally, and this is going to be widely reported. Hut 8.5 21:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose the heads of government agencies change all the time. If the head of the MoD, the defence department for the United Kingdom (which controls the world's largest navy) were to change, would that be featured on the home page? I highly doubt it. This is just another America-centred story with little importance to the majority of Wikipedia's audience. --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 23:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The U.S. Navy is bigger than the Royal Navy. The former article indicates it is bigger by tonnage than the next 13 largest navies combined.--Chaser (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The UK hasn't had the world's largest navy since before WW2... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
        • But how is that significant? I simply don't understand this "It's the biggest/best/most expensive" argument that gets wheeled out whenever something of fundamentally local interest to the US comes up. On that basis anything that is unique or unparalleled in any regard whatsoever in automatically notable - many such things would not legitimately warrant an article of their own, yet alone front page status. While something like an army or navy is always notable in its own right notability is not inherited by anything casually related to those topics. Finally, as already noted belwo, these appointments are still subject to confirmation. Obama has announced these names are to be put forward: the blurb as drafted has soemthign of WP:CRYSTAL about it.
          I think I've made my postion clear but to be explicit this is another oppose. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
          • It's not just that it's biggest, but that it is the most significant. The U.S. military, partly as a function of its size, but also as a function of the U.S.'s unique position as the sole current superpower, has a huge effect on world affairs. It is party to both of the two major wars in the Middle East in the last decade. The individuals involved sometimes matter. Obama ordered the invasion of Libya over Gates' reservations. But "When [Gates] quietly backed the surge in Afghanistan that the military was calling for, Mr Obama had little choice other than to go along with it." The Economist. Who heads the U.S. Defense Department matters more than who is the President of Fiji, maybe not to Fijians, but certainly to anyone living in the Middle East. I support posting Panetta. Although Petraeus is a golden boy, I have not seen similar things about the significance of the CIA director. Given the N.Y. Times piece, I think it's possible that Petraeus's use of CIA drones will rise to a similar level, but this has yet to be seen. So oppose posting Petraeus.--Chaser (away) - talk 17:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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

oppose they are not heads of state and this is not significant. we dont go around posting heads of agencies every so often anywhere int he world. and the uk and others in nato are also important t o any global terror mongering so nothign to highlight the us is significat.
Furthermore the appointment is in a couple of month,s this is an annoncements. had to be approved...what if one were nto to pass? or be rejected ? or dead? we dont post elections theyre CONFIRMATION, no needto post this yet.Lihaas (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Meh There's no reason to believe a change of letterhead will have any policy or concrete real world effect. If any posting would be US Centric, this would. Of far less import in the scheme of things than the passing of Elisabeth Sladen. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Nah. This isn't insignificant, but it's too... provincial. These sorts of operational details are interesting to those of us who follow such things, but they're fairly inconsequential in the scheme of things.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The American military is one of the best in the world at kicking ass and getting their asses kicked (no offense intended), but the average person living in another part of the world would hardly be interested in who heads the CIA and defense department. Chamal TC 04:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The US spends more of defense than pretty much every other country in the world put together... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Apart from what to me is again blatant US_centrism (do Americans ever eally think before posting this insular rubbish?), can these two appointees really do anything the politicians don't want done? Surely they are just implementers of policy set by someone else. Not internationally notable at all, and surely not even really notable inside the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't assume ill-though on part of the nominators. I don't oppose this one strongly, it isn't a bad nomination as these two have and will make decisions on situations that effect the world. Petraeus led multi-national forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan by the way.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF, Hilo, it is getting annoying reading your increasingly WP:POINTy opposes. StrPby (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, unless you can actually discuss the points I make, and answer the questions I ask, rather than complain about me, I'll still feel I have a very strong point. BTW - I don't assume ill-thought on the part of the nominators, just non-thought. HiLo48 (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Everyone knew who Rumsfeld was [9]. Robert McNamara, architect of the Vietnam War, is still a household name for the 1960s generation. Gates has maintained a somewhat lower profile of cool competence, but even he's gotten huge mainstream press [10], including a lot when Obama asked him to stay on. I can't speak for outside the U.S., but they are widely known inside the country (which is a point you raised). And they do have a role in shaping a President's options. See the Economist story I linked above.--Chaser (away) - talk 17:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I cannot imagine someone from another country suggesting similar appointments elsewhere for ITN. Now, I've repeatedly heard the two reasons why American things should be posted when similar stuff elsewhere isn't - America is the most powerful nation (obviously true), and (allegedly) half the Wikipedia readership is American (I still try to regard Wikipedia as global). Such reasons can justify some American stuff, but cannot justify the inclusion of just anything that's American, when we wouldn't do it for a similar event elsewhere. Each case needs to be considered on its merits. So what irks me is when an American event is proposed, with absolutely no explanation of why being American makes it important. Such a proposal always LOOKS US-centric, even if it isn't. So yes, include some American stuff that wouldn't work for another country, but do try to justify it please. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just a "changing of the guard" within Obama's cabinet. Not related to a major controversy.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, per NortyNort. We don't post changes in every Cabinet in the world, and it's not a HoG or HoS change. StrPby (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Arab Gas Pipeline explosion

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

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

  • Support when the article is updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support a major event, however section on 2011 explosions needs to be expanded first. Perhaps even given it's own article. --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 18:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above. The pipeline is one of the most controversial points in the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, and is highly sensitive. Jusdafax 21:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
oppose why is it significant? 2 attacks in 2 months? were gonna post every attack shoult it happen every 2 months? it was restored in the last few weeks and will not doubt be resotred in about 2-3 weeks. Lihaas (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know. I agree that this is a major event, but... there's just something about this that makes me feel that it's not that major, if you know what I mean. It seems too... local, I guess.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama releases birth certificate

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

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

  • Support - definitly worthy of ITN. Main news all over the world.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It's cute that anyone thinks this will quell the conspiracy theorists. I see no reason to fuel them by giving any credence to them, and thus oppose. He didn't have to justify it, and I'm a little disappointed he did. --Golbez (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Blurb needs to be changed to reflect that this is what Obama claims is his longform birth certificate. Certainly no reason to buy into that without independent verification. Danthemankhan 15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE i really hope that we dont post conspiracy theories/attempts to quell them on ITN... whats the news here? Confirmation of Obama being american after serving almost 4 years as president? -- Ashish-g55 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, to quote The Guardian, the nutters are "already busy moving the goalposts" and reinventing this ludicrous conspiracy. Besides, who gives two hoots? The Republicans? Well, they would—it's the opposition's job to try to discredit the incumbent, especially when there's an election on the horizon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This isn't news, because, you know, there was never any doubt that Obama was born in the U.S. -- except among people who wouldn't believe he was even if there was video of him being born. -- tariqabjotu 15:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • As an exercise for the reader: Would Democrats and liberals have acted so vociferously in challenging John McCain's eligibility? His birth certificate quite plainly indicates he was not born in a state or incorporated territory. :) --Golbez (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The Senate unanimously declared that his being born on a military base was sufficient to make him a natural-born citizen [11]. Although that left some significant legal questions, there was never any political controversy about McCain's eligibility. I don't see what benefit this exercise holds for us in light of the fact that McCain's eligibility was never much, and is not now, in the news.--Chaser (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That's an odd angle. You are siding against a conspiracy theory and by claiming it is proven false also dismiss it as a news item. __meco (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • A conspiracy theory being proven false is not generally news. --Golbez (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This issue has been a persistent one, whether one thinks the allegations have merit or not. All international media reports on it. We have an extensive article discussing it, and one of the aims of ITN is to showcase our articles. But the primary marker should be its overall significance. I think it qualifies. __meco (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Per Wikipedia:Fringe. Reporting of this the story would imply this is more significant than it is. This was released years ago for at the beginning of the campaign during the election when he filed the paper work. Multiple WP:RS have certified it as non-issue years ago. Really? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • You make your case as if this was not a current news story. Surely In The News should reflect what features prominently in the news? Doesn't this? __meco (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Sigh. This is a stupid story. However, it is a story that is in the global news, and perhaps more importantly, it is also a story where we have a pretty decent article that can be informative. If the purpose of ITN is to highlight news-related Wikipedia articles, then this is a good case where we can do that. Personally, I'd rather live in a world where this wasn't news, but I don't think that is realistic. Dragons flight (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - As irritating as this movement was to many people, it was a legitimate movement nonetheless that picked up a lot of steam in recent years. Although, much like those who believed our landing on the Moon was a hoax, the far right (notice that I said the FAR RIGHT - there are some sane conservatives out there, as disbelieving as it may seem to this userbase) will find a way to claim the evidence is falsified or fabricated.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support but rewrite. "After years of speculation from conspiracy theorists, Barack Obama releases his longform birth certificate in an attempt to finally settle questions about his citizenship and eligibility to be President of the USA." To avoid the Fringe issues, it should acknowledge it's on the Fringe and that this would, for most people, be more than enough evidence. Ocaasi c 16:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • And? Unless something actually happens from this that has an impact on, oh I don't know...anything, then it's not really a notable event. We're not here to cater to speculation and conspiracy theorists with too much time on their hands. Nightw 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Strongly opposed, in case you didn't catch it. Nightw 16:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • OpposeWeak Support The notion that only conspiracy theorists think the President should actually prove his eligibility for office under the constitution is an odd one. In any case, this effects the election dynamic, and will presumably put to rest an issue which has been on the front pages for four years. The idea that this is a fringe issue is a leftist POV. Just yesterday a poll was released saying that only 38% of Americans thought Obama was definitely born in the USA. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • In that case, the real news story is that 38% of the American public is willfully stupid. --Golbez (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I think you meant 62%. Marcus Qwertyus 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • D'oh. You are right, of course. --Golbez (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support it should be a fringe issue, but for some reason it isn't - and as its a big story we should post it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The blurb needs to be rewritten, but the articles in great shape and there's a lot of interest in this. What more do we need? RxS (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • What's the problem with the blurb? Could be more concise: "Barack Obama releases his longform birth certificate in the face of questions on his eligibility to be President of the USA." μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That implies that there is legitmacy to the claim!
    The blurb as it's written now accepts the premise that there's legit question about his birth. I'd add something along the lines above identifying it as fringe. (by the way, polls don't make it non-fringe. Reliable sources and mainstream can though) RxS (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've changed the blurb to the following: Barack Obama releases his longform birth certificate in an attempt to quell conspiracy theories about his birth. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Works for me, thanks! RxS (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Might as well just be: "Man waves bit of paper in the air, bored Americans chatter away then go on with their lives..." Seriously, this is like the "jingle keys" method to distract from the Dig 'Em fiasco. Nightw 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment there's no way this birth certificate could have been "created" by the "authorities" then? I'd add that to the conspiracy theories article... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Holy fuck seriously? This is promoting a fringe theory in the utmost! The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
          • "Holy fuck" why not. This is a non-story really. If the US establishment want to "prove" something, they'll do it however they like. Just like any other establishment. I might start a new section in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Oppose in case you were wondering. I hear keys jingling too. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a relatively big news story, especially (to me) as Donald Trump, potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate, has recently been heavily arguing on the side of the conspiracy theorists, and this may finally be enough to shut him up about that issue. Ks0stm (TCG) 17:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, in the United States this is the biggest news story of the week. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Support... Normally, I would prefer that the ITN section take the high ground and not even acknowledge that Fringe theories like the birther claims exist... but... like it or not, this is big news in the US. We do need to mention it. The blurb should simply report "President Obama releases long form birth certificate due to repeated requests"... Period... without further commentary. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Why would you prefer for wikipedia to deny existence of things that exist?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. This was never an issue. It's a conspiracy theory. This was not part of some court case or hearing which threatened the president's place in office whatsoever. To place this on ITN would be a horrible move, because this is of much lesser importance than was Charlie Sheen's dismissal. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    There seems to be a confusion here between whether the conspiracy theory has any legitimacy and whether or not it is newsworthy. I think that's a category error, and one has little to do with the other. If half of the U.S. electorate is perplexed by the citizenship status of the world's superpower President, so much so that the President goes out of his way to release an old, crusty document to prove it, and the entire country reports on it, and it can influence the actual dynamics in the republican primary process--even though it's all a huge clusterf**k waste of time--it's still newsworthy. We have to weigh popularity as well as impact as well as inherent importance. Though this is super low on the latter, it has a surprising amount of influence with the first two. It's fair to want ITN to take the high road, but certain slimy, low-road issues somehow manage to catch the upper deck, and this is one of them. Ocaasi c 18:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
So it's popular news item, so we're supposed to post this every time there's a development on it? This week the guy publicises his birth certificate, next week some guy with nothing better to do provides some good evidence to say it's been falsified, then a week later the government provides some better evidence to the contrary... Unless there's some noticable impact, I'd rather not see ITN become a update ticker on the latest maybe-hoax. Nightw 19:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - everyone has a birth certificate. Why should the fact that Barrack Obama has one be news worthy? --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 18:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We do not need to kowtow to lunatic fringes by publicising the rebuttal of their manic suspicions. The sane have learned nothing new, the strange continue to doubt what they choose not to believe. Kevin McE (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, he released his birth certificate before the election, this tells us nothing we didn't know 3 years ago. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
He released his short-form certificate before the election. This is the long-form certificate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The short-form had his birth place as well. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Why should the size of the certificate make a difference? Both are valid United States birth records and would be available on the birth register (or what every the Americans have). --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The short-form certificate is not a legal document in several states, and is not as definitive as the long-form certificate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
U.S. President Barack Obama releases original birth certificate--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment while it is clearly bonkers to believe these conspiracy theories, and I highly doubt I would be anywhere close to WP:CIVIL if I was to describe my full and frank view of people who do believe this kind of stuff. However, and its a big however, a substantial proportion of the US population (25%) believes this kind of stuff - including one of the leading Republican candidates for the 2012 US presidential election. This story has made the front pages around the world. It was on the front page of the BBC News site earlier, and its one of the top stories on the Economist right now.
And then you have a story a few sections down like the Singapore Kunming Railway, which hasn't seen a single oppose - and that hasn't received any English language coverage at all outside of the Chinese state media. Now clearly I do want to post that story as I single handedly turned it from nothing into a 500 word article in a single evening. But we have to be realistic, for better or for worse this is a massive story that's much bigger than the Singapore Kunming railway and there's an article on it that meets the usual standard so we need to post it - otherwise we're just being ridiculous. If people were to oppose consistently as they do on stories like this we wouldn't have an ITN section at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I think what you're seeing here is a general attempt to be "intelligent" with regard to "sensational" news. All media outlets will jump on a bandwagon such as this. Most press don't care about things that happen outside their sphere of influence. This isn't news at all, it's just a confirmation of something true. If it said he was born in Uzbekistan, yep, that would get my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Then, for better or for worse, we have to jump on the bandwagon too. The readership cares about stories like this. I bet this article will have significantly more hits today than every other bold link on ITN - probably every other bold link twice over, if not more. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thats one of the differences in a news service and ITN. we dont need to jump any bandwagon -- Ashish-g55 19:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think an encyclopedia should be obliged to jump on any bandwagon. We should make intelligent decisions to determine what is tabloid and what is actual news. This is clearly bunk. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The confirmation is the news. Putting it on ITN does not legitimize the conspiracy theory, it only reflects that it has already received attention, by the President. The release of the long-form certifiicate is one of very few 'milestones' in this saga that would be worth reporting, and hopefully it is the last. Ocaasi c 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Except we do, otherwise we aren't servicing what our readership whats. Giving a link to the biggest stories, like this one, allows our readership to see what Wikipedia has to offer on the world's biggest stories - none of the other front page sections can do that - and that was why ITN was setup in the first place - to do just that after 9/11.
I dislike the birthers just as much as you guys do, but this is a big story. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
No deal. Confirming something that the US establishment would have researched before making him President is not news. Making the whole story up would be. Him being a foreign national would be. Right now, no news. Just something we all knew would be "confirmed" at some point. Move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This is a major story being covered internationally. It's really not for us to second guess why that is or impose our own views on whether the media is giving this too much oxygen. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, it's getting "covered" but not significantly. In the UK, there seems to be more interest in the UK economy, the forthcoming Royal Wedding, Palestinians getting it together, sales of Olympic tickets, then a bit of paper saying what we all thought. At least that's the case according to the BBC homepage right now. Where else is it headlining outside USA? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • It's a lead story in Australian newspapers this morning. And it's headlining the UK's Telegraph (which is conservative but not radical). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
everyone has a birth certificate... obama showed it to people. well good for him. i still dont understand where is the news. is it that its long form certificate instead of short form which was already known? its all gossip material... nothing has changed. If we post this then we should also post Lindsay lohan going to jail again. It also got a lot of media attention -- Ashish-g55 20:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I have feelings both ways. I agree with comments above by Dragon's Flight, Meco, and Eraserhead1 in support of posting. I think it is particularly telling that this is the lead story on The Telegraph and the BBC. On the other hand, this is essentially a campaign story. Our usual practice is not to post those. A comparable example is the Jeremiah Wright controversy and Obama's speech about it, which would have been the logical time to post on that. We didn't, despite, I am sure, significant news coverage. I tend to think we shouldn't post this either.--Chaser (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose emphatically I agree with Obama - "We do not have time for this kind of silliness." The whole story from start to finish makes Americans look like fools in the eyes of the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ironic since Obama did spend time on it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Surely he was speaking euphemistically, making the point that he had been forced by silly people to do this, and having to spend time on something so silly was taking time away from his efforts on more important things for the country and the world. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "American President is indeed from America despite crackpot suggestions he wasn't". Big deal. Pedro :  Chat  20:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • A final comment before I drop the stick
    • Firstly short form birth certificates don't necessarily meet the ID requirements for a US Passport.
    • Secondly Lindsay Lohan going to jail doesn't make the front page of serious news sources.
    • Thirdly, from WP:ITN's purpose section. First bullet point: "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" - clearly this story meets that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Lohan's legal troubles don't make the front page of serious news sources? Really? Because I know I've seen it on several in the last week. --Golbez (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Which ones? And any outside the US? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
          • And no moving the goalpost. --Golbez (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Made the BBC homepage too. Shocking. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
            • OK I retract the point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
              • At least Lindsay is better looking than Barack! On a serious note, surely the American equivalent of the "men in grey suits" actually check this sort of thing before letting some bloke into the White House and taking him at his word?? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree it's been silly speculation since day one but this is still a major news item. Marcus Qwertyus 23:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Marcus Qwertyus. Jusdafax 00:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • zOMG, enough of this idiocy! Post this already and let's be done with this stupid birther crap.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • GOD NO I see lovely US bias all over here! Disregarding that, I find this absolutely weird. Even if I were an US-ian I wouldn't care about this. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Many major news stories affect primarily one country, though it's been reported as a headline in the UK and Australia. It's in the news, and Wikipedia has a great article and update on the topic, being a major though fringe political battleground. It probably (hopefully) will not get this level of coverage again, so why not highlight this well-written, neutral encyclopedia aricle? MeekSaffron (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Chaser, which is, in my book, the only valid oppose rationale here. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Certainly newsworthy as an event (i.e., "Hey, this happened, after a bunch of people raised a big stink about it!"), but should have been a non-event. I'm no Obama fan in the least bit, but I strongly disagree with and am disappointed in the birther movement. To have this in ITN would be justification that their cause was legitimate to begin with, in my opinion. In the interests of seeing Wikipedia remain neutral, I oppose adding this to ITN. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 05:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The legal document that verily attests to the president's U.S. birth to an American mother was released years ago, and the new document is not "the real document" or "more legal" than the prior one, it's simply a different presentation. This is not new proof, and it isn't as though it took this long for the legal document to be released. This is not news. Nothing new here except the laughable responses of the would-be opposition candidates (Donald Trump is proud of himself, also not new) and the pivot of the birthers to now demand his college transcripts. Anyone who could still cling to this strategy is the vilest of filth that can still walk around free with papers of their own in this country, and the fact that the president requested Hawaii release this document to him to satisfy the irresponsible media so they will stop acting like this is a story worthy of daily coverage despite what is arguably the most complex and fastest-moving time ever in history and get back to their service to the public interest is not worth anything but a collective jeer in their direction (by which I include those in the media and politics that continued to waste breath and space and precious time on this) and moving on with real news, as in something new we didn't already know but should. Abrazame (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Hacker Raids Sony Videogame Network

