Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2011

< Wikipedia:In the news‎ | Candidates

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


February 28


2014 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games mascots

Snow leopard, polar bear and doe hare are chosen mascots for the 2014 Winter Olympics, while "Fire Boy" and "Snow Girl" are chosen for the Paralympics. GreyHood Talk 18:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Pretty trivial. MickMacNee (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Why not? Sounds interesting and ITN worthy. It has high media coverage, and is significant across the whole world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose This is essentially marketing, covered in WP:NOT. The choice of mascots for 2012, 2010 and 2008 were not newsworthy enough. Precedent works against this. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 19:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I would note that if the article survives, recommend it for DYK. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 19:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Since we post news about new car models and other commercial issues, I don't think this should be anyhow regarded as marketing. And if the similar news failed in three occasions before, it doesn't make it automatically insufficient for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that precedents are important, but not decisive for the fate of all other similar proposals. But were there any mascot-related nominations at all previously? GreyHood Talk 20:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. So what? The mascots are pretty much irrelevant to the competition itself, let alone the wider world. Of course the article should exist, but this isn't ITN material. Modest Genius talk 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Trivia in the extreme: DYK material. Kevin McE (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. For the Olympics, we post the announcement of the host, the opening, and the closing. That's enough, barring highly unusual circumstances.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

83rd Academy Awards

Might also be worth mentioning Inception which was also awarded four Oscars, tying TKS for the most wins. – SMasters (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Support but inception only won technical awards. Nergaal (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - I agree that 'Inception' failed to win in the big categories, whereas TKS won for picture, actor, director and screenplay. That's a pretty major difference. I think the quality is of greater notability than the quantity, so lets keep it simple, and go with TKS as the mention. Jusdafax 05:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 05:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Rare Disease Day

  • Can you put a headline to remind that today is Rare Disease Day 2011?Mpaa (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Editor has been advised to aim for OTD in future years. Kevin McE (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Death of Frank Buckles (last remaining American WWI veteran)

Fairly important. There are only two WWI veterans left, both British. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 17:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. --Golbez (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Marcus Qwertyus 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Driveby !votes, with !reason, carry !weight. Kevin McE (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
fine: Support because it will only ever happen two more times, ever, and never again for an American. If you think he's not notable even on his own merits, which are numerous, then work to get his article deleted. His death is more notable than most deaths we have here, though more predictable. --Golbez (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: his notability is only in occupying the overlap of 2 categories, not by membership of either. Only unique if viewed through the further filter of nationality. Kevin McE (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, as far as I can remember we did not include the death of the last Canadian veteran a few years ago, so there is absolutely no reason to post a blurb about Buckles' death. Lets just post a blurb for the final veteran to pass away. --PlasmaTwa2 18:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Should post the final only imho. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
In my view, the final one should really be the final trench combat veteran, and that was Harry Patch. None of these other last surviving veterans saw combat in any meaningful sense. Sure, they are a living memory of that time, but it got a bit silly when the news media trumpted their discovery of Florence Green, who was identified as a Great War veteran in January 2010. Still, I suppose there will be more coverage like that as the centennial approaches. Carcharoth (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. "On February 27, 2011, 26 days after his 110th birthday, Buckles died of natural causes." That's the extent of our information regarding his death. The section is not a news ticker; its purpose is to link to articles written or substantially updated (beyond tense changes and the like) to reflect current/recent events. When the available information could reasonably fit within the blurb itself, it simply isn't sufficient. —David Levy 19:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
In the time since I wrote the above comments, the article has been significantly expanded with information pertaining to the death's societal impact, so the update criterion has been satisfied. Based on the nature of the event itself (and considering others' comments), I'm switching to neutral. —David Levy 20:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose but support the last two because one will be the last female/male survivor, and the last one will be... the last. Nergaal (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Question Did we post the death of Harry Patch? 87.115.50.126 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so, though we did post Henry Allingham, but he was also the oldest man in the world at the time. Modest Genius talk 20:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Except for his nationality, he's not the oldest anything in particular. The last combat veteran, last non-combat participant, last woman etc. are notable enough for ITN. Last American is not, sorry. Modest Genius talk 20:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. I would support the death of the last WWI veteran when that happens, but not the last veteran of a particular country. Reach Out to the Truth 00:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose ...especially a country that arrived late at the war anyway. ;-) No. Unless I can be shown that we included the deaths of the last veterans from any other country, this one definitely doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is a fair reasoning. By that logic, if we happened to miss the last veteran to die from some country 5 years ago, we can't list any of them. This is somewhat a case of otherstuffdoesntexist. Notability for ITN does not require similar items to have been posted. --Golbez (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Support because the timer is at 35 hours, and there isn't anything else suitable to post. The Brazil dam is too late I think at this point :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, we can post the protests in Oman that have not yet reached the ITN while the article is there. If the red timer is the issue. --Tone 20:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion - why not wait until the funeral? That will get more coverage and more updates, and work could continue on the article in the meantime. Also: "on the day of interment the United States flag will be flown at half mast on all government buildings, embassies and at the White House." This is by Presidential order, apparently, which sounds impressive to me. Also, this is actually more about the legacy and history of World War I, and the passing of an era, than about the man himself. Carcharoth (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - Story is of worldwide notability, in my view. The entry of the United States into WW1 was a turning point. Agree with Carcharoth that the death of this man marks a much bigger point - the end of an era. (I prefer to post now but the funeral is acceptable. However the funeral will not be as newsworthy.) Jusdafax 05:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - he was no one special, I might support the last WW1 vetern in the world, but even than I would not really be for it. With hundreds of nations and hundred of wars over the last century (even if WW1 was more notable than average, and US-centralism is appropriate), it is a relatively common event that the last soldier of nationality X of war Y dies. Passionless -Talk 05:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
WWI more notable than average? <me bites my tongue>! Carcharoth (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Wait which war was WW1 again? That the one the movie 300 was based on right? :) Passionless -Talk 05:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Go tell the Spartans, thou who passest by... Carcharoth (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we can pretty safely say that World War 1 is the second most notable war ever, after World War 2. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
*cough!* Napoleonic Wars...--WaltCip (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Further comment - could those opposing please read this?

"As a mark of respect for the memory of Army Corporal Frank W. Buckles, the last surviving American veteran of World War I, and in remembrance of the generation of American veterans of World War I, I hereby order, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, that, on the day of his interment, the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset on such day."