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

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

Depending on the update, this is a good topic. In the news and the extent of the data breach goes beyond some of the recent hacks. RxS (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good. Baseball Watcher 01:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Data Breaches occur, I am not seeing any sourcing to indicate the largest ever. Really this doesnt affect alot of people in the scheme of things either. Also I have yet to see any source claim that 77 million have been affacted. This 77 million could have been affected. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the 77 million number is the number of accounts from which information was taken. If and how they were affected is a little hard to know but what put it over the edge for me was that credit card info was included (or at least " we cannot rule out the possibility"). Plus the fact that the service is completely down, which is also unusual. RxS (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see this posted, once we get an update or new article for it. Data breaches certainly do occur with somewhat frightening regularity, but that combined with the outage is pretty huge. The console market is a multi-billion dollar industry, and when one of the main players is taken down like this that's big news. ...I'm trying to think of a good parallel to something else. The best thing to come to mind would be an event such as the Dow Chemical leak that occured in India, back in the late 80's (late 80's, right?).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support this is by far the largest data breach in video game history and I believe that we don't post enough video game items anyway. This has the potential to completely change the way services like PSN and Xbox Live operate, plus... Come on, 77 million users were affected. --PlasmaTwa2 07:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support this sounds like a seriously big deal, and one that's well worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: According to playstation uk, just about everything its users had on the PSN could have been obtained, including names, locations and credit card details. Affected userbase? 77 million. Big deal? I should think so. Chamal TC 08:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support when article is created/updated - personally I don't think it's worth its own article, just a bit in PlayStation Network or something.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  08:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Now we have 2011 PlayStation Network outages, but too short yet. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    I've gone ahead and updated the blub (not really sure what the "rules" are on that, but I figured I'd give it a shot and see what happened). The article is certainly short, but it's succinct. It's actually a fairly good article, I think, given it's size.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 11:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, quite a major news, but it would be better to wait a day or two to get more information on what was stolen and also to have a proper article going. -- Ashish-g55 15:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like a very important report that calls on a high level of awareness. Also I think we don't post enough stories of such specific areas.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Chamal_N. Ks0stm (TCG) 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Article looks updated enough, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the biggest attack on a gaming network in the history of online gaming. Multiple sources confirm this --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Once again hyperbole is getting in the way of accuracy. According to the blurb 60 million people have had their credit card details compromised. Where is the source for that? I'll give you a clue - there isn't one. All that has been mentioned in reliable press is the possibility that they may have been taken. Whether they have, and if so how many, is unknown, to the public at least. This is not the place for paranoid speculation. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Then be bold and update the article - that's actually much more useful than complaining here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • That would effectively reboot the entire discussion. The discussion up to this point has been premised on the fact that financial details have been compromised. I have pointed out that is mere speculation, which has the effect of making the item less notable. How well grounded that speculation is has not been made public - we don't know to what extent Sony ring-fence financial data. Reading through the comments above it is apparent that the credit card angle has weighed heavily on some contributors in reaching their decisions. As a result expressions of support based on that false premise can't legitimately be considered to stand (without confirmation from the contributors) if that element is removed. This isn't a minor redraft of the blurb or fiddling at the margins - it is an issue that affects the significance of the events at a fundamental level. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Sony Corp. has advised all customers to be vigilant about their credit card statements. Furthermore, they have publicly announced that there has been a theft of credit card information, and that 77Million have been affected. Now, there's the first reported CC fraud [14]. Do you expect that the hacker will issue a receipt for 77M stolen credit card details to clear your doubts? Crnorizec (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Where is your source for the ssertion that Sony has announced the theft? The article that you link to doesn't say that, indeed it states clearly:
Sony has no firm evidence that credit card details were stolen...
...and that was last updated two hours and five minutes before I write this. What has happened in the last two hours?
The article itself is not particularly substantial when you strip everything away. A Playstation Network user has noticed fraudulent acitivity on their card in the last few days. For all the sensationalism no link is made between the fraud and the Sony breach, as if CC fraud was a complete impossibility before this data was stolen.
In the meantime saying this is ready to be posted when it is factually incorrect is laughable. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Update: it is loooking more and more likely that CC details were not leaked after all. I just rang my bank about something else (the Co-operative here in the UK) and there's a standard recorded message about this at the start of each call. Basically, it says you don't need to worry and we see no reason to replace your cards. They are literally putting their money where their mouth is. There is also this article on El Reg: [15] which seems to confirm things have been blown out of all proportion. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Update: It seems that your bank should be more careful after all... [16] Crnorizec (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support as nominator. Crnorizec (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 02:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

April 26

More women than men have college degrees in the US

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

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

  • Support this is a milestone. What's the article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "meh"... but I don't actually oppose posting it. There needs to be an article to post, though.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose So what? Who cares about such figures in a country. If you list all the statistics made in a census, you may find other that indicate something strange. And if we should post such things, I'll better go with posting records rather than only performing a time series analysis. Also this looks more like a fine DYK topic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Beecause its a significant milestone in women being treated by society as equal with men. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • If it were a figure indicating the world's status, probably I'd have a different opinion. But given the proportion which yields only 4.5% of the population in the world, I don't think it is something special.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • P.S. Also we cannot judge it as a milestone, and ITN is to provide information about the breaking news in the world, but not about some predictions of the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Because its a significant milestone in women being treated by society as equal with men. No, it's not at all. For so many reasons. --tariqabjotu 19:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I would argue more its an achievement marker and hopefull an indicator of things to come. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I tend to agree that this is a significant milestone, particularly for advanced degrees. While U.S. undergraduate education has lagged the rest of the developed world, our graduate programs, particularly in science, are world leaders. But the press coverage of this notes that women still lag behind in the sciences, business, and engineering. [17]. On top of that, even The Chronicle of Higher Education is not covering this in depth [18].--Chaser (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Part the thing is it was expected milestone that either going to occur in 2010 or 2020 census. I was reading some where before the recession they were predicting 2020 but since women were the hardest hit in the labor force more then than expected more now have degrees. I am trying to find where I read it now. its pretty signifcant in my book since its a drastic change from as little as twenty or thirty years ago when more men were being granted degree by riculous margins The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this fits nicely, important sign of changes in the US. (depending on the update of course). The US makes up nearly half the English readership here so it'll be of interest to many of our readers. RxS (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness sake. Please give up on using this (doubtful anyway) claim that the US makes up nearly half the English readership as a justification for massive US-centrism, and an excuse for too many Americans to continue to ignore the rest of the world. How relevant is the language of readers to women's rights? Do Americans not even care what happens in Quebec? Surely it's a global issue to be covered in a global encyclopaedia. It's nice that America is progressing, but 5% of the world's population is not all that much. How are things in India and China? HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
well its only 45%... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not doubtful and I said nearly half. Nothing wrong with acknowledging the fact that a significant number of readers come from the US and once in a while catering to them. RxS (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Read the announcement this way... "In a country with 5% of the worlds population, more women now have college degrees than men." The language the readers speak has nothing to do with the (in)significance of this item. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The population of the United Kingdom is approximately one tenth of the United States of America. If you ensure one in every ten articles is exclusively about the United Kingdom and does not relate to any other country in any way, I'll be glad to support this idiotic excuse for news but until then, if only proper news stories from my country can be featured, I don't see why the same rule shouldn't apply to yours. --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 19:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kiril Simeonovski. This is one stat from one country. One group has overtaken another... so what? It is simply crossing a threshold: moving from 49.9% to 50.1% of graduates only matters if some artificial significance is attached to the 50% figure. Why does that really matter in absolute terms?
In any case, where is the significant new content here? Where could it go where more than a single line would not be undue prominence? The remit of ITN is to highlight fresh content, and artificially stuffing random content into articles doesn't count - remember main page entries are supposed to represent the best of Wikipedia, not be simply box-ticking exercises that allow anything through provided the requisite hoops are jumped through. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The specific count argument makes some sense when talking about something like gold, but when its 50% it means going from a minority to a majority, which is a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I have to agree with the Meh comment - but the protests of USCentrism (who invented the internet, and Wikipedia, BTW?) would carry more weight if they were also raised when articles are critical of the US. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • France, if Wikipedia is accurate, is to blame for the internet. "The history of the Internet arguably begins in the 19th century with the invention of the telegraph system". So Claude Chappe and his "mechanical internet" started it all. Interesting. --candlewicke 04:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • That's bullshit. Al Gore invented the internet. ;) --Chaser (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • here is an interesting/disturbing fact thats been in news quite a bit lately... that in india there are way more girls being aborted. in terms of important statistics i would rather put that on ITN than college degrees in US. so just as general curiosity would anyone support that news, cause if you dont then this one should not stand a chance. -- Ashish-g55 00:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, victory for feminists, massive "so?" for the rest of society, I feel.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  01:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak to moderate support. It seems rather noteworthy, interesting, and more importantly is the only time that the number of US women with college degrees will outnumber US men with college degrees for the first time in history (cue double takes at my intentional stating of the obvious). Still, I can see how it is kinda a "meh" issue as well, which makes me hesitate on fully supporting. Ks0stm (TCG) 01:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose So what? And also because I am a guy. Baseball Watcher 01:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is our POV that this is important, or noteworthy, or even desirable. Women getting more degrees has nothing to do with their collective liberties being increased, but with millions of individual women that just happens to add up to be more than the millions of individual men getting degrees. Danthemankhan 02:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No article suitable for the blurb (History of education in the United States is too much of a stretch, IMO), and also since this is not news. College enrollment figures show that women have been enrolled in greater numbers than men for at least the last 10 years. Thus, this event is not surprising or unexpected in the least, and it is barely newsworthy. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose not newsworthy. At some points in history, more men will have college degress and at others more women will. The fact that one gender has more degrees than the other doesn't mean anything. Also relevant to only America. I'd be somewhat more supportive if the news regarded the entire world but it doesn't. --tblack93 Talk · Contributions 18:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose a realization not an occurrence. Not news. Similar to the "more Latinos in major US cities than African Americans" a while ago. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