The story here is not the death of a single man, but the honoring of an entire generation that fought and died in a terrible conflict that is now nearly a century ago, but the ramifications of which are still with us today. This is actually a fairly key moment in the process of remembrance that has been going on for over 90 years now. Carcharoth (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
No offense to Buckles, but I think the flag is at half mass more than full these days, I work at a government lab where the flag is almost always at half mass, though maybe it's more serious in the US. Passionless -Talk 05:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The "authority invested in" the unnamed individual above (/irony) does not extend to wikipedia. The flying of flags at half mast is not, per se, newsworthy, nor is it, as Passionless points out, necessarily unusual. It is not the purpose of ITN to honour individuals, or generations, yet alone generations as represented in one specific nation. Kevin McE (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Support The last remaining veteran from the largest participant in a war that probably had the biggest and longest lasting effect on the modern world. Really good article as well. RxS (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment Ain't that cute, the two remaining living vets are both British. ;) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Your point being? 87.115.50.126 (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Wait for the last. And for those saying that WWI and WWII are the most notable wars, please expand your views a little further than a century, because there have been many other influential wars in the past ;) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The point is that WWI has had more effect on the shape of the (the whole) modern world than any other war. The point wasn't that there haven't been other notable wars in history. RxS (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
See my comments above about those intending to "wait for the last". As I said there, the last meaningful combat veteran was Harry Patch, so that "last" has already been and gone. The few remaining make the news for other reasons, really. The reason Buckles made the news is because he lived long enough, attained a high profile, and campaigned for a US National Memorial for WWI (see his article if you want the details). There would be far less fanfare if he hadn't travelled to Washington aged 108 to give evidence before Congress on the matter of a National Memorial. The difference between his passing and those of others, is that there are three things mentioned in news reports so far: (1) Presidential declaration that flags will fly at half-mast on the day of his burial (it needed a Presidential declaration because he was not a combat veteran); (2) Burial at Arlington National Cemetery; and (3) Resolution may be passed by the Senate to allow the public to pay their respects at his coffin in the rotunda of the US Capitol ([1]). See also this. Obviously, though, there is a need to wait for some of these things to happen. If all this comes to pass, I intend to update the article and related articles, and submit a new ITN proposal, but focusing much more on the commemoration rather than on the man himself (though the article linked will still be the article about him). I think I can do this because my first comment here was suggesting to wait until the funeral, and that is when I would have submitted an ITN proposal anyway (this one was arguably a bit too early). When I (or someone else) do that, I hope those who opposed here will be able to put this discussion to one side and evaluate any new proposal afresh on its own merits. Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Very well thought out, thanks. RxS (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Well thought out, maybe, but all very American, not global. And for those highlighting that the USA was the largest participant in the war, most of its allies respected its efforts less because it was late, to both the World Wars. Just pointing out that there are often multiple perspectives on these things. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It would be best not to get into that sort of discussion here (I'm from the UK, myself). Carcharoth (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I quite agree. I'm simply highlighting that saying an American is more important because America is bigger is a very silly starting point. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, it can make equally little sense to deem an event more noteworthy or important because it's "international" (i.e. it happens to pertain to more than one country, irrespective of the populations thereof). That's why the ITN criteria no longer include an "international" requirement (let alone a "global" one). —David Levy 02:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Not only that but no one is making the point that America is bigger and thus more important. The point is that it played an important enough role in WWI for this item to be included in ITN. Big difference. RxS (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
You claim that America was the "largest participant in a war" would need some defending: according to the infobox at WWI, they were 7th biggest participant by military personnel, or 9th by military deaths. Kevin McE (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't claim that America had the largest number of military personnel or military deaths, only that it was the largest (most populous if I need to be clearer) participant, which it clearly was. You haven't spoken to any of my points, the main one being (again) that the US played an important enough role in WWI for this item to be included in ITN. Not interested in nit picking over semantics and POV. RxS (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Neither true (British Empire, bigger by a large multiple, was involved as a single entity) nor relevant (statistic that is quite incidental to the way the war was conducted). Kevin McE (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Your counting it as the British Empire? Lol....okie dokie, as I said, not interested in nit picking semantics and POV pushing. RxS (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

February 27


Death of Necmettin Erbakan

  • Turkey's first Islamist Prime Minister, pressured to resign, later banned for "violating the constitution", now dead. BBC. "Credited with laying the foundations for political Islam in modern Turkey". Al Jazeera "The mentor of political Islam in secular Turkey and its first Islamic prime minister [...] a tumultuous four-decade career, marred by feuds with the army". DAWN euronews "The long-serving leader of Turkey's conservative Islamic movement". The Wall Street Journal --candlewicke 03:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Support I liked to propose this. The death of the first Islamist Prime Minister of Turkey is somehow noteworthy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Although he was the first Islamist prime minister in Turkey, I'm not sure the sum of his career achieves notability. He was Prime Minister for barely a year. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 17:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

83rd Academy Awards

  • I maybe a little early, but I assume we're posting the winner of the Best Picture award. This is ITN/R. - JuneGloom Talk 02:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The King's Speech wins four Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Grsz 11 04:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
That's good. Once the lead is updated we can post. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Tunisian Revolution 2.0.

One sentecte of update at the moment... More is needed first. --Tone 15:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Updated more. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, if this goes up, perhaps we should remove the blurb on the Friday protests (which I just put up). Otherwise, four of the six ITN items would be related to the events in North Africa. I wasn't too thrilled about the Friday protest blurb anyway, since it links to a general article and the news item -- "protests happen on Friday" -- isn't particularly major in comparison. -- tariqabjotu 17:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
No as this is not really that notable. Nergaal (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. The resignation of a prime minister is usually considered for ITN. Considering how much is happening in North Africa at this time four doesn't seem too much. There are often three or four ITNs from similar parts of the world, e.g. here are three European ITNs on the Main Page at the same time and here are four American ITNs at the same time. --candlewicke 00:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, and btw, Beji Caid el Sebsi is announced to be the new PM. I just wonder how long this one will last. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Support probably ITNR, but it's of enough importance anyway that posting is a good idea.--Chaser (away) - talk 01:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Support and I like the suggested blurb. Jusdafax 08:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Chaser and Candlewicke - I don't think having lots of stuff about Africa is relevant - overall I'm sure it will balance out. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Btw, according to Candlewicke's statistics, Africa has been the most neglected continent on ITN. I don't see any harm in the current focus on Africa-related topics, and I don't think it is seriously unbalanced - rather quite contrary. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, c'mon; there is clearly a difference. I do not appreciate the "if this were in the U.S. or Europe, no one would care" attitude. Four blurbs from a particular area is fine, but that was not my issue: it was four blurbs about a set of related events. It is rare we have two, let alone three or four events, simultaneously on ITN that are connected by a summary article (2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, in this case). None of the three European events here have any relation to each other and none of the four American events here have any connection (and, to be honest, how is that four American events?). Four blurbs about a set of related events, regardless of where it is, is excessive. Considering that, I do not think it was at all unreasonable to suggest removing the blurb linked to the summary article in favor of three more tangible events. -- tariqabjotu 15:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Irish elections

Fine Gael win a plurality in the Irish general election.Lihaas (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support but the text needs to mention the historic routing of Fianna Fáil (<20 seats out of 166) who been the ruling party of the country for most of its history. That is the real story of the election. A democratic revolution at the ballot box as Enda Kenny (Fine Gael leader) termed it. zoney talk 15:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks good, updates are there. Once we agree on the wording this is a clear one. --Tone 15:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Support: major event in the parliamentary history of Ireland. Crnorizec (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes to any news outside Africa. Nergaal (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, until there is a better suggestion of a blurb, a generic one will do. Posting. --Tone 21:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - it is historic indeed. Jusdafax 22:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per Jusdafax. Don't know what is wrong with Africa. --candlewicke 00:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Grammatically, it should be wins. – SMasters (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This grammar error has now been on the Main Page for 17 hours: it is 6 hours since it has been pointed out. Lest anyone claim that ENGVAR suggests otherwise, see the quotes from the Irish press, showing third person singular vowels referring to this political party, at WP:ERRORS Kevin McE (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Eventually corrected, at 16:35 UTC Kevin McE (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Finally! – SMasters (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Libya sanctions

The U.N. Security Council refers Libya to the International Criminal Court and imposes sanctions amid crackdowns on anti-government protesters. (BBC)

  • Nom. --bender235 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. UN Sanctions are clearly notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Notability of this international story is major. Jusdafax 04:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - The UN is pulling out all the stops. I've tweaked the blurb some and added the referral to the International Criminal Court. This is only the second time the UNSC has referred a case to the ICC (the first being Darfur). That's big news.--Chaser (away) - talk 05:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Good tweak, thanks. Jusdafax 06:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - 1st ever unanimous vote of all 15 members of the UN Security Council on a resolution. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a major headline being broadcasted globally at the moment - obviously it needs to be on the In the News board. But Mjroots, a citation or some research needs to be done to figure out if that resolution is actually the first unanimous one. Feng277394 (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Stated on Sky News between 05:30 and 06:00 this morning. Hopefully reporting in print will pick up on this so that it can be verified. Mjroots (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
      • BBC article mentioned it as soon as it was published. "Saturday night's vote was only the second time the Security Council has referred a country to the ICC, and the first time such a vote has been unanimous." StrPby (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Confirmed. IMHO, unanimity is not worthy of mention in the blurb. The UNSC has taken thousands of votes, but only two times has it referred a state to the ICC, which is a supranational court with the power (with a Security Council referral) to prosecute national leaders of states that are not a party to the UN or the treaty creating the ICC. It can charge them with war crimes and imprison them for life. Unanimity is not surprising for such a serious and unusual investigation.--Chaser (away) - talk 12:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

February 26


GLONASS-K

Support Very important report, which marks a start of a new-generation satellites. Such news should always be documented in the ITN template.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, the updates are there. --Tone 16:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Support--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per Kiril and Tone. GreyHood Talk 17:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Brazil Dam

--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Support but the update is a bit short at the moment. --Tone 11:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment I'll surely support this due to the environmental requirements and the possible effect on the ecological issues, but would rather wait to see the aftermath of the verdict.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: This is a long-term project planned decades ago and will cost billions. There will surely be an appeal to this decision. Also, what's to say that when it does meet the environmental requirements, that construction will not be allowed to continue? – SMasters (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Support a story about the developing world and the environment - two things that the "Western media" (for want of a better term) implies don't go together particularly well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Support the whole story. The verdict is only a part which implies further awareness about it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. A rare kind of story with such major projects. GreyHood Talk 17:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. Important environmental and social protest story. ~AH1(TCU) 21:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment it does need more of an update. I've had a go, but it probably isn't enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. A rarely covered topic. "World's third-largest hydroelectric plant" and "biggest public hearing ever conducted in Brazil's history" sound important. --candlewicke 02:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Expanded. --candlewicke 02:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Suggest
Support - per above supports. Jusdafax 07:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The Environmental effects section is an essay that only uses sources for details, not for its conclusions. I'd rather Wikipedia doesn't feature a problem article like this on the main page, even though the news should be interesting for many. Narayanese (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment This dam has been under controversy for years now and the judge blocking its construction is yet another chapter in the story. If this were to be featured in ITN, I would tweak the sentence a bit to indicate it is an ongoing controversy or the size of the public hearing. The way this project has been steamrolling opposition would not leave me surprised if the judge is yet another speed-bump. The public hearing was quite large though and with the new President, it makes the ruling more significant. The article has some issues with citations and in the past, balance. It is so controversial that the weight of information in the article leans towards its effects and the controversy. It has been difficult getting some of the specifications and data normally found in most dam articles. The editors on the article have done a good job thus far.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Greek protest

some diversity in protests as firebombings et al. go on in Greece.Lihaas (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Seems like the protests that began last spring are anew in the country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
But from the updated article, last section, it's unclear what the relationship is between the protests and the German announcement. Not enough information yet. Tony (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
better?Lihaas (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Much. Tony (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

February 25


Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari

Yesterday, a college student was arrested in a plot blot in the United States. It has gotten quite a bit of attention.[2] Truthsort (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, attempted terrorist attacks are no especially uncommon in the US, and it doesn't look like he ever came very close to actually blowing anything up. C628 (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose Is there an actual article on this? "Student doesn't blow anything up" is not exactly ITN stuff, nevermind the potential BLP issues likely in any article. Pedro :  Chat  23:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, ITN is not WP:RA. --Golbez (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Iraqi protests

  • Anti-government protest is held in Iraq, with thousands of people demonstrating on the streets.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Very unusual. The BBC report states in the second header that it's an anti-government protest (BBC).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems they can't make up their minds, since two lines below that they say "several hundred people gathered in Baghdad's own Tahrir Square, calling for reform, but not regime change." That's not exactly anti-government... So if we are to post this, we've got to watch the wording imo. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 15:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
According to [3], there are major protests today in Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and Bahrain. So I propose an omnibus item:

Big protests are held in Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and Bahrain. Thue | talk 15:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, and would refresh the report about the protests on the top in the template.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I oppose any blurb which would merge Libya back into the entire fold. Libya is a separate ongoing event which is degenerating into far more than just protests. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 15:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Then, we could remove Libya and post this on the top and update the blurb already posted separately about the situation in Libya. However, the update should be proposed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Then how about
Big protests are held in Iraq, Yemen, and Bahrain.
and at the same time updating and topping Libya with the text from my suggestion below:
The Libyan protests turn into an armed uprising, with parts of the country no longer controlled by the government. Several high-profile Libyan officials and soldiers have defected.
But I still think that we should mention Libya in boths blurbs, since there is also a protest in Libya today. Thue | talk 18:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
how big is big? opens a pov issue. propose:
After Friday prayers, protests are held in Iraq, Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain amid ongoing turmoil in the region.;;
and shorten Libya uodate:
Protests in Libya escalate as officials and soldiers defect.Lihaas (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I like your general protest version better than mine. Your Libya version has some nice qualities, but I think need to include the fact that we are talking about a full-scale uprising now. How about
Protests in Libya escalate into an armed uprising, as officials and soldiers defect.
In any case, IMO we should post something soon. The middle east is brimming with huge news, and we are not posting anything because we are spending days tweaking commas :). Thue | talk 09:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I like Lihaas's version, too (minus the "Libya" link, which is in the other two targets, and an unnecessary dilution). Should the "defect" pipe be bolded to show updates? Yes, soon. Tony (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, bolding the "defect" link would be a good idea, IMO. Thue | talk 11:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure? The "defect" article seems a little sub-par quality-wise, even for a list. I suggest keeping the bold on the main article or on one of its sections; the latter of which would include a link to the main list of resignations for a further read, but the point is that good prose thumps a good list any day in my opinion. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The "defections" article has important news. So it is a balance between posting important news in a timely fashion (or at all), and ensuring that the linked articles are of high quality. I would personally prioritize posting less perfect articles sooner, and perhaps rely more (within reason) on the readers to improve then. Like the old Wikipedia vs Nupedia argument. But reasonable people can disagree on this, I guess. Thue | talk 21:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

February 24


Assange loses extradition ruling

I don't like the guy and don't think we should be giving him more coverage than necessary but this is in the news and it's a big development. BBC story. Support on my end pending blurb, I expect the article's updated already given the high profile of the case. StrPby (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait until he gets extradited. He has seven days to appeal yet. [4] --BorgQueen (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
This appears very newsworthy now. He has already said he'll appeal, and this next phase is a significant step. StrPby, the fact that you "don't like the guy" is quite irrelevant. I'm not sure why you're voicing your personal opinions here. Tony (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Wait, becomes real news only when he gets shipped out IMO. Appeals will be made. --Golbez (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Wait rather longer than that: extradition is really only the making possible of arrest. Then a court case has to get underway, then a verdict needs to be returned. That is the stage at which we usually consider reporting criminal cases: I see no reason why this one should be different. Kevin McE (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Wait for the result of the appeals. Even then, I'm not sure consensus will favour posting the actual extradition, or waiting for the result of the trial. Modest Genius talk 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Modest Genius and Kevin McE for the reasons they've stated. Either way, wait.--Chaser (away) - talk 03:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Wait - this doesn't mean a whole lot. If/when he's extradited, that would be newsworthy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

State of emergency lifted in Algeria

In response to demands by protesters, the state of emergency in Algeria is lifted after 19 years.