April 25

Thousands protest against nuclear power

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

It seems to me that we have a different standard for protests that occur in countries where civil liberties are curtailed (the MENA protests). I know we've reported on some protests in the free world, like the bigger ones against the Iraq War, but I doubt these protests rise to that level.--Chaser (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
But why should there be different standards for different parts of the world? And how are these different standards determined? --candlewicke 03:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
In unfree countries, protestors are risking their lives. Protests in free countries prove nothing. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the differing standards, but the reason for the difference seems fairly obvious, to me. Protesting in jurisdictions where individual civil liberties are (at least partially) guaranteed is hardly extraordinary. Heck, at some periods of time it's been almost expected for people to protest. Within jurisdictions where the police and paramilitary organs regularly brutalize, and even murder, those who speak out against the government, such protesting is extrodinary.
As for how the standards are determined, see: consensus. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Thousands? And this is supposed to be international news? μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Well it is... but I don't know who said it was supposed to be. --candlewicke 04:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Given the context of the event in coincidence with the Japanese thing, this is the first major manifestation of plummeting public opinion on nuclear energy... Nightw 04:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"Major manifestation of plummeting public opinion"? That seems a rather POV statement. Do you have any proof of this? Otherwise, there's no indication that nuclear energy is going away any time soon.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
What? That public opinion of nuclear energy is turning negative as a result of Fukushima? Um, the article... Did you read it? Plus here, here, here and here. And please don't confuse POV and original research. They're entirely different things. Nightw 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This doesn't seem that notable to me but is there an article?--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Regarding the mention of planned protest in India by the OP: major protests are already happening in WB, India ... enough to make national headlines, but its against a specific nuclear power plant (not nuclear power in general) and I'm not sure if its massive enough that it has recieved significant international coverage.Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not important at all. --bender235 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - (edit conflict) Per my above comment, I see absolutely no reason to support this.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, NIMBYism is not news. --Golbez (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad Yunus cleared in court probe

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

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

[Posted] Tanks advance on Daraa

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

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

Updated. Suggest "After dozens of protesters are killed over several days, the Syrian government deploys tanks and soldiers to Daraa." I'm not phrasing the first clause in the active voice because the media is still having a lot of trouble verifying that the regime is responsible for the deaths.--Chaser (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support updating the currently posted entry (with the side effect of bumping it up to the top). It's good to keep things up to date, as events develop, regardless.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's important enough to update or move up, which ever works. RxS (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Marking ready.--Chaser (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
NOT ready, we only have 1 support. we dont vote count so candlewicke's doesnt count.Lihaas (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I agreed with Chaser, Ohms law and RxS. I just didn't want to repeat the same again. --candlewicke 22:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I see 3 supports (and no opposes). I don't think you have to write support in big bold letters to indicate support. I'd like to see people stop bolding votes and move to more of a discussion. But I'm re-marking this ready. RxS (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you on discouraging bolded "votes". I think that's one of the worst things that we collectively allow to continue on. I don't see a problem with people adding "+1" or something similar, since not everyone needs to come up with some eloquent argument in order to add support or opposition, but the bolding really should go.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"Support updating the currently posted entry" +1 --bender235 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
If someone can suggest a updated blurb, I'll post this. RxS (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Added a blurb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu

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

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

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

Support. She was obviously influential if the section "Influence on Vietnamese fashion" is accurate and eight years is a long time to be in such a position. ITN has posted something relating to the First Lady of Nigeria so why not South Vietnam? --candlewicke 02:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
She was much more influential than just in fashion. As the most powerful woman under Diem's regime, she was one of the more notorious figures in the history of South Vietnam. DHN (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, well that makes her even more significant then? --candlewicke 05:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course. I was merely pointing out that if one would list out all the reasons she is notable, her influence in fashion wouldn't be the first thing that comes to mind. DHN (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Support The more I think about it, this is a perfect example of an ITN posting. Good article, very interesting subject. (Once I clicked on it) I read it almost straight through. RxS (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose send people dying uneventfully of old age to recent deaths, which is already linked from the ITN box. Thue | talk 06:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose exactly per Thue. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support this woman is particularly notable in the history of South Vietnam, and its a pretty decent article too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There is only a one sentence update ATM.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Given the dearth of English language sources I doubt it will be updatable enough unfortunately. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Too bad, this would have been a good one. RxS (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Finally we have the NYTimes and Guardian confirming it, and I'm expanding the part regarding her death. DHN (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
          • 5 sentences/3 sources is the usual standard. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Expanded to 5 sentences with plenty of sources. DHN (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly Posted I'm not remotely close to enthusiastic about this one -- considering how long it took English-language sources to report on it, this is obviously not a big deal -- but, yeah, whatever. -- tariqabjotu 22:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • To be fair the English language sources aren't always that good at posting stuff happening in Asia. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • As I understand it, the English language sources had problems finding somebody to confirm her death (all the Vietnamese language coverage come from one source). As soon as it's confirmed, the New York Times posted it on its front page as its lead story (right now). I wouldn't be surprised if other American newspapers follow the NY Times' lead and post it on their front page by the end of today. DHN (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
        • The AP's finally confirmed it (they got the funeral home to confirm her death). Here comes the obits. DHN (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Kunming to Singapore railway

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

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

Support per above. Lots of countries involved. --candlewicke 02:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Tentative support. Do we usually post groundbreaking on these? I'm not opposed to doing so even if we haven't before, but I think we should have a full discussion first. Obviously this is an exciting sign of development in these countries.--Chaser (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This construction is only from Kunming to Vientiane Laos capital, which is on the Thai border (I originally misread it), but that is the most difficult bit, I usually wouldn't suggest posting groundbreaking, but this line seems particularly significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Support in principle. However, it should be noted that if you've been watching this kind of news over the last decade or two, you must have seen railway along this route being "discussed", "proposed", "planned", or even "started" every few years. Lots of papers get signed, studies are conducted, news reports are issued, occasionally a ground-breaking or two happen... and nothing much gets done. To be fair, a railway over a bridge from Thailand to Laos has actually been built - but it turned out that they've built it to the wrong gauge, so that railway won't be extended as planned (but it will be superseded by the new one, currently in the news).
Don't get me wrong - I really hope that now it's finally "the real thing". But before we put this into ITN someone ought to write an article with an overview of the earlier projects and plans. There is some material already e.g. in these articles:
-- Vmenkov (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • No article at the moment, so no until then. The project's eventual plan is notable, not only for economics, but also given the massive environmental impacts and forced displacement of thousands of villagers. But construction is only limited to the gap between Kunming and Vientiane (see here), since the rest of the route is in fact already in place (see here), and people have been taking the train from Singapore to Vientiane for years. So at the moment the plan only involves China and Laos. I'd still support posting something about it as long as there is an appropriate article update, including something about the controversies surrounding it. Nightw 04:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The current line between Singapore and Vientiane isn't going to enable you to go from Singapore to Kunming in "10 hours" as People's Daily have said or even, say, 50 hours - as it currently takes 48 hours to get from Singapore to Bangkok EDIT: although it does seem this first line is only from Kunming to the Vientiane - I didn't read it properly before :o. I will attempt to write an article on this this evening. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've created a stub article Kunming to Singapore Railway for now in case anyone else wants to add anything. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • OK the article is looking a lot better now, and I've suggested a blurb. At the moment Laotian is a redirect page - I think that's OK, but possibly it should be piped to Laos. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I've now included most of those sources (other than the ones about Malaysian domestic railways) and the controversy about villagers being moved, it should be ready for posting but as I'm so WP:INVOLVED I'm marking [Ready?]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • A bit more support would be nice. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, as long as we don't use the misnomer "Laotian". The demonym is "Lao". Although I think "Vientiane, Laos" should suffice. Nightw 02:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Lao reads better though, so I've used that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Update: Delayed indefinitely? [20] Nightw 03:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • If so then I guess we can't post it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Given that it is difficult to know if construction has started nominated at DYK. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Oh... "delayed indefinitely... So I guess it's not "the real thing" yet, unfortunately. Why does it remind me so much about the previous projects? -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay files leak

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

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

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

Colombia floods

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

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

Support I am about to add an image to the article but thats sizeble deatoll and economic impact to make it ITN worthy The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Support without image. One of the major flooding events this year. ~AH1 (discuss!) 20:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. 93 deaths is significant. --candlewicke 02:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This article needs more. The two paragraphs are not enough to post.--Chaser (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Significant event but the article in pretty thin. Oppose until it's expanded into something we can showcase. RxS (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. While the article could be expanded, it is just long enough to report the basic facts already. Thue | talk 06:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not posting with the article in its current form. I have no objection if another admin wants to do so.--Chaser (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
As per WP:ITN#Criteria the article needs at least three well formed paragraphs. It's still thin.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Support, and for as long as it is unposted, it shrieks the systemic bias of the project. If this had happened a couple of thousand miles NW, it would have gone up hours ago. Kevin McE (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
English Wikipedia biased towards things that impact English speakers, film at 11. --Golbez (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably comforting to know that there hasn't been a U.S. weather-related ITN blurb in 2011. Two articles were nominated (January 8–13, 2011 North American blizzard and January 31 – February 2, 2011 North American winter storm) but they were not posted. So much for being gone up hours ago, eh? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Systemic bias may well exist but we can't post it in it's current state.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Well yes I would've liked this to go up, but this won't even pass WP:DYK. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support many times more casualties than the US storms recently. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

[Pulled] WikiLeaks

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

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

  • Wait Lets wait to see how people react. Wikileaks dumps alot of stuff not every dump is inherently notable for ITN purposes. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Grudging support I just read the Guardian article its more damning than the WashPo.... this is gonna be a shit storm no doubt about it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Rather egregious.--WaltCip (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support so finally the truth comes out.--Wikireader41 (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - No doubt in my mind that this should be on the front page. MacMedtalkstalk 04:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