Article need to be updated first [5]. Thue | talk 23:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Article is updated now. This is big news, with one of the main demands of the protesters being meet. Raising the state of emergency is a huge ceding of power to the people by the Algerian government. Thue | talk 13:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There's not a single support for this yet. We don't post things just because you (or anyone else) wants it done, so until a consensus is reached we shouldn't be posting just because "this is big news". Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 14:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
As long as there has not been a single oppose either, and it has been listed as long as this one has, my view is that any admin has the right to post this if he personally thinks it is worthwhile. Thue | talk 15:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Which isn't how we work and I'd call out any admin that did so. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 15:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Support really important event in the region The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Administrator note: Happy to post as there has been no opposition. I'd prefer to see a more substantial update though. I only see a couple of sentences about this particular event. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If that's the way we're playing, then procedural oppose until further discussion is had. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 17:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
How's this for an update? C628 (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. Still no real opposition, posting soon. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you kidding me?! This is ridiculous. Just because you're an admin doesn't mean you get to treat regular editors like crap. There's been no discussion on this at all and I don't see this being in the news right now at all. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 08:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
If you had any actual concerns about this you should have posted some actual reasoning instead of ranting. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Exactly what I mean about treating regular editors like crap. Unbelievable. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 08:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the fact that you're not an admin. The fact of the matter is you provided no reason to oppose the addition of this item to ITN; I even get the impression that you would have supported it on a normal day. The proposal has been up for thirty hours with no opposes and a number of tacit approvals. We can't be dragging our heels on ITN at the same time people are complaining about the section's lack of timeliness. We have a decent update, and there's little controversy that this is a major story to some degree. Insisting we get a certain number of people to parrot the same is a waste of everyone's time. -- tariqabjotu 08:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

'Support significant development. States of emergency changes would be plausible for ITNR. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support -- Agree with Eraserhead.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and agree with Eraserhead. --candlewicke 02:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with Strange Passerby, this should not have been posted with only a single support !vote. As it happens there's plenty of support, and I would have added my own, but the story should have waited a few hours for consensus to be reached. ITN isn't a race. Modest Genius talk 20:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:SILENCE silence is a consensus - the nomination was on the page for a while. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
18 hours, during the night and working day for those editors in Europe and North America (which I take to be the majority who contribute on this page)? We don't get huge numbers of comments here at the best of times. Modest Genius talk 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

STS-133

With a 90% go from NASA, this looks likely to happen. Suggest blurb: STS-133, the final flight of Space Shuttle Discovery, launches from Kennedy Space Center. StrPby (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. This is pretty monumental because of it's status as the last flight. Ks0stm (TCG) 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support if and when it goes ahead, as the end of an era for spaceflight. wackywace 17:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support an even more expanded blurb. Discovery is the most flown shuttle in history {{Shuttle stats}} and the longest in service. Chances are its records won't be surpassed anytime soon. Add al least something like "record 39th and final flight". Nergaal (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree on that one...I had forgotten about the records it holds until I read the newspaper just a bit ago. A blurb mentioning them would be perfect here. Ks0stm (TCG) 18:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
No need to support, this is on WP:ITNR. What it does need is an article update, once the launch has actually happened. But note this is the final flight of Discovery, not the final flight of the Space Shuttle (STS-134 and probably STS-135 are to come). Modest Genius talk 19:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the fact that it has made so many flights (> annual event) would suggest that the simple fact of one more mission is not remarkable. Its sister ships have further flights scheduled, so it is not the last of its kind. So we are simply left with the last expedition of one example of a class of vehicle. Do we really want every satellite launch at ITNR: there have been 6,338 of them? Kevin McE (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
There have only been 5 such vehicles (6 if you include Buran) in human history. I think it's pretty much a no-brainer to post the last flight of each of them. Modest Genius talk 20:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
support when there are only 3 such vehicles out there and only 2 flights left i think we can make an exception -- Ashish-g55 20:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The logical conclusion from that is tthat we will have three near identical announcements in just over 4 months. That seems inappropriate to me. Kevin McE (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
So why not start with removing all the identical entries like "Person X becomes president of country Y". These are nearly identical announcements every a couple fo weeks. Nergaal (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There have been some discussions on being more restrictive on space launches at ITN, though I don't recall where. However, I think there has been a pretty strong consensus to post all the final shuttle launches. 3 in four months (not considering delays) is a lot, but it's not like there'll be more than one on the template at one time.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Note: Its Launching on a live broadcast right now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Launch has happened. Article has had tense updates only at this point, we're probably waiting for sources for anything more. Press conference is scheduled for 40 mins time. Modest Genius talk 22:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Support It's the last flight, so it has historical significance. News outlets are heading the story as "Discovery's last flight". – SMasters (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Support—But "is launched from" is the right grammar. Launch is transitive. Tony (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this posted yet? Nergaal (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I was going to suggest only the last flight is put on ITN, but I can see the argument for three postings, one for each last flight. One other question I had was why post about the launch? Why not post about the return and landing? That will likely get as much press coverage as well (unless journalists focus more on launches than returns). But please don't cover both the launch and return. Carcharoth (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Please post. Lots of history made in that craft. Marcus Qwertyus 08:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Posting. Updates seem sufficient. --Tone 09:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
That's REALLY annoying: I bothered to correct the bad grammar, yet you post it up regardless. So I've looked it up in my online dictionary, which confirms what I said. Transitive. Can you tell me what the shuttle is launching then? Another shuttle?
launch 1 |lôn ch; län ch |
verb [ trans. ]
1 set (a boat) in motion by pushing it or allowing it to roll into the water : the town's lifeboat was launched to rescue the fishermen.
• set (a newly built ship or boat) afloat for the first time, typically as part of an official ceremony : King Gustav II Adolph of Sweden launched a huge new warship.
• send (a missile, satellite, or spacecraft) on its course or into orbit : they launched two Scud missiles.
• [ trans. ] hurl (something) forcefully : she launched a tortoiseshell comb.
• [with adverbial of direction ] ( launch oneself) (of a person) make a sudden energetic movement : I launched myself out of bed.
• utter (criticism or a threat) vehemently : scores of customers launched a volley of complaints.
2 start or set in motion (an activity or enterprise) : she was launching a campaign against ugly architecture.
• introduce (a new product or publication) to the public for the first time : the company has launched a software package specifically for the legal sector.
It's embarrassing on the main page. Not happy. Tony (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Fixed now. --Tone 11:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the red because it's an unnecessary addition that only serves to insult people here on ITN. You really need to calm down, Tony, because the drama you're causing over grammatical errors and linking is making this process slightly irritating, as noted below. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm the one who was insulted. I don't mind your removal of the red. I will continue to make comments about the language and formatting of ITN blurbs. So criticisms are framed as "drama", are they? And they're "irritating"? Tony (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Calm down: in the midst of several messages in the thread, your almost correct comment (it is in fact a point of semantics, not of grammar) was accidentally overlooked. No slight was intended, and your response of feeling insulted will seem, to most readers, disproportionate, as was your response. Please do continue to assist the project in maintaining a high standard of language on the Main Page, but be aware that formatting your messages so as to make them seem more important and urgent than those of other contributors will be considered irritating and over dramatic by many. Finally, be aware that after something has been posted, it is more appropriate (but not necessarily more effective) to raise the issue of phrasing and formatting at WP:ERRORS. Kevin McE (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a matter of grammar, not "semantics". Can you justify your assertion, please? I agree that the red was an over-reaction. Tony (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd say anytime human beings are launched into Earth orbit is far more notable then much of the stuff on ITN. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 18:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

February 23


Godhra train burning verdict

pretty big story here. ie- the lead up to major communal riots were said to be a conspiracy and was not an accident. Which amounts to it being a terrorist attack despite controversy, which was an important part of the provinicial elections that year.(Lihaas (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).
  • Neutral for now. Seems to be a pretty big story. The article needs a better update though.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Query—Which article would be the bolded (updated) item? Tony (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support important decision and India is under-posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Support This event caused major riots and India despite being a in the top 3 major english speaking nations by population severely under posted. BUT we need some one who under stands the nuances of the Hindu -Muslim relations to check through it. It has big honking NPOV tag that needs to be removed before a posting The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support very important decision about an incident that led to some of the worst riots in Indian history.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support—Good story. I love the way readers are funnelled to click on the bolded link rather than being distracted by blue all over the place. Tony (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment there is now a whole paragraph on this and there is no longer an NPOV tag on the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Lockerby bombing

The defected Libyan Justice Secretary, Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil, claims that Muammar al-Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing.