  • But we don't seem to have an article yet, do we? --BorgQueen (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is a good update target.--Chaser (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to a link to Wikileaks - the information was obtained by The New York Times from 'other sources' even though Wikileaks obtained it as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    • "These articles are based on a huge trove of secret documents leaked last year to the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks and made available to The New York Times by another source on the condition of anonymity." [21] Basically, Wikileaks didn't provide these documents to the NYT or other newspapers, so the people publishing and analyzing the content will have not used Wikileaks' content. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
      • In the previous leaks, the material was originally leaked to WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks forwarded the material to selected newspapers (excluding the NYT), and the the NYT obtained the leaked material through some chain originating at WikiLeaks. This is probably a repeat of that, through the already established channels (though it doesn't say anything other than "condition of anonymity"). Since WikiLeaks seems to be the primary point of leakage, I don't mind featuring WikiLeaks. Thue | talk 09:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - Major story across the board and ITN-worthy; however, I also have concerns about the target article. Really have to see some work somewhere on this before we post, in my view. Jusdafax 07:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    • What is the target article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support since it is clearly significant, and for example is the first featured news item at . We need a Wikipedia article, through. Thue | talk 08:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • We now have Guantánamo Bay files leak, but it has to be expanded more. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The article has a long way to go yet. It's in pretty bad shape....RxS (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I may have missed it. Can somebody tell me what, in the "arguments" in support above, amounts to more than POV innuendo couched in hysterical "won't anybody think of the children" conspiracy theorist lingo? The desire to use the front page of Wikipedia to reveal the dark secrets of the Great Satan is a respectable POV. But no matter how correct and popular a POV is, it is not a WP rationale. Can we instead get some policy based arguments as to how yet another leak by wikileaks amounts to a good ITN candidate? μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 20:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm a little surprised that was posted with the article in as bad a shape as it was. The point here is to showcase articles, and this is a poor example of one. It's certainly ITN material but article quality needs to count for more than it apparently did in this case. Especially the section that starts As for previous releases, Wikileaks stated that at least.... But not limited to that. RxS (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I regret to say that I am not. Note that the POV that the Great Satan is guilty of yatta yatta yatta as based on an Op Ed piece in Salon Magazine is offered as a response to my request to provide a WP rational for this post rather than a political one. What we have here is the declaration that the US is evul and a meatpuppet chorus of me toos. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Pull please. The article is in really sad shape. There's primary sources used for an entire section, it's factually wrong about the events leading up to the release. It's to short to be used as a showcase and primary sources are used as cites for claims. RxS (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment the article looks longer than 2010 Jiangxi train derailment which was posted. I haven't looked at the sourcing or factual accuracy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
      • WP:OTHERSTUFF seems relevant. No comment on article The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Don't you think we should be pushing for higher article standards instead of letting them sink as shorter and thinner articles get posted? RxS (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I think maintaining standards is reasonable - and this article is longer, than that one, which I think is a good example of a minimum length to post article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I performed some copy editing on the article, but it's still in pretty rough shape. I'm with those above who are voicing concern about the obvious political nature of this being posted. I'm no fan of Gitmo myself, but this seems... un-Wikiepda-like, to say the least. I think that some of you are exposing a bias here (which seems to be a topic which arises periodically within this process). It seems to me that some of you (including a couple of users who have the bit) have a political axe to grind, and this nomination "outs" several of you.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Pulled - there are tags all over the place. Note that I did oppose this above but only on procedural grounds that I was found very wrong on (and so would have supported), but this was a no-brainer. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Which article has tags all over the place? —Кузьма討論 04:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Forget it, I see what you mean. Most of them aren't very serious, though. —Кузьма討論 05:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removal. If there were a quality article, I'd support, but the article isn't very good and has some problematic tags as well. I also agree that there's quite a lot of POV arguments above which make it hard to judge consensus. To be clear, I do believe the substances of this is notable but I don't think Wikipedia has a good article presenting it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I am looking at Guantanamo file leak article and its not that bad with one vague tag... i did not have a look at it before but right now it seems ok. perhaps issues with it has been fixed? -- Ashish-g55 17:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks good now. Remarking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but the article is very little improved since yesterday. It's short and has other issues as expressed above. I don't see this as ready at all. It's not an encyclopedia article, it's a poorly written news report of some sort. RxS (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I never understood the problem to begin with. Articles get posted in worse condition than this one. People are wringing their hands over the Haiti election article, which doesn't really have an update. There are no orange tags, so what's the problem? -- tariqabjotu 18:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
My point is that we shouldn't be posting poorly written or short articles at all. If I had seen the Haitian article I would have said the same thing. I'm not going to go on about this but if there's one thing we need to work on is that we post bad articles in a space that's meant for showcasing articles. This (and others to be sure) are in no shape to be showcased. RxS (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm pulling this again. I'm sorry, but the article is in terrible shape. The "Detainees" section contains only one detainee (out of the many there, plus it's sourced to a primary source). What point is the "Nuclear hellstorm" trying to make? Then there are three quotes. I very much agree with RxS. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me say, for the record, that the only reason I reposted the article was because people were saying it was fixed and it was remarked as ready. Considering I thought the original was perfectly fine for posting, it's not like I could personally judge it as up to people's standards, so general remarks were the best I could go for.
That being said, I stand by the original decision to post because this call for higher standard articles is borderline infeasible. Other sections are capable of slowly raising their quality standards because they have a greater crop to choose from (getting a featured article is more difficult, getting an article in DYK becomes more competitive, people actually care now about the quality of OTD articles). For some reason, though, perhaps because it's hard to write a good article on the fly, ITN has not really had that.
And so while we have people in the background complaining, rather understandably, about the slow rate at which ITN is updated, here we are suggesting the we raise our quality standards -- make it harder for articles to make it into the section -- without any corresponding increase in volume. WP:OTHERSTUFF be damned, this article has the amount of content needed to post an article in ITN. It does not need to be comprehensive or top-quality; it simply needs to be of a minimum standard. I would love to see the day when we have so many important current events articles updated that we can be this selective, but, unfortunately, that day has not arrived yet. -- tariqabjotu 02:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Tariq, I wasn't aiming at your original posting – there was consensus to post. With the amount of citations this has, it normally would be decent enough to post, but the content of this article is very far off (why is only one detainee mentioned, etc.). It has enough content, but we aren't covering the topic properly at all. Where is the background in the body of the article? Where are the general reactions to the release of the content? Why are the BBC and CNN quotes relevant? (there's no analysis of them...)
Whoever rewrites that article should probably model it off United States diplomatic cables leak. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • WTH is this. If you want to pull something post here and discuss first. This is clear abuse of admin power. just like we dont post stuff without consensus, stop pulling stuff without it. It doesnt matter if you are in agreement with someone. You have done it twice now for same ITN entry which is borderline wheel warring now... On the main page!!! it does not look good when things go up and disappear from ITN. Stop doing it without discussing... -- Ashish-g55 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • There was absolutely no reason to repost. The article was virtually in the same state it was when I pulled it. There are quite a few above who believe the article is not in a good enough shape to post. Let's improve the article, then post it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree with Ed. The reason that I'm posting though is to mention: you know, DYK would probably be glad to post this sort of thing.
        — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • To Paraphrase re the repost: "Rather egregious" "No doubt in my mind this should never have been on the front page". Posting what amounts to the latest in a serious of monthly press releases from an advocacy organization as if it were news, without an article or a WP rationale, is POV pushing of the most obvious and shameful kind. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a quaternary text, not a creator of news or a house organ of any stripe. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    Say what you want about the quality of the article, but there's little disagreement that the story itself is notable and ITN-worthy. You're walking down a path that leads nowhere. -- tariqabjotu 02:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I was the one who mentioned that this story was particularly egregious. What I find even more egregious, however, is how this story is getting posted and pulled repeatedly. This is ridiculous. Either leave it up or do not post it at all.--WaltCip (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support reposting as the various complaints seem questionable. The content is there. The references are there, 18 of them at the moment. Primary sources aren't in use throughout the article (media from U.S., UK, Australia all count as primary sources? What then is to be used?) The article isn't tagged, can't even find the tags that were said to have been "all over the place" in the history (unless {{current}} counts?) "Why are the BBC and CNN quotes relevant?" From reading that section it seems they are part of the reaction referred to officially by WikiLeaks. Agree with tariqabjotu that some complain ITN is too slow and others complain about the quality when articles are put on the Main Page. Which is it? This article has at least five paragraphs, four sections of content, a lede of 2 paragraphs and 18 references. Yet the same editor has removed it twice in less than 12 hours, the first time due to "too many problems" and the second time with no apparent reason in the edit summary. --candlewicke 04:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Really? So you don't see any problem with the "Detainees" section discussing only one detainee, or what the purpose of the seemingly random "Nuclear hellstorm" section? The almost complete lack of background information, like links to the other leaks? Are there any reactions to the release beside the US government's? What is the purpose of the CNN and BBC quotes? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support reposting per Candlewicke. Have been to busy in 'real life' to follow this back and forth stuff closely. Article seems in decent shape and it's still in the news, it is a big deal and ITN-worthy. Put it up for keeps this time. Jusdafax 05:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • What a mess. There are decent arguments on both sides. On the one hand, the article is not ideal, and has had a number of minor issues and arguably serious ones. It may meet minimum standards, but I don't think it's a good article. It doesn't have orange-level tags which are normally grounds for not posting. The topic is notable, but not as notable as has been asserted here IMO--it's pretty much been off the front page of most the the major media sites for over a day now. As for my view, I maintain my opposition to this posting due to the quality of the article, which is frankly confusing at several points. --Johnsemlak (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Proposal--I suggest we request an WP:UNINVOLVED admin to come, review this situation, either post or not, and close the nomination. Respectfully, I think it would have been better had both the involved admins requested a third party and not reposted or 'repulled' this blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what WP:UNINVOLVED is about. Both Ed and I are uninvolved. Neither of us were part of the original discussion; it's not like I said I supported the nomination or Ed said he opposed the nomination and that each of us are just acting in accordance with our positions. Yes, we both have commented on the quality of the article, but my approval of the article's quality was inherent in my posting of the blurb while Ed's disapproval of the quality was inherent in his removal of it. So, we're not adding anything new.
Now, what you're suggesting is have one arbitrary admin, who is no more or less qualified to judge this situation than me or Ed, to judge once and for all whether this should be posted. You could have just as easily let me or Ed have the final say. But, obviously, that wouldn't have accomplished anything. Neither will your proposal. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You became involved when you posted it IMO. Arguably, that's a purely administrative role, but I think reposting the same blurb you posted before when you clearly are in disagreement with another admin on the blurb's readiness and a nomination which is clearly controversial is not acting from a neutral position. We now have had the nomination posted, pulled, posted, and pulled again, and I think it's pretty undeniable that's not a positive state of affairs.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Um, yeah, John. So... is HJ Mitchell involved now that he commented? Or is he just acting in a purely administrative role by declining to post it, even though he has provided a reason for not posting it that essentially is a repeat of Ed's reason, your reason, and the reason of everyone who disapproves of the article? There's no functional difference. And, to be honest, what I would expect an "uninvolved admin", whatever that means, to do is simply say "it looks like there is/is not consensus that this article is ready to post" and act accordingly. Even HJ didn't do that; he's provided a position. That's fine by me, but you have come up with a truly arbitrary metric of who is allowed to comment and make a decision. -- tariqabjotu 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Well they don't come much more involved than myself—I had no part in the discussion and, in fact, wasn't even aware it was taking place. I only come here now because, finding myself with a working computer for a change, I decided I'd see if I could be of assistance here. I'm afraid I don't think the article is sufficient. It's neat and tidy and I can see why one might think it long enough, but there doesn't seem to be much substance to it. It's basically a very long headline. I'd like to see a longer, deeper article before reposting—it's not like the material isn;t there, one could probably write an FA (or at least a GA) with the volume of material available and The Guardian and the NYT seem to have it well-covered. What's there is of good quality, but there's not enough of it for me. It should most certainly be reposted, but the article needs some graft. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • So, regarding whether this should be posted now (20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)). No, it should not. As I said in my preceding comment, at 19:21 (UTC), I really think that an admin posting/not posting/pulling should be based on the consensus that exists (or does not exist). This nomination has taken a rather wild ride. At the time, I initially posted, it was pretty clear that people thought this was appropriate for ITN. So, I posted. Following that, a couple people started questioning the quality of the article. So, Ed removed the blurb -- that's fine. In the following hours, it seemed like the errors were fixed, as some people mentioned the errors were fixed and the nomination was again marked as [Ready]. So, I posted; it seemed the trend had swung back toward support for posting. Around the same time, RxS chimed in again to say he felt the quality of the article was still not to snuff. By the time I saw that, the article had already been posted again, and I felt it would have been obnoxious to suddenly pull it again. So, I left it there. And then Ed came back a few hours later, and removed it, which was a fair judge of consensus considering people said the article was still unsuitable. Since then, there have been a number of positions for and against the quality of the article (including one by myself), but regardless, it's quite clear there's isn't consensus to post. I'm not going to repeat my consternation toward John's call for an "uninvolved" admin, but what admins who choose to add/remove articles should be doing is looking at everyone else's remarks and making the aforementioned decision. Despite my position on the article's suitability for ITN, what's important here is that, as of now, there is no consensus to post. -- tariqabjotu 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

April 24

Cambodian–Thai border dispute

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

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

haiti election

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

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

[Posted] Death of Sathya Sai Baba

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

Strong support. An iconic figure among Indian gurus. Generated quite a bit of controversy too. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Support though I notice the article has some disputed sections. Still, count me in. Jusdafax 06:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. Iconic personality in India. Though some sections are not really clear, It could be bettered. Yes Michael?Talk 08:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Support as per nom. Crnorizec (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Support per nom. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 09:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutrality tags have not been resolved. This needs pulling, pronto. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 12:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Pulled, pending resolution to the tags on the article.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  12:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Scratch that, posting again since it's only really the one section that's a problem and the notability of the person, in my mind, counteracts that problem in this case.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  12:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I cannot support putting an article with NPOV tags right on the Main Page simply because "the person was notable". Strange Passerby (talkcont) 12:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It's from 2009!  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  13:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a factual accuracy tag from this month. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 13:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
There's another orange-level tag (factual accuracy) from this month. ITN criteria are pretty specific that articles with 'orange level' tags should not be posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, looking at the history of the article (which includes a 2007 ArbCom case about this article specifically) and the fact that the removal of the tag from 2009 was reverted as "vandalism", I'm not very hopeful that other tag will be removed anytime soon. -- tariqabjotu 13:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've removed all of the tags, with explanations in the edit summaries and an explaination on the talk page. If Radiantenergy (talk · contribs) reverts again then we'll go from there.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Post-repost support An important figure in modern India and in NRM studies. This ITN discussion seems to revived interest in the page and significant clean-up seems to be occurring. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

April 23

An EF2 tornado strikes Lambert-St. Louis International Airport

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

[22] StrikerforceTalk Review me! 22:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It's times like this that I wonder if Australians (like me) and Americans speak the same language. I've looked at the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport article and discovered the word "jetway". I travel a bit, and have never heard of it. The other additions around this event need quite a bit of clean up. The sources seem to be a lot of videos, and some are already dead links. But more importantly, while this obviously affects a lot of people, and some big money is involved, I would take a lot of convincing that it's really a big enough event globally to be added here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • HiLo, a jetway is one of those bridges that connects the terminal to the plane. Not sure what else you'd call it. A jet bridge? -- tariqabjotu 05:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
As always, Wikpedia comes to the rescue. Jet bridge seems to be the generic name, so you got that perfectly right! That article tells us that "Jetway is a registered trademark". In Australia such devices are known as "Airbridges" (mentioned as an alternative in the article). Ain't English wonderful? HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Aerobridge is the proper term, must be a thing of our empire ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment There is at least one very major factual error here, per this: [23]. Ks0stm (TCG) 23:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose No deaths, no major storm, no real widespread impact. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Although it's a notable tornado, the overall event isn't all that big. No records broken, no loss of life and damage was confined to a small region. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Damage was actually significant throughout the St. Louis metropolitan area. One of the neighboring communities to the airport, Bridgeton suffered extensive damage from the same storm, rated an EF4 during its time on the ground there. As part of a larger outbreak (last night was the second occasion in four evenings that a Cardinal game at Busch Stadium was delayed and fans moved to safe locations due to tornado warnings), this storm has received significant coverage within the region, but also national coverage (CNN and others). As a strong tornado striking a major metropolitan area, I don't see how an argument can reasonably be made that this isn't worthy of ITN. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 00:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This nomination is about the airport. You seem to be supporting a different one that I haven't seen yet. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Read the comment again, please. You are interpreting the context incorrectly. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so, but my attempted use of irony may have been inappropriate and unsuccessful. Sorry. The nomination is about the airport. You have told us about impact elsewhere. If you want that to be relevant, the nomination has to be broadened. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support a large tornado at a major airport seems pretty significant to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, had it tried to board a blimp flight to Prussia at bazookapoint. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Tornadoes and other storms hit major structures (like airports) on a fairly regular basis. Per precedence on ITN, distinction is determined by exceptional damage or loss of life.--WaltCip (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose this individual tornado striking the airport, but support posting the entire outbreak, as the National Weather Service appears to have confirmed an EF4 tornado. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 01:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I wasn't very far from Lambert when this happened and it wasn't too terrible. Goes to show what a difference a mile or two can make. Marcus Qwertyus 01:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This specific tornado was downgraded to an EF2, from original speculation of EF3. I can agree to Strange Passerby's suggestion above. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 02:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Cambodian–Thai border dispute blossoms up