Thue | talk 18:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

While I don't want to sound like a Gaddafi supporter, I think we would need more substantial evidence than the word of an exiting figure. Grsz 11 19:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess this is not much more than one word against another. Thue | talk 19:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose possibly true but with the timing... It could be him trying to distance himself from Gaddafi. Could be a plea bargain like thing with an exchange of information for reduced charges in which he has incentive to pin him for anything and everything he can think of. Could be any number of things... Its probably true but its hard to assume good faith when Gaddafi is now viewed as the most evil thing on earth The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment Never heard of any "Lockerby" bombing. In the unlikely event that it gets posted, do be sure to spell the placename properly. 87.114.75.101 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that as well. I've corrected the spelling above. Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per The Resident Anthropologist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - one person said something in the context of possible overthrow of his boss. It doesn't add anything substantial to our understanding of the Lockerbie bombing. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose—Diffuse linking, breach of the style guides in two respects. Three links are quite enough: the others I've removed here are chain-links, prominent at the start of the articles that are now targets: "The recently defected Libyan Justice Secretary, Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil, claims that Muammar al-Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing.

Why would a visitor go to Libya when the news is entirely contained in "Al Jeleil", "Gaddafi", and "Lockerbie bombing"? Why would anyone want to go first to the artilce on Libyan Justice Secretary", and then to "Al Jeleil", who is, you guessed it, Libyan Justice Secretary? This "LINK EVERYTHING YOU CAN" practice is greatly weakening the function of ITN for visitors (remember, visitors, not you). Tony (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the linking, but can you tone it down a bit? Just post alternative versions and explain why less linking is good, and leave it at that. Things will change slowly, if you use good examples, but please don't try and force it. Carcharoth (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. Tony (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Libya update

I suggest the Libya item be updated to

The Libyan protests turn into an armed uprising, with parts of the country no longer controlled by the government. Several high-profile Libyan officials and soldiers have defected.

Thue | talk 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Current blurb seems fine to me, we can update when/if Gaddafi quits, or if there's some other major development. Readers can go to the article itself if they want more details on what exactly is happening now. Modest Genius talk 20:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

February 22


2011 Canterbury earthquake

  • A 6.3 magnitude earthquake hit the Canterbury region of New Zealand and the city of Christchurch in particular, causing major damage and at least 65 deaths.
  • Clearly a significant earthquake. Details are still being established and the article will be expanded. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Getting significant international coverage, and after seeing the images, it looked very intense despite its relatively low magnitude. An official fatality count will confirm how bad this is though. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, first fatal quake in NZ since 1968. BBC reports that the damage is worse than last year's quake. This is a big one. StrPby (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually about the same size if memory serves but last year weakened many structures thus it has much more effect. Oh and Strong support and kudos to the article creators its very well done for an event that happened hours ago. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Strike that, its smaller but not by too much previous being a 7.1, but its still the same reason for the much more extensive damage. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support per comments above. Diego Grez (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait for more details. That said, the article does look good so far. EDIT: Support as soon as we get a reliable death toll.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support per Strange Passerby. Ks0stm (TCG) 03:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Strange Passerby. Dismas|(talk) 04:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above comments. This has the potential to be one of the worst if not the worst natural disasters in our history. SamB135 TalkContribs 04:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Huh?it has one fatality and is one of the worst if not the worst? I understand it is an English-language country and it is going to get posted, but is it that notable? Nergaal (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Only one fatality? Oh well, there is massive destruction. Isn't that... "notable"? Diego Grez (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Nergaal. If you'd actually read what I said, i said it has the potential to be one of the worst. There's most likely going to be more than 1 fatality, the quake only hit a few hours ago. That and there will be billions in damage. Alright? SamB135 TalkContribs 04:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - struck in the middle of a weekday this time, much more chaos as a result. Easily as bad, if not worse, than September's. Radagast (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I think you will soon find that there are more than just one fatality. New Zealand Herald is already reporting multiple fatalities in this early report: "Christchurch earthquake: 'Dead bodies lying around'". – SMasters (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - not sure about the timing of when to post. In some ways, should go up now (people will want to both read and edit the article, and putting it on ITN will get it the maximum exposure needed to improve rapidly). But I can understand wanting to wait a bit until more detailed reports arrive. Carcharoth (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: 17 dead. SamB135 TalkContribs 05:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Clarify - at least 17 confirmed dead. [6]. Do we have consensus to list? Can we improve the proposed wording? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The link that Mattinbgn gave has been updated to confirm 65 dead. – SMasters (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per all the above. It may have been a relatively low magnitude but it was very close to the city and not very deep. I think it's looking increasingly likely this is one of the most devastating disasters in New Zealand's history. Given the amount of damage and disruption, there won't be a final official fatality count for quite some time so I don't think we should wait too long for more details, it is clear a lot of people will have died. ChiZeroOne (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Suggest blurb: At least 65 people die in New Zealand's deadliest earthquake in over 40 years. StrPby (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggest not putting a figure as it is still relatively early, and the number will probably rise. – SMasters (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hence "at least". It'd be remiss of us not to include a toll, even if preliminary, when we're talking about it being the deadliest earthquake in decades... StrPby (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, but we should be ready to update it if more numbers come in. – SMasters (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
That is generally what happens when we've got numbers on ITN. In fact, some reports I'm seeing indicate this could be the deadliest in history, not just in over 40 years. StrPby (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the reports, but if that is the case the entire blurb is going to date quickly, not just the figures. Perhaps another less specific one might be better. ChiZeroOne (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Correction - with 65 deaths, the earthquake is so far the second-deadliest earthquake in New Zealand, after the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake (256 dead). Lcmortensen (mailbox) 07:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • SupportNankai (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - 65 dead, likely to be many more, hundreds injured many, many times worse than the September earthquake last year and that went up on the "in the news" section here within hours of it happening - not a single person died in that event. Wikipedia should keep people informed of CURRENT events - it shouldn't take 8 hours for information on a disaster of this scale to be added to the mainpage.Kotare (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
In fairness, no one, especially us non-NZers, was quite aware how significant an event is was initially. We can't act until reliable source information is available and this takes time. -- Mattinbgn (talk)I
Agree with teh above. As is often stated, ITN is not a newsticker. We need to wait for reliable sources to appear, for the article to be developed, and for consensus to be made here. This can take time. And in this case the initial reports didn't seem that serious--obviously to someone on the ground in NZ the situation must have seemed more dramatic.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Posting Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support 118.90.15.58 (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I've copy-edited the article. Suggest tweak of the blurb: "A 6.3-magnitude earthquake hit the Canterbury region of New Zealand, particularly the city of Christchurch, causing major damage and at least 65 deaths." Tony (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC) It should be posted now. Tony (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It's been posted already. If you want to suggest an alternate wording of the blurb, it's probably best to go to WP:ERRORS.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but it would be easier from here, given it's an updating situation. e.c. -> I hate that Mw thing. The blurb is for normal readers, not experts. Can't it be "6.3-magnitude"? Tony (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you on the Mw thing.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The Christchurch article, I notice, has three presumably recently introduced big red reference error signs at the bottom. I haven't time right now to search through the history to see who might be able to fix them. I note that "New Zealand", a common English-speaking country name, is linked, along with no fewer than two locations within the country. Both location articles link to New Zealand in their first sentence. Christchurch has a large map of NZ with the city's location marked. Why do we need to dilute the obvious, valuable targets (the specific regions) with the country name? It is more effective to funnel visitors down a narrower pathway, isn't it? Tony (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Linking country names is a very common practice throughout Main Page sections, including DYK and OTD. You might want to take objections to their editors too, if you really must tackle the alleged overlinking problem. Main Page sections need consistent formatting, and ITN will look strange if only we omit such links. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
      • No, I'm not going to be fobbed off with that kind of non-argument. Who said that linking common country names is "a very common practice thoughout main-page sections"? And even if it were, why would ITN look "strange" by linking selectively? Says who? Our readers? Not likely. Just what do you base your assumptions on? (I would say, an unwillingness to examine your own prejudices.) Now, could you point out where featured articles link common country names on the main page? They are the largest body of text by far. Tony (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I agree that the country names don't really need to be linked, but there is already a mechanism in place to funnel readers towards the articles in question, namely that the article we want the reader to read is bolded. So that should ameliorate to some extent any overlinking. Carcharoth (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Update. 238 missing, 120 bodies expected. ~AH1(TCU) 02:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Libya update