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

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

source.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - as nom.
  • Weak support Not a huge surprise with some serious flare-ups already this year but they were supposed to be in or progressing towards talks recently.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no article (is there?). I don't think that this is that big of a deal, either (aside from those caught up in the fighting, of course). Boarder disputes are fairly common, especially in this geographical region.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
support been picking up in the new last 2 days after a firing killed 4 soldiers and then village evacuations today.Lihaas (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, whatever you do, please don't use blossom as if it were a verb in the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Cambodian–Thai_border_dispute#April_2011 needs some copyediting. The third bullet point should at least be divided into two paragraphs, because it's rather hard on the eyes as it is now. SpencerT♦C 00:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. Nightw 05:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Blurb please I genuinely tried to write a coherent blurb for this, but I can't. This was on ITN two months ago, and I'm failing to see what's new. The update doesn't suggest to me that the fighting was in the vicinity of the temple. So... what should ITN say? The dispute flares up as/due to/with what? What's an uncontroversial thing to say? -- tariqabjotu 18:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've added a possible blurb, but it may not be enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Again, why is the Preah Vihear Temple mentioned? The update only mentions that temple to say that the violence happened 150 km from it, at another temple (Ta Moan Temple). The border between Cambodia and Thailand is not very long; 150 km must be at least a quarter of the length of the border. That's not "around" the temple at all. Am I missing something? -- tariqabjotu 18:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Well according to the BBC it has spread there today, but I think the issue is that I misread it :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Solomon Islands earthquake

Might be too early, but it reached a 6.9 magnitude. Diego Grez (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Support I have heard of it. would place on itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • No reports of casualties or damage, no tsunami warnings. My understanding is that the Solomon's are fairly regularly subject to earthquakes as well. The red link in the section title speaks volumes, here.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No major news sources are reporting this. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment. This was a relatively deep earthquake, low risk for fatalities or damage. ~AH1 (discuss!) 00:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Google / Apple "keeping records of everywhere you go"

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

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

[Posted] Yemen president to resign

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

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

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

April 22

[Posted] Worst day of protests in Syria

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

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

Support I've seen this news and its definitely a big deal. The article needs updating however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Support per Eraserhead1 -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Blurb please. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
somethign to the effect of "Protests in Syria result in the highest casualties through police firing so far" (i presume its police firing?)Lihaas (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think we're good for the update at 2011_Syrian_protests#Lifting_of_the_state_of_emergency. I'm a bit concerned about how we report this. All the international media seem unable to verify the protesters' own accounts of the number of dead. Of course, the reason for this is that the Syrian government has kicked them out of the country so that it can work under cover of darkness and lie through the state-sponsored press. I would suggest something along the lines of "At least 50 are reported killed in the biggest day of protests in Syria this year" without specifying who killed them.--Chaser (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
"biggest day of protests"? This is being reported as the most violent day, but neither source above seems to address whether the protests were also larger than during preceding days. (Probably it's near impossible for Western media to reliably know the size of protests from day to day.) I would suggest saying something like "most violent day", unless there is a clearer attribution for "biggest". Dragons flight (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
"This much, however, seems clear: Today's protests were the largest yet in Syria." It's no easier to verify than the number killed.--Chaser (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Update needed. Friday's number of killed stands at 112. Various other sources report 82 or 88. ~AH1 (discuss!) 02:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Haitian general election, 2010–2011

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

Article needs updating

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

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

April 21

Amazon servers crash, bringing websites down

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

MLB Takeover of the LA Dodgers

Note: Nominated by Ohms law (talk · contribs). Strange Passerby (talkcont) 04:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Not even close to ITN criteria imo, it's pretty major in MLB but it's of little importance or significance outside baseball or Los Angeles. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 04:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree, interesting story for some, but not really a big deal outside of that. RxS (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose both because the article currently has a merge request, and because in the past teo years the NHL has taken over the Coyotes and the NBA has taken over the Hornets. MLB aside, a league taking over a team isn't anything new, and from what I understand this is just a temporary measure. --PlasmaTwa2 05:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Plasma2.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough (although I think you guys are incorrect, of course). We'll see what happens if and when McCourt sues MLB then, and the real possibility arises that they coudl loose their anti-trust exemption over this... :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
If this does go far enough to set precedence in North American pro sports, then it might be itn-worthy. As it stands, it simply isn't notable enough given the same thing has happened to two other teams in two other leagues in the past two years. --PlasmaTwa2 00:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The whole "the same thing in two other leagues" point is not really relevant, in my opinion. There's a big difference here because we're talking about baseball, and it's not merely because baseball itself is so much bigger (in terms of fans, money, markets, you name it). No, the big issue with baseball is the anti-trust exemption. Baseball is special because it's actually treated differently. Not even the NFL is as important, even though the NFL is at least as popular as baseball (arguably more so), simply because the NFL has to abide by all of the rules that other businesses abide by.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The MLB took over the Rangers last year and the Nationals even before that, neither were posted... Strange Passerby (talkcont) 14:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Mario Vargas Llosa in the Argentine Book Fair

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

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

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

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

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

Today is World Book and Copyright Day. --candlewicke 03:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Support no harm in posting this, we don't exactly post a lot of south american cultural stuff. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Gold price record

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

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

The news stories I've read about this don't attribute particular importance to the gold record. The emphasis here is more on the declining US dollar due to the government's inability to get its finances straight. Even this isn't breathtaking. Of course, the round number itself is arbitrary. But if oil goes over $150, then I think we'd have a story.--Chaser (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The possible oil high would also be an ITN topic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Chaser is right, it is not the rising gold price, but the falling US dollar value. Anyway, I don't see ITN worthiness here. If we report this new record gold price, do we report it on every occasion? Because it will continue to rise. --bender235 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
several issues: 1. gold is goign to hit records over the nest months and years (weeks even) we can t keep psoting it, 2. its not only the dollar value, there are multiple factos for tis rise. Gold is a hedge against inflation and uncertainty as well (see th e hot topics so far in the world and youll notive), 3. what makes oil more important than gold? Gol d is, atleast historically, (and even now) far more internetionally isignificant. Lord forbid a couple of americans get squeezed for gas. gas ahs been much more expensive all voer the world than the american complants for eons. id say neirther is sinificant.Lihaas (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
JFYI: If you're hedging against inflation, you're hedging against a loss of value of currencies. And that is, foremost, the US dollar. ;-) --bender235 (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The US dollar is the worlds most important currency, followed by the Euro, and then by the Pound, Yen and RMB. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The $1500 level is significant and a major benchmark. Story is significant, noteworthy, and in the news. It should be observed that I am not in favor of putting this type of article on ITN every time the gold price record is breached. To me, the round number is the trigger. My next support for this would be at the $2000 level. Jusdafax 21:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article needs an update. SpencerT♦C 01:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. There are lots of important commodities, e.g. gold, wheat, oil, cotton, copper, etc., not to mention many other major financial instruments including various stocks, bonds, currencies, etc. If the story is just "X reaches a record high", then in my personal opinion that's not much of a story. There needs to be content there beyond a simple numerical change, otherwise there is nothing to differentiate this event from additional new records that may be set by gold or other commodities in the near future. If the story is merely about a numerical increase, then the entirety of the update is contained in the hook itself, and there is no other news to be gained by reading Wikipedia. If on the other hand the story is "X reaches a record high because of Y", then that could be a much better news item depending on the nature of "Y". I might support if someone has a hook with more context or shows how this leads to a substantial article update. So far the only update in the highlighted article consists of simply tweaking a number [25]. Dragons flight (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support if and only if the article is suitably updated. Gold is a particularly interesting commodity. The only more interesting commodities are food and oil. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose No current assertion made as to real value - i.e. against other currencies or against inflation. I'm reminded of a review of the top earning films of all times that bothered to correct for inflation - Gone with the Wind was top by a country mile, but it doesn't even register on the usual "highest earners" lists. An article titled "Gold as an investment" that makes similarly simplistic comparisons should probably have some kind of financial health warning template at the head of the article, never mind being linked to on the front page. Crispmuncher (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is not news, and does not report stuff like this. The price of gold has been climbing up steadily for long,[26] but happened to just now reach and arbitary value that stems from us using the decimal system to express numbers. But otherwise gold value has continued its steady climb over the last few days and weeks. So nothing special here, move along please. --hydrox (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sorry Hydrox, but I strongly disagree. You appear not to understand the concept of a 'psychological barrier', so I'll give you a link from the Wall Street Journal [27] that uses the phrase, which indicates its notability in regards to the nomination at hand. And may I suggest that telling people to "move along" shows a lack of collegiality that is crucial in this type of discussion. Jusdafax 10:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I opposed an earlier posting of the gold price but I agree with Jusdafax, this was a big barrier and the U.S. dollar (major currency) is intertwined with the whole climb as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose and the price is 908 GBP thus its a purely arbitrary point which has no meaning to those in who are not on the USD. It hit an all time high of $1488 last week why did we not post that? simply because 1500 is nicer rounder number. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Except that the US Dollar is the world's most important currency and the pound is not. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The price has gone up because it has become more attractive as an investment. It has become more attractive as an investment because people believe the price will go up quickly compared to other commodities. So any record is expected to be broken many many times. So all we have is an arbitrary round number that has been reached, but that makes no difference. Petrol passed a £5 a gallon mark a few months ago, but it did so by increasing in price by 1p/litre overnight, which changes next to nothing of itself. This is similar. Kevin McE (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not really logical. I can't imagine anyone bothering to post anything if and when the price falls below this very artificial "barrier". If someone can guarantee it will be posted, I may reconsider. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • My objection from last time: it's a silly number. It's the highest dollar value attached to the price of gold, but in real terms - accounting for inflation of the measuring currency - the price of gold is less than it was circa 1978-80. We know this, we understand this, and we shouldn't knowingly misrepresent things even if news agencies are producing breathless headlines about it. Shimgray | talk | 00:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Real Madrid win The King's Cup

Article: 2011 Copa del Rey Final (talk, history)
Blurb: Real Madrid player Sergio Ramos drops the Copa del Rey trophy under the wheels of the open-top bus the team are celebrating in, after the 2011 Copa del Rey Final. (Post)
BBC News A bit of light-hearted hijinks for the main page. Oh, and a fairly important annual-recurring event (Yanks, it's called "soccer" from your part of the planet). Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping us idiotic Americans understand the news. Oppose trophy story as trivial and oppose the cup as essentially an intranational bragging rights game.--Chaser (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Withdrawing my oppose as this is now involving comparisons of football tournaments with which I am not familiar.--Chaser (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
"Thanks for helping us idiotic Americans understand the news" Anytime! "intranational". Chuckle. Lugnuts (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
wikt:intranational.--Chaser (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The leading story on BBC sport right now is Houllier's illness [28]. The leading sports story on their homepage? American baseball.--Chaser (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I had assumed that the Copa del Rey paled in comparison to the La Liga title. Plus it seems to be just a warm up tp the Champions League semifinal. But what do I know--I'm just a yank.--Johnsemlak (talk)
  • Support. In the post NCAA era, the Copa Del Ray winners is an obvious ITN worthy item. There's not a single argument of 'interest' that doesn't apply to this that didn't apply to that ridiculously boring and quickly forgotten domestic American college basketball game. This domestic top ranked professional cup final was broadcast live to several nations, and was news all over Europe as a first in 18 years for Madrid, a notable domestic drought for a team which is otherwise considered one of the best in the world. It's also notable because Mourinho isn't even halfway through his career and is on course to go down in history as one of the greatest coaches of all time, precisely due to trophy wins just like this with different clubs all over Europe. The cup fumble even promoted it to the mainstream news bulletins in the UK today, which is amazing considering it has nothing to do with the royal wedding next week. We don't even have that ridiculous 'too much football' non-reason to oppose this. MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose mainly because all the major European competitions reach their conclusions imminently. I might support if the timing were different, but inclusion of this could be used as reason not to post more important football competitions over the next few weeks (although the same discretion doesn't seem to apply to US Space Shuttles...) Kevin McE (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
So, not only can we not post football stories during the 'busy period', we also can't post them outside the busy period in case people use it against items in the busy period. On what planet does ANY of this make sense as an actual oppose rationale to this item? As I said at the time, that NCAA item got a comletely free ride, and as I suspected at the time, it was not as it turned out evidence that ITN was reforming at all. It's still the same arbitrary and illogical system it always was. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
One bad posting decision does not mean that we should make others to counterbalance. The current football content of ITN/R is what was believed appropriate: this was not included, and there is not enough special about this year's Copa del Rey to justify an exception to that rule, especially if the result of that is to have people complaining about the Champions' League final going up on the grounds that "We've already had Copa del Rey, FA Cup, Premier League within 6 weeks". Kevin McE (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's funny to see how many people are prepared to simply ignore the almighty consensus that was the NCAA decision, even though plenty in the discussion justified it on the basis that it was not going to be a one off relaxation. The current football content at ITN/R was set in stone well before decisions like the NCAA happened, so that's also a rather regressive argument. And I find the argument that if we post those, then people will oppose the Champions League, as absurd as if someone dared to oppose the Super Bowl because the NCAA football final was posted the month before it. And if you can look at this year's final and say it was nothing special, I question your overall football knowledge full stop - first win in 18 years for Madrid, the Cup gets dropped under a bus, Mourinho gets ever closer to sainthood etc etc etc. Villa Real 1-0 Mallorca this was not. And as I write this, Sergio's fumble has yet again been mentioned on the mainstream television news bulletin. MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The only thing that makes this somehow significant is the fact that the final match was played between FC Barcelona and FC Real Madrid which does not make the cup in general important and could easily pale during the next years. It was broadcasted in the whole world, and surely is more significant than the NCAA final, but the ITN football stories are far from a national cup final. If such competitions should be considered, I'd preferably go with the FA Cup, which in comparison is the oldest football competition still contested to date.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The ITN football stories were "far from national cup level" before we started posting stuff like the NCAA. And posting one competition, the FA Cup, in exchange for NCAA basketball, football, and god knows what else, is not proportionate. Not in a million years. You just pointed out yourself how this final was significant, yet somehow you've still managed to oppose it?!?! MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
If it's not comprehensive enough, I must point out that there are bevy of other football competitions that should be included, and one of them is the FA Cup as the oldest football competition. On the other hand, the Barca-Real final does not make the cup more important or of wider interest. My opinion is still that we've made a mistake posting the NCAA, but I don't think we should regard it seriously as a criterion to vote something else.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
This is just proveably wrong. You don't get coverage like this or this in the UK if the story was 'Valencia have beaten Mallorca to win the 2011 Copa del Rey'. And no, it was not a mistake, it was a predictable function of how ITN stumbles on day to day. The mistake would be to pretend that ignoring such decisions gives ITN any credibility whatsoever. MickMacNee (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
According to your reasoning, should we post the outcome of every derby match between these two teams? My intention is not to misuse facts, but this match was not even mentioned seriously before their double-match they will play in the Champions League. And if you think this should be posted as a conclusion of the national cup, I don't think it's the most important such competition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't even understand what your objection even is anymore, let alone what facts you base it on. I've provided the links to disprove the idea this was just another final, I've shown how the Copa del Rey meets all current ITN standards for 'interest' irrespective of that, and I've rebutted the argument that the FA Cup is the only cup we should be posting. I'm not going to get into an debate about what you think my argument means, as I never said anything of the sort to begin with.MickMacNee (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Clearly we deal with something that would make the ITN a football tabloid. If Copa del Rey is, then we must consider the Coppa Italia, and don't forget the Coppa Libertadores, or the African club championship. I don't object that this is absolutely not significant, but the ITN football stories should be more like World Cups, Continental Championships, and the strongest COntinental Leagues. It is enough football for the ITn, and for the sake of the other topics, I must reject the inclusion of something, even if it meets the criteria. If it was another topic, I would support it based on the facts.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
a.k.a 'too much football'. You have no actual argument to oppose this specific item at all, and you even freely admit it meets the criteria. 'Tabloid' indeed. Ha. ITN wishes that it had the credibility of a tabloid tbh. By entertaining opposes like yours as being remotely valid, it's more like a state newspaper than anything which could lay claim to having proper editorial standards. MickMacNee (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
To admit honestly my intention is to see as much as possible reports in the ITN being distributed in many different topics. Therefore I'd prefer to see only one report of any sport rather then many of only one. Bandy and darts are among the sports that should be included instead of some of the reports related to football or basketball. It's last from me, and I don't think my vote was crucial here. In any case, thank you for your time in the discussion.:)--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I'd probably oppose in any other year, but this year the final received huge international coverage as the two highest-paid teams in the world fielded full strength teams and create quite the spectacle. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Every match between the two breaks some records, but we don't use to post it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Where did I mention records? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Admittedly they're the highest-paid teams in the world which is a well-known record, but every their match is somehow a new spectacle. And if this match differs from the other as being a final, I don't think the whole competition is ITN worthy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
oppose ANY time the two are in the final the same would happen, and itsnot as rare as presumed. at any rate, awe should be mentioning the fa cup (the oldest competions ) the indian soccer cup (the 2nd oldest) and the copa italia, german cup, etc, etc. let snot forget africn a champions' league and copa libertadores..Lihaas (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The article does not have a suitable update, whatever the arguments above about its notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Support as this particular event seems to be particularly notable, and more notable than it would usually be. I think it is similar (but less important) to the cricket match between India and Pakistan. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
qwe did not post that.Lihaas (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, we did, but it was pulled. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 10:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
And the admin who pulled it has admitted it was an error to pull it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
This is far less important than the India-Pakistan cricket match. India-Pakistan was notable because of the symbolism and appearance of harmony it created between the two countries which have been at war with each other four times in the last 65 years. I hardly think this matches up. Anyway, Oppose per Chaser's point—if even the BBC isn't running it on their main sports page, I don't think we should either. NW (Talk) 14:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The BBC has a feature article on its sports mainpage right now. Though I'd agree the India-Pakistan match was a much bigger deal. That had the two nations' PMs sitting together to watch the match.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
My point was about leading stories. Obviously BBC is covering this. It may also have been the leading sport story at some point before I viewed the pages.--Chaser (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose There will be even more stir about the Champions League match-up next week. Grsz 11 15:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
That was my initial reaction, but we almost certainly won't be posting the Champions League semifinal, so I dunno.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as per MickMacNee and Mkativerata. Since we surely won't be posting the semifinal meeting between Madrid and Barca I think we can post this. I have updated the article to include a match summary and a section on the celebrations and the cup 'drop'. Is it too late to add?--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support after much consideration. What tips me is the updated article and it's quality... quite good. And no I don't think it's too late to post. Jusdafax 06:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 06:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Sukhoi Superjet 100 first commercial flight