The current new item read "Protests in Libya spread to Tripoli, as hundreds of protesters are reported dead.", which is a bit mild compared to the current situation. How about updating and topping the blurb, so it becomes:

Protests in Libya spread to Tripoli. The Libyan government is using warplanes and mercenaries to attack the protesters.

Thue | talk 13:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked the blurb. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
This is very annoying: why is "Libya" linked when the city is linked and the "2011 Libyan protests" is linked? That's THREE words in six, linked. This ruins the linking system. Furthermore, why are common English items such as warplanes (what would they be?) and mercenaries linked? If the purpose is to dissuade visitors from clicking on the actual newsworthy article that we have painstakingly updated for their benefit, sure ... link just about every item in bird-shot sight. Tony (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC) I note that the previous version had Libya within the bolded link, integrated, not separate: that was the optimal; now an extra layer of complication has been introduced for the readers to hit-or-miss click on. Tony (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that you think these things through a little too much, because being a perfectionist myself, I really don't care. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
You might want to complain to the admin who made the "very annoying" change, if you must. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Borg Queen, no, I'm complaining here, where the blurbs are put forward and modified. I will continue to urge optimised linking practices. Central to them is avoiding scattergun linking without thought or good reason. Tony (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Behgjet Pacolli becoming President of Kosovo

Something like:

I think this deserves to be in the news and I have tried to write it in WP:NPOV way. IJA (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - yes definitly.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The article is updated, so no problem. However, it is enough to write Pacolli is elected president of Kosovo. The Main page is not a place to go into details about status disputes, it's already all over corresponding articles. (I think we took the same approach with the election results a couple of months ago.) --Tone 19:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Support A new independent state (2008) this is notable. --Perseus8235 20:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

isnt there a page of the election )even if it was not popularly elected? we had a page like that for the ungarian fellow which was posted.(Lihaas (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).
And I agree with User:Tone that we don't need details about status disputes. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Support blurb as is--I'm agreed that it's best to leave out the 'disputed status' reference.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

February 21

Cancellation of the 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix

  • As a result of the ongoing Bahraini protests, the opening round of the 2011 Formula Once season scheduled to be held in Bahrain on 3 March 2011 is cancelled. Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Since the Bahrain GP is notoriously boring, this is either an excellent decision, or a horrible one, as trying to have a race while a revolution rages around you sounds almost as entertaining as installing sprinklers on the race track. Either way, support - internationally significant to both sporting and commerce, since Grands Prix are major economic actors, and shows how much the situation in Bahrain has degenerated / advanced, depending on your point of view. --Golbez (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Something like;

Due to the ongoing protests in Bahraini the crown prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa calls off the 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix

This seems better to support the reports and the Bahraini Grand Prix article reflects the coverage (a bit - could be more). Pedro :  Chat  21:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it is best if we use 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix, instead of Bahrain Grand Prix. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Not wrong! thank you. Pedro :  Chat  21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - a very rare event which demonstrates the gravity of the situation in Bahrain. 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix should be used. Crnorizec (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
NOT Cancelled - Postponed! according to these: [7][8] Crnorizec (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Excellent stuff Crnorizec. Support something like;

Due to the ongoing protests in Bahraini the crown prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa cancels the 13 March 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix, working with the FIA to reinstate it later in the season.

Happy to see that tightened. Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Very unusual, but however I don't think we should add an extra value of an F1 race, and consider it sufficient for posting. In addition, it is only postponed, not even cancelled.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I am confused because the BBC article says: "Instead, the 2011 campaign will begin in Australia on 27 March." Doesn't this mean the Bahrain event has been cancelled and rescheduled to take place in Australia? --BorgQueen (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The first GP of the 2011 season will now be in Australia (for several seasons Australia was the first grand prix as it goes) - so that's semi news-worthy. What the FIA are saying is that they may reinstate the Bahraini GP later in the calender - that's not a postponement as such - the race is cancelled - just that it could be added back in again if possible. If not possible then it's not added in. Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment I would feel kind of strange posting a postponed F1 race ITN, when the cause (the protests in Bahrain) seem so much more important in themselves. Thue | talk 22:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I second that. There are bigger things going on that a postponed race. --Tone 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: Regarding the suggested blurb, "Bahraini" is a nationality, not a country. ;) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Definite oppose per Thue. StrPby (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose—<yawn> Tony (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: we should report major events, not incidental consequences of them. The F1 season is considered ITN worthy, individual races of the series are not. Kevin McE (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - only support if the entire season is cancelled... Carcharoth (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oil price instability

  • As a result of the ongoing Libyan protests, and the previous protests in the Arab world, the oil price has reached a new high at over $100 per barrel, the highest price since 2008.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It was proposed previously, when the price reached $80 per barrel, caused by the protests in Egypt, but the instability of the price continues with the other protests in the region.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Support $100/barrel is significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment It was also suggested when the price hit $100 per barrel a while ago. It was rejected on the basis that it was merely symbolic and didn't encompass news. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Which means nothing to our readers in Great Britain, Australia and Canada and any other english speaking area This Wiki covers. All time highs sure.... purely American Centric. This is the highest in while but if it goes up again 20 dollars next week it will still be highest in while. No news really here but supply demand at work. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Merely symbolic and doesn't encompass news. Just like User:Ericleb01 wrote. --bender235 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. It was news the first time it happened, not so much now. I will support posting an item when we pass the previous record high. Thue | talk 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. It's been $100 before, it's not a record price.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment. The recent spike in global food prices exceeding the food price crisis (2007-08) would be more suitable for ITN IMO, unless crude oil price hits a record all-time high. ~AH1(TCU) 02:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - a local peak in the graph doesn't mean a whole lot. If it reaches a record high at any point, I'd support. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Estonian fire

Ten children were killed in a fire at a children's home. The Estonian government has met for an emergency meeting and declared Monday a nationwide day of mourning.(CBS News) (BBC) (AP via The Guardian) (The Sydney Morning Herald)

Oppose. Sad, but has no impact on world history. Thue | talk 10:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. "impact on world history" is an awfully high standard for ITN but this still is not that major.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Weak oppose It is really a tragedy for the country, but it is not a breaking news with high international coverage and doesn't receive as high attention as we usually consider sufficiently for posting. Also, I must agree with John that the reason mentioned above is too strict.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose, ITN is not WP:RA. --Golbez (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Uprising in Libya

The Libyan protests spread to the capital Tripoli, where the parliament building is on fire. Hundreds of protesters are reported dead in the uprising.