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

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

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

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

  • Support. Huge news and the article is in excellent shape. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Support as this is a huge triumph of sorts for Russian industry. The article is in excellent condition as well. --PlasmaTwa2 18:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Jusdafax 21:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

April 20

[Posted] Hetherington, Hondros killed in Misrata

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

Piss Christ protesters hammer attack

This says controversy has followed this work since 1987... --candlewicke 02:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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

PSLV C-16 Launch

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

India's space agency, ISRO launched the PSLV C-16 today. Links here:

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

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

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

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

April 19

[Posted] Pulitzer Prize for Fiction

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

Actress Elizabeth Sladen dies

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

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

[Posted] Syrian government lifts emergency law

Article: 2011 Syrian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Syrian government lifted the emergency law after 48 years in placement in response to pro-democracy protests. (Post)
Article updated
Support. In theory, lifting state of emergency is a vast transfer of power to the people. Even if they don't follow through, the announcement is notable enough in itself. Thue | talk 15:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. This is notable, but something should be done with the article along the same lines as the Libya one. Right now it's just one endless chronology. Lampman (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I've created a Timeline of the 2011 Syrian protests, and summarized this in the main article. It has now gone from 135k to 75k, and is – in my opinion – in much better shape. Lampman (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Strong support A state of emergency is always ITN worthy and regarding the current situation in the country I think it clearly represents the effect of what is happening in the country. Also I'd like to suggest to merge it with the bottom nomination, which could provide more information about the matter.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. This is a major breakthrough in the poltiical status of a country that is both region-wise and historically important, and has been under martial law since 1962. --hydrox (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Definitely worth posting, but the article hasn't been sufficiently updated IMO. NW (Talk) 16:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. A concession, but may be worth mentioning that the martial law (?) is still in effect, while this means that the government wants an end to protests that these protesters are not necessarily agreeing to.[34] [35] [36] ~AH1 (discuss!) 22:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Support seems like a big change in Syria. The article has now been updated sufficiently, so marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 23:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Syrian protesters start a sit-in

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

[Posted] Fidel Castro Resignation

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

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

  • Support Castro is one of the world's more high profile political figures, and I think this is a significant development for Cuba. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Eraserhead & Marcus. --PlasmaTwa2 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Resident Anthropologist. There is absolutely nothing to prevent him from ruling by proxy.--WaltCip (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

NDM 1 Superbug found in Delhi drinking water

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

April 18


2011 Libyan uprising

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

Boston Marathon

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

  • Support per ITN/R. I don't think Spencer was implying that we should post the record dispute. Grsz 11 00:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Then why does his heading read the way it does, with "fastest" being so prominent? HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not what I was trying to imply. He is the winner of the Boston Marathon and set a course record, and that is what the wording should read. SpencerT♦C 01:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Sounds good to me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
If you are doing that, then you may as well add that Emmanuel Mutai won the 31st London Marathon, setting a new course record in London. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 17:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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

April 17


[Posted] Nigerian presidential election, 2011

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

  • Support - When the results are official.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - per BabbaQ -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support - INEC has preliminary results already. Esn (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - National elections are generally notable. In the other news, CNN is reporting of election rioting. --hydrox (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as is usual per ITNR. --candlewicke 02:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] True Finns party wins election in Finland

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

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

  • Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd support this if the issues on the article get worked out. Seems like an important story from a country that doesn't see ITN much. RxS (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait for official results. Besides they not only lag in seats but this show they haven't acheived the most votes. Yes, I understand the history but, still, wait for the results. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongest Oppose Vote Ever Seen No, just no. Eww! Just because it happens (happened?) in Finland does not mean it is noteworthy, newsworthy, notable, and all that jazz. The True Finns, but oh well, a lot of people win every day in contests, lotteries, tennis matches, etc. I'm not sure why people think that Finland has a different criteria for notability here, I just disagree enormously. Most importantly, elections occur a lot in Europe so it may be worthless of even being included in the encyclopedia. It's like earthquakes here in Chile, we have a lot of them every day, and seems like we only had two 'notable' ones last year that deserve their article, but yet again, just because someone got elected does not mean this Finland crap is notable. Nutmegger (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Try reading the article. This is a massively important election that will definitely send ripples across the whole European Union. See eg. [39]. Also a game-changer election in Finnish politics, that have been in a stalemate since the Second World War. I would support Chilean election to the main page as well. --hydrox (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Nutmegger, indeed, try actually looking things up prior to posting angry "strongest oppose votes ever seen". Firstly, major elections (parliamentary, presidential etc.) are important and often on ITN regardless of country or result... And this one has particular significance, considering the result and what effects it will have on Finnish government/politics as well as the EU also. --KFP (contact | edits) 23:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
A deeply inappropriate, unfunny and unhelpful parody... Kevin McE (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Preliminary results are in. Usually they won't change much in the verification count. Article is still a bit of a mess, and ITN would bring much-needed visibility. TF didn't win the most votes, only third most votes. Also, suggest a less loaded term than "populist party" for the main page. Maybe: "True Finns surprise in the 2011 Finnish parliamentary election with a five-fold increase in the popular vote." --hydrox (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, not sure if it was that big a surprise as opinion polls had indicated this. The wording should reflect both the fact that the TF party made huge gains, but also that it did not "win" the election (both the NCP and SDP got more seats). --KFP (contact | edits) 23:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Exactly. I am not native in English, but something along the lines of "True Finns rock the 2011 Finnish parliamentary election with a five-fold increase in the popular vote." Using 'surprise' in place of 'rock' is the best I can come up with right now. 'Dominate' is not suitable, as they weren't the most popular party. --hydrox (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Just editconflicted in coming to say same thing: not for us to offer analysis on parties' performances. Keep the blurb NPOV. Kevin McE (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. According to Wall Street Journal[40] and BBC,[41] the result (200 seats in the parliament, the True Finns jumped from 5 seats to 39![42]) could affect Finland's position on bail-outs of EU countries that are in the middle of debt crisis — in other words, Finland, if led by an EU-skeptic government, could turn down the whole bail-out program. -- Frous (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
...and I'd suggest something like "Nationalist True Finns take a landslide victory in the April 17, 2011 parliamentary election in Finland." -- Frous (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
How about: The National Coalition Party, led by Jyrki Katainen, win a plurality in the Finnish parliamentary election, while the nationalist True Finns gain third place and/or increase their vote five-fold. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
As TF party is currently placed third, I would not mention it in the blurb (just the winner, in the standard ITN manner). If they enter the government, that would be a separate story. --Tone 07:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
So we are giving additional status to the party that came third, but ignore the party who came second? How is that NPOV? It would be at least equally valid to state that the Social Democrats retained second place: second place is more notable than third. I can think of no other election where the party coming third has been given such a profile in the blurb. Kevin McE (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
3 of the 4 !votes for this info about third place have been from those with strong Finnish connenctions, although obviously I don't know their political opinions: two of them have been proposing text that seriously misrepresents the results, and one of them is a main contributor to the article. The posting admin has been a voice in favour of this "innovative" way of reporting the result. Kevin McE (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I hear you. I was personally expecting more independent opinions on this, and was actually rather surprised to see the story appear on the front page this morning. The lack of discussion is maybe a sign that this is not so notable, after all. I didn't mean to even vote, but was intimidated to after Nutmegger's reasoning, that I found only after closer inspection totally trollish and offtopic protest vote about something totally unrelated.. --hydrox (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Kevin McE: Hmm, regardless of political views (I certainly don't support the TF, for what it's worth), the election result is quite unprecedented; I'm not sure it'd be neutral to *not* mention the TF party, since their massive increase in support is the main "news" about the election (both in Finnish and international media). The NCP, SDP and Centre have traditionally been the "three large" political parties with roughly 20 % support each and them being big is kind of "business as usual", whereas the TF's rise from about 4 % to about 19 % is not. --KFP (contact | edits) 16:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
For context, see for example these reports on the election results: BBC News, The Economist, The New York Times, Helsingin Sanomat English Edition (main Finnish newspaper), Wall Street Journal etc. --KFP (contact | edits) 16:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
We report every (with few exception) national parliamentary/presidential without mentioning rises/falls in parties' fortunes: the main result, with no commentary, is the only reliably NPOV report. Regardless, I do not believe that it was appropriate for an editor with a particular opinion on this blurb, with little or no history of intervention at ITN, to make the call on this. Kevin McE (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • ITN (and Wikipedia in general) is not a club where you apply for membership before making edits (I recommend seeing WP:OWN & WP:BOLD for example). As for NPOV, I think it's reasonable to mention what was remarkable about the election but if there's disagreement, that bit can be removed of course. --KFP (contact | edits) 17:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
just to make a point. WP:BOLD does not necessarily apply to main page... otherwise ITN/C would be useless and every admin can just be bold and post whatever they want. -- Ashish-g55 18:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:BOLD doesn't mean being reckless. I added the blurb to improve the main page, and assuming I bad faith of me (or a conflict of interest) is not very fair. --KFP (contact | edits) 18:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
nobody assumed bad faith. btw my comment was only about WP:BOLD not the above discussion. -- Ashish-g55 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I certainly intended no accusation of bad faith: I do however believe that it is bad form for an administrator to adjudicate on a debate in which he/she has been a protagonist. Kevin McE (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I would have loved to see more discussion before ITN, but don't agree with what Kevin McE is saying about the TF's notability. You don't seem to understand that 'the main result' of this election was by all statistical, political and historic measures the rise of the True Finns - there is just no question about it. The NCP winning the election was an interesting sidestory, but could have happened in any past election of last 60+ years. The situation is comparable to a new party forming in the US and rising in 15 years to beat one of The Democrats/Republicans in an election. With your reasoning we would still only note the winner, assuming the new party came "only" second? Note that in this election 3 biggest parties (NCP, TF, SDP) are all within 1.4 pp. of one another too. --hydrox (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I thought it was obvious that this would be added in some form (as national general elections usually are), and while the initially suggested wording was inappropriate (as I and others pointed out in the discussion before making the update, yes) I thought it is neutral and appropriate to mention the TF success, as just about all reliable sources I've seen that have reported on the election have emphasized that part of the result (as does our article). It would seem potentially misleading to omit. --KFP (contact | edits) 22:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with Kevin; the extra bit makes this blurb way too long and breaks established ITN convention wrt elections. I also agree that the story should not have been posted by an involved administrator, and strongly recommend we trim the blurb to what we'd normally post for an election. However, I wouldn't argue so much that this isn't NPOV, but more that this gives TF undue coverage. StrPby (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Got rid of the TF reference - it was two separate stories, really, and the result is far more noteworthy than the increase in seats, however notable both events are in their own right.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  02:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It was too long. However, I can't help feeling something important is being left out. In a very similiar situation in Sweden the surpriser party was able to fit on the Main page. For those seeking independent review, The Huffington Post has one excellent piece on the election. --hydrox (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

London Marathon

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

FBI shuts down largest online poker sites

Online gambling
USAToday, ABCNews, Independent, Telegraph

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

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

April 16

[Posted] National Democratic Party dissolved

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

Sri Lankan war crimes

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

2010–11 KHL season concludes

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

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

Not my choice of ITN sport item... in a month, there will be World Champion, and I think that one is ITNR.--Tone 18:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but this also is of wide interest, and the frequency of the sports events should not be a crucial factor here. Also I don't think one month is too close to post two events in one of the most popular team sports with only another ITN item about ice hockey until the end of the year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S. The NHL also ends in a month gap after the World Championship.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I nominated this last year but it was not posted. I'n neutral so far this time around but the article doesn't have a suitable update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The update should not be a problem, and I nominate it because the ice hockey as a sport is underrepresented with only two posts per year, which is significantly less than for example basketball, where we use to post more items.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support --BabbaQ (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I supported this last year as well. The KHL is on a level similar to that of the NHL and I don't see why exactly there should be a problem with posting the results of Europe/Asia's top hockey league if some people are trying to push ITN:R for the results of every top football nation's domestic leagues. I think hockey has a large enough following in the countries the KHL is in to warrant inclusion on this one. --PlasmaTwa2 22:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Whether football is the most popular sport in the world or not, it does not deserve to dominate with posts over the other sports. Ice hockey is also a very popular team sport which is currently out of important posts during the year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I could've supported this, but 2011 Gagarin Cup playoffs or even 2011 Gagarin Cup Finals are all red-links, and it would've been improper to add info about those at the regular season article. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak

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

Article updated
  • Major tornado outbreak with at least 16 people killed between tornadic and non-tornadic events. There have been over 100 reports of tornadoes between the 14th and today (the 16th). Ks0stm (TCG) 08:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Such outbreaks are as common as spring rains. Page should be deleted as non-notable. Abductive (reasoning) 08:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. What makes this special? (Do remember that we are not all Americans familiar with what tornados normally do.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
In a country that in recent years almost always has under 100 fatalities (and usually under 70) from tornadoes a year (source), having over 10 killed in a single outbreak makes this significant. Also, the sheer number of tornadoes reported makes this event noteworthy...see what it did to the yearly US tornado count here, and this doesn't even include today's tornadoes: [44]. Also, it appears that a very intense tornado has struck downtown Raleigh, North Carolina; see the outbreak article for more information. Ks0stm (TCG) 21:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Support iff an EF4 or EF5 tornado is confirmed. Otherwise, oppose as this would seem to be yet another unfortunate storm cell. Storms kill people all over the world. Nothing special about them happening in the US. An EF4 or 5 on the other hand would be an extremely notable and fairly rare event and thus I'd support posting that. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 08:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment You would need to translate that into plain English. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The Enhanced Fujita Scale is the scale used to measure tornadoes in the United States based on how much damage they cause. The scale goes from EF0 to EF5, with EF5 tornadoes being incredibly powerful and causing absolute destruction. wackywace 09:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there is an EF4 or EF5 tornado, though a series of EF3 tornados would be fairly persuasive. As it is there is only 1 EF3 tornado. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's only local news with no international significance, and as I can see it is estimated very low on the scale.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support 16 deaths is not a few with regard to tornado outbreaks, especially with current notification alarms and such. The article still needs to be fully updated (for example, it says 10+ fatalities). SpencerT♦C 15:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This is not an event that is just getting local coverage, it has been mentioned on CNN,Reuters, NY Daily News, and CBS News. Truthsort (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Most likely this is addressed to me, so I'd say that my comment was not such that it has only a local coverage, but who cares about something which is common in the spring season in the United States. We usually post unexpected events, so I don't consider a tornado outbreak, regardless of what the effects really are, something special to receive attention and get posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Very large tornado outbreak, over 200 reports of tornadoes (hasn't been than many in quite some time for a single event). At least 17 killed by tornadoes and 7 more by straight line winds. The number of confirmed and rated tornadoes shouldn't be factored into the decision to post this as it takes National Weather Service teams several days to fully assess damage and properly rate tornadoes. All of Alabama is under a state of emergency and loss of life was spread over a wide area (Oklahoma to North Carolina). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Side note, this is the largest three day outbreak in at least a decade, closest to this was 198 reports between May 5 and 7, 2003. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Continuing into tonight, more tornadoes and fatalities in North Carolina, with more states of emergencies announced [45] Even more importantly, the article is shaping up really nicely. Large amount of coverage. RxS (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If a storm cell killed 17 in sub-Saharan Africa, would we post it? Probably not, so what makes the US — which gets these systems every year — more notable in this regard? I still think we should only post with a confirmed EF4 or 5. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 01:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This by no means a yearly occurrence. RxS (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
We wont know if there was an EF4 (from what I've seen there wasn't EF5-type damage) for a few days. The the scale of damage and sheer number of tornadoes makes this outbreak notable. In addition to Alabama, 26 counties in Oklahoma and 14 in Mississippi declared a state of emergency. I believe 15 more were declared in North Carolina but I'm not sure as of now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. Deadliest US outbreak in over three years. Not a once a week outbreak. - CWY2190(talkcontributions) 01:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not enthusiastic about the blurb. Any other proposals? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongest Oppose Vote Ever Seen No, just no. Eww! Just because it happens (happened?) in the US does not mean it is noteworthy, newsworthy, notable, and all that jazz. Sixteen people died, but oh well, a lot of people die every day in bus crashes, airplane failures, etc. I'm not sure why people think that the US has a different criteria for notability here, I just disagree enormously. Most importantly, tornadoes occur a lot in the US so it may be worthless of even being included in the encyclopedia. It's like earthquakes here in Chile, we have a lot of them every day, and seems like we only had two 'notable' ones last year that deserve their article, but yet again, just because people died does not mean this US crap is notable. Diego Grez (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Haha! Classic... Nightw 03:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Um...what? This was a violent tornado outbreak and included several long-lived, destructive tornadoes. The average tornado lasts only a few minutes and tracks a couple miles. Several tornadoes produced during this outbreak lasted half an hour or more and tracked dozens of miles. This is one of the largest three day outbreaks in over a decade, with >220 reported tornadoes. I doubt Ks0stm is posting this because it happened in the US, rather, he's posting it because it's a major meteorological event that resulted in significant loss of life in a developed country. I see your point of people dying every day from bus crashes, airplane failures and the like but those are (sadly) daily happenings. A deadly tornado outbreak to this scale only happens every few years. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not a matter of body count, it's the number of tornados, length of time they've been active, number of the states of emergencies enacted and number of people effected. It'd be posted where ever something like this happened. RxS (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Fatalities reported in Virginia now, 29 deaths now attributed to this event. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Meh. The article looks okay and I'm all for posting more and more stories, but it's not exactly huge. Nightw 03:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted. I take Cyclonebiskit's explanation of why waiting for some of the later tornados to be rated as potentially EF3+ to not be a good idea. An event like this, if reliably sourced, would be posted for Sub-Saharan Africa, by the way. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (EC) - Ive been pondering about this all day and as it is according to Joe Bastardi it is one of the largest tornado outbreaks ever i am gonna support this going up on ITN.Jason Rees (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Update. 38 people now confirmed killed from the tornado outbreak, 5 more from the overall storm, though we need to decide which total to post. This is the deadliest outbreak since 2008, which was also posted to the Main Page. ~AH1 (discuss!) 16:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

April 15

[Update proposal] Judgement of Ante Gotovina

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

Article updated

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

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

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

Please change the current blurb to

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


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

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

[Ready] Burkina Faso mutiny

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

Article updated
Overnight reports of shooting around the capital of the country and the president is also reported to have left the presidential compound. (note, he has been involved in at least 2 coups in the past and this is coming about face against him, a leader who has ruled for 24 years...seems like long-serving national leaders are on their death beds...)Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Support A head of state fleeing his capital is notable even if he doesn't flee the country. Grsz 11 20:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Article needs more references. SpencerT♦C 20:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
where? section is sourced.Lihaas (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Blaise_Compaoré#2011_mutiny still only has one reference. SpencerT♦C 15:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Article looks fine, this looks worthy of posting and the timer is red. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Added 3 further sources, remarking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer to wait here for further development. Sacking the government is a big deal in princpile but there's one sentence about it. --Tone 18:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Oppose, we posted this in February. We're not seriously going to post the end of IPv4 in every single RIR. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 10:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
We posted the IANA exhaustion in February. This is the first RIR running out, not IANA; this is different but just as newsworthy. And note how I emphasized that the first RIR (APNIC) running out is special - I am not suggesting that we post each RIR running out, but only this first one, since it is the main point of IPv4 exhaustion. Thue | talk 10:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
In English please. I reckon I have the amount of understanding reasonable for an end user, but this means nothing to me. I live in the UK, is that part of fx Europe? I have no idea what relationship, if any, I have with APNIC or RIPE, or whether I have an IPv4 or IPv6 (but presumably not v5) address. Is it the case that this essentially means that the internet service providers will do some sort of fix invisible to end-users, and everything will carry on essentially as usable. If so, it would appear to be a technical change equivalent to a change in the way the HMRC handle my taxes, or the manufacturers of my breakfast cereal package their product, ie largely irrelevant to everyone except industry insiders. If my assumption is correct, oppose, as it reinforces the prejudice that Wiki is for geeky types: if it means that I will imminently lose internet connectivity with whole continents, support and request a stick to beat my ISP around the head with. Kevin McE (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Before this event, the Internet was in principle end-to-end. That means that if you had a friend in China, he could start a Minecraft server on his private PC, and your PC could connect to it directly, and you could play Minecraft together. With the exhaustion of IPv4, your friend may not be able to get his own IPv4 address, but only an IPv6 address, so you can't connect to his server until you also get an IPv6 address. The "give everybody an IPv6 address" is the "invisible to end-users fix", and it should have already happened, but is only done for ~5% of internet users. So the story here is that the invisible fix has not happened, and things will start breaking, though mostly for the "little guy" who wants to run his own server-like programs. The big datacenters will probably just buy IP addresses on the grey marked (buying IP addresses is in principle against the rules). Also, you will probably have to buy a new home router which supports IPv6 at some point. The Internet is the main information exchange system of the human race, and this news marks the breaking of full end-to-end connectivity in that system (until IPv6 is fully deployed, which will take years and billions of dollars). Thue | talk 13:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment what this means is that if an ISP in Asia Pacific wants to provide Internet access to more users they will be unable to do so without using IPv6 (which isn't yet widely supported) or resorting to special tricks that don't work that well (carrier level NAT). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. In terms of dragging out stories on ITN, what's the difference between 'Asia runs out of IP4 adresses', and 'the 3rd last Space Shuttle takes off for the last time'? Or even any one of the interminable reposts of bits and pieces of the Deepwater Horoizon spill, the Japan disaster or the Libya conflict, etc etc. MickMacNee (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per MMN. Nergaal (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Marking [Ready] the support !vote's are stronger than the oppose !votes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Um, what? If you include the nominator it's 3–2 for support, one of which says "per MMN". This is hardly a consensus. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 15:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Ignoring Nergaal at 2v2 the supports are clearly better argued though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like something that can affect a broader group of people than the usual accidents and fighting among politicians that mostly gets posted on ITN. It's one of the headlines on ars technica, so it's 'in the news'. Plus the article is good on background info. Narayanese (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose eww, no. post whenever the IPv4 is going to rest in peace finally Diego Grez (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
There will probably be no specific point in time when IPv4 will no longer be used - it will be a rolling transition. As I argued in the introduction, the point where IPv4 became obsolete is NOW, because it marks the first time where somebody who needed an IPv4 address may no longer be able to get one. Thue | talk 10:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Article looks fine, and there's not all that much opposition, so posting - one thing though. I do feel this blurb may sound a lot more worrying than it is to a lot of non-techie readers - any chance of a link to IP6 or whatever it is they're using now?  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  15:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
IPv6 isn't being used yet really - that's the problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The real problem is that it isn't even true. Read the announcement: [47] APNIC have started using their last /8 allocation, and have have introduced new allocation policies to conserve that space as a result. It has not "run out of IPv4 addresses", indeed they remain available for allocation, provided such allocation is in line with its new policy. For all the hyperbole there isn't much of substance here and the blurb on our main page is materially and uncategorically incorrect. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
With the last /8 they are only going to give 1024 IP addresses to each ISP, that's hardly a huge number by any means - see the FAQ. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
1022 addresses actually, since the network and broadcast addresses are unusable. However, the size of the blocks is not at issue. The blurb says they have run out and therefore there can be no new allocations. That would be far more significant than the reality. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, if you read the article it's fairly clear that they're simply allocating more restrictively, having hit their final /8. (And if you want to be really technical, it is 1024 and not 1022 since they can subnet them however they want...say 1024 /32s. :) The statement that they are out of addresses is simply incorrect. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
But that last /8 is reserved for NAT64. So APNIC is out of IPv4 addresses for normal use. We could modify the blurb to say "runs out of IPv4 addresses for normal use" , but that would just be nitpicking. There will always be unused IPv4 addresses reserved for special purposes. Bottom line is that if you asked APNIC yesterday for an IPv4 for your server they would say "yes", today they would say "no". Thue | talk 10:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The last /8 is only restricted as a matter of policy - it is not reserved in the technical sense. New entrants can still get a vanilla IPv4 allocation regardless of use. It is only existing players that can only get space for IPv6 transition. That is their new policy - they are still available but on a much more restricted basis. That is what the blurb did not mention. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Pulled.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  17:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

News of the World phone hacking scandal

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

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

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

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

April 14

A new Syrian PM

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

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

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

April 13

[Posted] 2011 BRICS summit

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

Article needs updating

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

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

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

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

[Posted] Hosni Mubarak and his kids arrested

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

@Kevin McE, Please

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 12

Hosni Mubarak hospitalized

  • Former President of Egypt Hosni Mubarak is taken to hospital after suffering heart problems while being interrogated about alleged corruption and violence against protestors. (BBC) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Probably not. Without wishing him ill, mere hospitalization doesn't strike me as significant enough. If it required major surgery, was life-threatening, was going to change the aftermath of the revolution in some way, then maybe. As is, wait until it comes back up (or hopefully doesn't; he has other things to worry about). Ocaasi c 13:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Lewis Binford dies

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

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

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

Fukushima I nuclear accidents

INES level jumps from 5 to 7 ,as rated by Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, ... On a 0-7 scale. This claims NHK here:

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

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

(contribs) 00:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Yes I agree --Alcea setosa (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The only level 7 one was Chernobyl. IFF this is rerated as level 6 or 7 then it is worth reposting (there was only one level 6 until now anyways). Nergaal (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Support as both NHK and Reuters report level 7. Nergaal (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Posting soon. The update is a bit short but the accident rating section is overall well-updated, I think it is acceptable. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
We could including in the blurb ...comparable with Chernobyl disaster? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
No, the hook is already long enough. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support - this is a very big deal indeed. Those attempting to downplay the serious nature of Japan's terrible nuclear accident just got a black eye. Thanks for posting in a timely fashion. Jusdafax 07:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support - This is huge. Hope it works out for Japan :'( -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

April 11

Gagarin's flight: 50th anniversary

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

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

Oppose unless there are events worldwide. It is also included in On this day. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose ITN isn't for anniversaries. Grsz 11 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you guys really believe that shooting of 6 people in Netherlands, or winning a golf Masters is more worthy of ITN feature than the only 50th anniversary of the only first spaceflight in human history, then I congratulate you. Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The event is already going to be on the front page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
humans love numbers that are multiple of 10 or 5 or even better both. other than 50th anniversary being a number nothing new has happened here. so its not really for ITN. we have OTD dedicated for this stuff -- Ashish-g55 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. Even though this has a small mention on OTD (nothing mentioning the anniversary, might I add), it would be nice to explicitly highlight the moment... I mean, it is the first time a human has ventured into outer space and back. That's quite a big moment in our history. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
"nothing mentioning the anniversary": what do you think OTD stands for? Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
As in outlining that it is the 50th anniversary. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. What exactly's in the news about this? A simple anniversary is not what ITN is here for; as others have pointedout that's OTD's job. Would only support if there are international events that take place to mark the date as that would be what ends up "in the news". StrPby (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
To clarify I would support per Strpby. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: These events are meant for On this day. Otherwise we could have added things like Rama Navami is celebrated in India or 150th anniversary of American Civil War. Also, it is already covered in On This Day. So no need for this special coverage. And I request User:Nergaal to assume good faith and not campaign for this event. @Nergaal, he is the only one pictured in on this day! Be Happy! JustinSpringer (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's already on the frontpage. Lugnuts (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 2011 Minsk Metro explosion

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

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

If this is a terror attack, I'd support. Article needs major work though. WhiteKongMan (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Major event. ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
At least a piece of news should be written about that. (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The article is written in the present tense. That will need to be changed before anything else, but it will also need expansion f it's to be posted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The report is a breaking news everywhere, and I've heard it several times today on different languages. Another point that I would like to figure is the death toll which I don't think should be considered as crucial here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support but Wait Lets give it a few more hours and let details come out. Since we dont know what is going yet.... We risk saying something serious wrong The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support The first incident of this type on the Minsk metro and the first terrorism incident in Belarus to cause deaths. Nutmegger (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This is an extraordinary event for Belarus occured for the first time [48].--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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

its about time an admin statement like that be made.Lihaas (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I would say that once the references are tidied up the update is sufficient. The article looks in a better state than 2010 Jiangxi train derailment does today, and that was posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
For the record, the article looked like this when I made that comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that the article is now improved enough for the news to be posted.--Avala (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I added a few sections; it should be all set to go. Nutmegger (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • To whomever is posting this: the death toll has risen to 12 overnight; [49]; I'm about to update the article to reflect this. Nutmegger (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Updated + changed blurb to reflect updated toll. Nutmegger (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - The article looks pretty good to me. It seems clear that considerable work has been done on it. The notability is also there, in my view, as this event raises the stakes in this former component of the USSR. Jusdafax 07:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Posted. --Tone 09:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Laurent Gbagbo is arrested

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

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

  • Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is updated. Nightw 15:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - been a long time since he lost the election so this is significant. Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The update is currently too short. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support not often Presidents are arrested by special forces.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Support if an adequate update is provided. Nergaal (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Support, confirmed, broad-reaching implications. Abductive (reasoning) 16:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Do we have an update? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems that this is not French special forces but Ouattara forces who arrested Gbagbo [50] (the initial claim that it was French special forces was made by Gbagbo's supporters, later the UN, France and Ouattara's government confirmed it was Ouattara forces). We could try to link to 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis to provide context in the blurb. Cenarium (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've updated, but this might need a little more, also suggested a blurb. Cenarium (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable, of course. --bender235 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
concur with cenarium. it seems to be spculative at the momtent iwth only claims thereof. if it is then it should be added for sure. may need to wait a few hours instead of jum[ping to senstaionalist news.Lihaas (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The UN, France and the Ouattara government have indicated that it was Ouattara forces, denying the claim by the Gbagbo aide. Reliable sources seem to consider that the UN/France/Ouattara version is more likely. We may never know for sure, so we should post. If we want to be prudent, we can add "It has announced that...". Cenarium (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 18:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
seems fair, cenrium's "his arrest was announced" is more npov.Lihaas (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that's confusing now. Please agree on the npov blurb and then I'll put it back. --Tone 19:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
also its not quite "concluded" that is clear OR. (esop as it comes within hours of his "arrest"Lihaas (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I've reworded the blurb. Cenarium (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
BUT WHY was i t re added without any comment whatsoever? not sure who the admin wqas who readded it but he has given no explanation whatsoever despite Tone's responsibility.Lihaas (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 East Honshu earthquake

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

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

[Posted] French ban on face covering

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

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

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

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

Comment: Trending issue in France due to alleged 'racism' and violation of Freedom of Expression and Religion. JustinSpringer (talk)
  • Support: a significant and controversial step backwards for a democratic country. Nightw 15:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: While the above is obviously an unhelpful, POV comment, what is happening in France is certainly of interest to many elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Is that directed at me? I don't see how my statement held any POV — that a democratic country that professes freedom of religious expression as a fundamental civil right is now enacting laws that retract from said civil right is exactly why it is notable. Notability is what is being decided here and that was the intent of my comment. Would you mind retracting your accusation? Nightw 18:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Procedural comment In light of the previous comments I strongly suggest to avoid posting before it has been made clear that the article and the blurb have no WP:NPOV issues. The blurb seems POV, I've not seen any evidence of RS reporting severe protests on the first day of implementation. The 61 arrests were made regarding a protest on Saturday, not today. A neutral blurb like: "The French ban on face covering has entered into force." would be acceptable, but not the proposed one. Cenarium (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support:France is the first European country to have such a Ban.[52] AFAIK no "severe protests" have occurred anywhere. Blurb should instead reflect the fact that France is the first country to have such a ban which is notable since France has the biggest Muslim population in western Europe.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Support not sure if it is an important step towards individual freedom or on the contrary, but it is an important step nonetheless, with potential large implications. Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Never mind the blurb, the article (or at least the updated portion) is POV. If I'd read that and didn't know otherwise, I would think this was totally uncontroversial and every Muslim in France was looking forward to being liberated because they all have oppressive husbands and none of them wear a veil by choice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment: If anyone has a better blurb, do me a favour by updating it. JustinSpringer (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
done.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment: @HJMitchell: It is possible that every Muslim in France was looking to be liberated but the concern is that France is a democratic country and supports freedom of religion in their country, yet they pass such laws which hurt the very sentiments and laws of Islam. It is an important news trending in France and more so, even Britain has taken the back-foot in this controversial topic as they support diversity and freedom of religion. Also, the article is considered a high-importance article in WikiProject France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinSpringer (talkcontribs) 17:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
That's not NPOV. There are positives with women wearing a veil, such as avoiding getting judged on your appearance which is fetishised by Western culture. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment the article doesn't appear to be updated either, there have been no substantial changes since the 25 March. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
@Justin many Muslims have said that Burqa and other such face coverings are not required by Islam. Other Islamic apparel like Chador is exempt from this ban. Since many Muslim women don't have a say in what they wear this may possibly be construed by some as a step in the right direction--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Plus it had been in the news for a long time, and France does have a large Muslim population who will be negatively affected unlike Belgium I do believe. Passionless -Talk 18:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Caution with blurb: Belgium has had a ban, although I believe specific to the burqa, for some time: some towns for a few years now.[53] The French legislation is apparently different, and so in some ways a first, but not totally unique. Kevin McE (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The BBC clearly states France is the 1st country to enforce such a ban.[54]--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does (although their TV news broadcast earlier today acknowledged the Belgian precedent): they appear to be wrong. Kevin McE (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The Belgian law hasn't cleared the Senate. Al Jazeera and the other sources I looked at when updating the article said it was the first country to go with such a ban. The current lead seems fine to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
"Last year (2009), the city of Brussels fined only 29 women — down from 33 in 2008" Legislation clearly was in place in Belgium. France will become the second country in Europe, after Belgium, to apply the ban, starting April 11 (The Telegraph) Kevin McE (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Procedural comment Please maintain NPOV. WP's Main Page cannot be used to advocate a point of view, comments in support of posting with the intent of advocating a POV will be disregarded. Cenarium (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
support if w didnt cover the legislation being passed (i sense we may have)
more importanylu, mitchell and eraserhead need to keep political discussions off, that is for the ta;k pages of each user ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Guys if we need to post this, we have to post this fast, we have less than 5 and half hours before the date changes. But the thing that bewilders me is that why wasn't this topic added to the In the news: Future Events section of Wikipedia, JustinSpringer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC).
We can easily post this tomorrow ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I've started a section for this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Article now updated, and it should be NPOV. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • An issue of accuracy regarding the blurb has been raised, I've removed the [ready] mark until it's settled. Also it would be appreciable that some users independently check for NPOV. Cenarium (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've updated the blurb so it doesn't state France is the first country in Europe to implement the ban - looking at further sources its unclear as to whether Belgium has implemented their ban. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
      • It appears that the Belgium government failed before the law could be enacted, they are starting over on it. [55] [[56]] RxS (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Al Jazeera, BBC, Sky News all agree with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I think a couple people got that wrong and it made it into print somehow. I'd support changing the blurb back...RxS (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Given the number of sources I've changed it back. I'd say this edit was a sign that an independent person thought the lead was reasonable now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Please explain how women in Belgium have been fined in the absence of legislation. If Reliable Sources are inconsistent, we should be conservative in our claims. Not mentioning whether France is first can't be wrong: multiple reliable sources (including BBC TV News) suggest that it is wrong to say that they were. Kevin McE (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't a nation-wide law. It was the city of Brussels taking those actions. RxS (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Your source for this being...? Kevin McE (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Support posting soon. Big controversy and controversial issue of interest to the world and Europe. Essentially, anywhere with Muslim populations.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Blurb posted is erroneous, as I have pointed out several times already in this thread. France might be (the sources are not consistent on this) the first country to have a nation-wide ban: it is not the first country to have a ban. Question: Was there legislation enforced in Belgium on this issue prior to this week. Answer: Yes. Kevin McE (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I've removed that part from the blurb. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment:Please post soon, it has been 12 hours since NortyNort said he was posting it. It is a major and international event. Request admins to post this blurb. 10 Users have already supported the motion! JustinSpringer (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
NortyNort isn't an admin. I think he meant that he supported posting it soon. Since we've had several new items on ITN in fairly quick succession, I'm inclined to leave this for a few hours and post it this afternoon (UTC) so we don't end up with lots of stale items and no new postings. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I saw your comment after posting it. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
It's clear that France is the first nation to enact this kind of law. The confusion is coming from the fact that Belgium law allows local authorities to make rules of this nature, for example [57]. But there are plenty of sources that point that out. In addition, sourcing the fact that France is the first nation to enact the law is simply done, there are hundreds of sources saying that. RxS (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
So it's clear that the French are the first to ban it nationwide, but I think that's too much qualification for ITN. Readers can click through and read the article for that kind of detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
France being the first nation to take this action is what makes it ITN material. It's a pretty simple concept, and one that major news sources think is appropriate to make for their readers. Are our readers simpler? RxS (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

April 10

[Posted] Icelandic loan guarantees referendum, 2011

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

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

Support. $4 billion is a big deal, especially for Iceland, and the follow-up to the banking crisis is an interesting context. Thue | talk 10:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
While referenda are not ITNR a case can be made for this. but id say wait till final results. it looks liek a rejection but nothing is confirmed jus tyet.Lihaas (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Support - big deal. itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Support Enough many votes have been counted that the result is sure, so no need to wait any longer. Narayanese (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
no, thats not precedence we work with. it has to be certified wholly.Lihaas (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
There were quite a few elections (this is not really an election) where the whole results were in but were certified by the authorities and was posted. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Support - Europe's finances are in a mess, and this is an interesting byproduct. The article seems OK. Jusdafax 08:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This item is good to go. Can I get some help with the blurb? Icelanders reject another proposal to repay guarantees in a referendum? --Tone 09:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
per HTD "whole results were in but were certified by the authorities " the whole results are NOT in thus it cannot be wholly certified. the page needs the update, so it can be ready to go.Lihaas (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Clarification on my comment as Lihaas didn't understand it: In some cases, the authorities declare a winner (in this case announce the result), despite not all ballots being counted. For example, the lead is too wide and the remaining ballots would not overturn the result. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Support UK and Holland are planning on suing Iceland already. Nergaal (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Procedural comment Please suggest blurb. Cenarium (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've added a blurb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I think we should mention that it was the second vote on the issue, but I can't decide whether it is better to write "For the second time, voters in Iceland..." or "reject the plan for the second time" --Tone 18:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE article is all set with final results announced. Should be posted..
btw, per Tone, those details are in the article alreadyLihaas (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've updated the article further and removed the tag. Marking [Ready] as it should be ready to post. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted. Cenarium (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] The Masters

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

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

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