Things seem to be coming to a head in Libya, so it should have its own entry. See for example [9] for more details about the escalating rebellion. Thue | talk 11:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  • support - The end is near for Gaddafi as dictator. ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't think they had a chance... but I'm glad to be proven wrong. Strong support if there is a referenced update. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
2011_Libyan_protests#21_February seems to be both referenced and updated to me. Thue | talk 18:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support Looks like this becomes a major ongoing protest, which causes huge disobedience in the country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

February 20


Berlin Film Festival

Nader and Simin, A Separation wins the Golden Bear at the 61st Berlin International Film Festival and the ensemble cast win both Silver Bears for Best Actress and Best Actor.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts (talkcontribs)

Alt blurb: The Iranian film Nader and Simin, A Separation, directed by Asghar Farhadi (pictured), wins the Golden Bear at the 61st Berlin International Film Festival. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sounds good to me. Lugnuts (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The update is only 3 sentences that I can see and one reference.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems ready. Posting. --Tone 15:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Looks good, presuming that the unreferenced plot section is ok (only possible reference is the film itself I suppose). ITNR event. Modest Genius talk 15:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Daytona 500

This isn't a nomination, but rather a question: Do we normally post Daytona 500 results? SpencerT♦C 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at present, no. Indy 500 always goes up, but I can't remember the daytona 500 having done so (though it's always possible I missed one). Modest Genius talk 01:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Consider a nomination because I support especially since the this year we have the youngest Winner ever at 20. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion from last year. It wasnn't posted then but there was some support. The section on the race of the article needs expansion.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does the Indy 500 article always go up but not the Daytona 500? The Daytona race has become a bigger deal than the Indy 500 in the last 10-15 years. Truthsort (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As one can infer from WP:ITNR, consensus has been to post the three races making up the Triple Crown of Motorsport, of which the Indy 500 is one. Also, I think there's a sense that there's more international interest in the Indy 500, though IMO that is debatable. I would suggest we look again at which motorsports to include. The Triple Crown of Motorsport doesn't seem to be very notable and it isn't an official title. I think the Daytona 500 gets some resistance also because we already have the Indy 500 on ITNR and many editors don't want another 'US-only' race. But since as you and many editors have pointed out, the Daytona 500 is bigger than the Indy 500, I think maybe we should just swap them.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per Johnsemlak. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per Johnsemlak and Anthropologist. Ks0stm (TCG) 14:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment -- The article 2011 Daytona 500 has a referenced update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted (awhile ago now) -- tariqabjotu 17:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I will just make the observation, without any further comment, that In the news now contains two obviously international items, plus two purely American items. HiLo48 (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Post-posting support because I think it's important enough and notable enough and is in the news (even if only in the US) to warrant posting. It's a pretty big event in motorsport. StrPby (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

February 19

Violence increases in Libyan protests

It seems only right to expand our current protests blurb to reflect the violence in Libya, imo. We had an almost-sticky on Egypt with updates, and personally I don't think it's right that we're merely having a simple catch-all "protests are held in A, B, C country" blurb up.

Link and proposed blurb: BBCThe Libyan army reportedly opens fire on protestors in Benghazi, amid continuing protests across the Middle East and North Africa. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 23:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, except could the last link be more visually focused? "The Libyan army reportedly opens fire on protestors in Benghazi, amid continuing protests across the Middle East and North Africa." Tony (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Yawning can we not keep reposting these? They are now current events, not really ITN material anymore. Nergaal (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Last I checked, ITN stood for "in the news", which this definitely is. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 03:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Support — but include Bahrain where security forces have also opened fire on protesters. Suggest: Authorities open fire on demonstrators in Benghazi, Libya and Manama, Bahrain, amid continuing protests across the Middle East and North Africa. --candlewicke 04:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This The other protests need to be dropped from ITN; the Libyan and Bahraini protests are the main story now. -- tariqabjotu 05:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. Armed forces opening fire on protesters is a significant development in the Arab World protests. I prefer a wording along the lines of Tony's above, with the Bahrain protests added.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I think the blurb fails to impart the notability of this event. The BBC article on Libya reports that "an unknown number of people, including children, are said to have been killed". If people are dead, we should mention it. It's unlikely that the Libyan authorities are going to release any clear numbers, so I think it's pointless to wait for one. Nightw 08:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Definite support for this ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

South Africa joins to make BRICS of BRIC

South Africa officially joins the BRIC group of nations, changing the acronym to BRICS. Reuters GreyHood Talk 22:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Support seems like a pretty big deal in world politics. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Apparently, this will affects the world's economy and politics in a wider extent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per Eraserhead1 and Kiril Simeonovski. --candlewicke 01:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment—Could we avoid linking common terms? If you speak English, you're supposed to know what "acronym" means, and it's plain as day from the two subsequent words anyway. And why, for pity's sake, are both BRIC and BRICS linked to exactly the same article? That would be really irritating to a visitor. Just link one, please, and people will be more likely to click on something: "South Africa officially joins the BRIC group of nations, changing the acronym to BRICS." Tony (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Nergaal (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be pushing it to claim that BRIC is any sort of formal grouping that can be joined, it is more a loose alliance of competing interests, who have met twice. Next time they meet, it might be a slightly larger loose alliance of competing interests. Kevin McE (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
BRIC has its own annual summits, where the leaders discuss economy and politics. To join BRIC officially means to gain full participation in these summits, at least. So BRIC is a formal alliance, and not just an economic term. GreyHood Talk 13:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment The current BRICS article barely mentions South Africa. For example the world map on the page doesn't highlight South Africa. And that's not the only place it isn't mentioned. --Johnsemlak (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose BRIC isn't really a formal alliance. It's really just an economic term of countries that have certain economic similarities.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
See my answer to Kevin McE above. BRIC has enough formalities to consider it a formal alliance. Even the news tell that South Africa officially joins BRIC. GreyHood Talk 13:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose on formatting grounds. Why bold and link two versions to the one article in the space of 10 word-items. Tony (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
What's the point of this strong oppose? There is no strong necessity to bold and link two items, really. If the article is not moved, we could bold and link just BRIC.GreyHood Talk 13:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per Kevin. Anyway, what's the point... as BRICS is a neologism, and only a redirect to BRIC? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Support as nominator. GreyHood Talk 13:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. This is just a marketing move. South Africa is not in the same economic class as Brazil, Russia, India, or China. Thue | talk 15:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking that as well. If you look at the Bric article now, South Africa isn't even mentioned as a nation that might join BRIC.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
What about the section BRIC#BRICS Term: South Africa's Inclusion? South Africa's inclusion was long discussed and anticipated. GreyHood Talk 16:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I agree there's a decent update there. Still, I think it's problematic that South Africa is not included at several parts of the article, including the map of Bric countries and several tables of statistics of BRIC countries.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
In terms of minimum update the article is ready, we could post it and let the other editors to do further improvements. As for the full-scale rewrite of the article in the light of the recent events, personally I haven't much time for it, and the recent build-up of poorly and erroneously argumented oppose votes doesn't help. GreyHood Talk 16:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
South Africa has a GDP of $500 billion; Denmark has a GDP og $300billion. If South Africa can join, how long can it be before Denmark joins? :P By comparison, Russial is the smallest current BRIC member with a GDP of over $2000billion. Thue | talk 16:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not our task to define whether what happens is reasonable and logical or not. We should talk about whether the news are significant or not, and whether the article is updated enough. Furthermore, it seems that you just don't understand what BRIC is. It is a group of emerging markets deemed to have many similar features in economic development. Denmark is a developed country and doesn't really fit. The current size of GDP is mostly irrelevant here, since it is not necessary about being among the largest emerging markets in present, but rather about having a large potential of growth. And finally, not Russia but Brazil was the smallest BRIC member by GDP (PPP) before South Africa joined. GreyHood Talk 16:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OK Greyhood, we get the idea: you support your own proposal. Arguing with every opinion to the contrary is rather more like MMN than you might wish to portray yourself. Kevin McE (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually argue with every opinion to the contrary. Here I just have pointed out the obvious mistakes in the oppose opinions. I would do this for any other nomination if it catches my eye and I notice erroneous comments. It is not right situation when people vote support/oppose without minimal understanding of the subject (an understanding which they might easily get by a brief looking over the article). And I don't know what is MMN, thank you very much. GreyHood Talk 21:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Firstly Greyhood doesn't reply to every user every time, and secondly Mick Mack Nee has actually reformed his behaviour significantly so I don't think the accusation is fair in either direction. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This is starting to look problematic. Tony (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Cricket World Cup opens in India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka

A very significant event - second largest such "World Cup" event in the world following that of (association) football. Some 1.5 billion people watching. I realize usually we just post the results of the final but an event of such a magnitude probably deserves an opening ITN post. Colipon+(Talk) 18:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Wait for the final (which is on ITNR). Modest Genius talk 18:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per Colipon. The opening of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in (association) football was posted and given a "sticky" the next day. --candlewicke 01:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
LOOOL if you guys compare the WC for association football to cricket one. Nergaal (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. We will post the final. --Johnsemlak (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

US vetos a UN draft resolution

The U.S. vetoes a draft of a U.N. Security Council resolution which was critical of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The resolution was supported by all other council members and co-sponsored by over 120 nations. This veto resolution is the ninth U.N. resolution on the Israel-Palestine conflict to be vetoed by the U.S. since 2000.(UN)(Reuters) (Haaretz)(AlJazeera) Passionless -Talk 21:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Slight oppose the US vetoing a anti-Israel resolution isn't really news. --PlasmaTwa2 23:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be news if America ever supported a resolution condemning Israel. Although I guess that in the interests of the democratic process it might be nice to highlight the USA's routine position. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Well the US hasn't vetoed since 2006 and the very wide support for this particular resolution, also makes it more significant. There is also that a number of nations have recently recognized Palestine as a sovereign state, and that this is a Security council resolution not a less important general assembly resolution. Passionless -Talk 23:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose on formatting grounds. Please do not link "US" or "vetoes". These are common terms that detract from the important links to United Nations Security Council and Israeli settlements. Is it normal to dot UN? Linking UN as well as United Nations Security Council is a waste, since UN is linked at the very outset of United Nations Security Council. Note rationalisation of the wording, and the dash, not the hyphen.

"The US vetoes a draft of a UN Security Council resolution which was critical of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The resolution, supported by all other council members and co-sponsored by more than 120 nations, is the ninth UN resolution on the Israel–Palestine conflict to be vetoed by the US since 2000." Tony (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC) PS I do think this is newsworthy; can the blurb be somehow shortened a little? Tony (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry, this is my first post here, so I just copied and pasted what I had already wrote in the current events portal. I was going to leave the actual final sentence upto you guys. Passionless -Talk 01:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Well I would write- "The U.S. vetoes a very widely supported U.N. Security Council resolution critical of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian Territories." but as you can see, I suck at writing. I'm not sure if there is an appropriate page for 'vetoes' to link to for this event, so I may create a new page just for the vent if no suitable article is found. Oh, and I used 'occupied Palestinian Territories' instead of other close synonyms as this is what was used by the UN news centre. Passionless -Talk 07:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. The BBC says it was sponsored by at least 130 countries and that all 14 other Security Council members supported it. There have been only 14 Security Council vetoes by one or more of the five permanent members since 2000 so they don't happen much more than once a year, a lot rarer than the vast numbers of national-level parliamentary or presidential elections routinely posted. It has been covered in great detail by international media such as the BBC, Xinhua, The Hindu, Al Jazeera, France24. It is very much "in the news". There have been protests outside the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv. ITN criteria such as 'ITN rejects items deemed trivial', 'the criterion was previously written as "a story of international importance or interest", opposition on the grounds that 'the news is "too local"' seems not to apply. --candlewicke 05:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, as per Candlewicke. Also, saying that it has to be the US condemning Israel to be notable is an awfully high bar. In the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a US condemnation of Israel would be historic, not merely notable. As demonstrated above US vetoes of this sort are rare even if they continue a long-term pattern.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm dropping my support until an updated article appears.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Support and I think UN vetoes should be an ITN/R item. Nergaal (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for now. I'm not seeing an actual article that can be linked from the main page. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
United Nations Security Council veto power Nergaal (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That's not a good choice of article at all. It is a general article about the exercise of the veto power. It has precisely one poorly-written unsourced sentence on this veto. In that article, anything more than that one sentence would be undue weight. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to write an article on the event, anyone who wants to help can join me at User:Passionless/Vetoed Resolution.
Strong support, pending an article update: The Israeli settlements have been frontpage news for months now, and this is a serious setback for the negotiations. It's not every day one sees a veto used on resolutions, especially one pertaining to such a widely-condemned issue. It's also the first veto used by the Obama administration. The majority of the world recognises Palestine as a state, and this was meant to be a resolution condemning a violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter. It's pretty major. Nightw 08:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the articles Israeli settlement and Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. Nightw 10:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I wrote a new article for the event, Palestinian Security Council Resolution, 2011, though I still do not know what the article name should be....And NightW, the resolution was for all settlements in the occupied palestinian territories (UN's words) so it includes-golan heights, east jerusalem, gaza and west bank as well. Passionless -Talk 11:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Quite right. I've changed it to reflect that. Nightw 12:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Night w's revised blurb: (1) it's much better—shorter, no longer links and bolds "vetoes" (huh?), but (2) I will strongly object if "US" is linked. Common country names—especially those of English-speaking countries—have not been linked for some time in WP articles. Please see the style guides; and I see no reason why the style guides should not apply to the blurbs, with the odd common-sense exception, of course. (3) Would it be possible to pipe "United Nations" to the article Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations instead of the commonly known UN (general article)? It should possibly be bolded, too, if Night w's updates to it are sufficient. Tony (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it's conventional to link to country names on ITN, but that's not really a big deal. I mean, everyone knows what the United Nations is aswell, but linking to a bit of context is always good in my opinion. I'll leave it to the admin. Nightw 12:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
As well as contributing more substantively (by copy-editing updatings and newly created articles), I'd like to persuade people here that common country names are usually not useful to link in such a situation, unless the general country article has itself been updated as part of the news item (rare, I guess); and so often, they judder against another, more pertinent link (WP:MOSLINK says to try to avoid this, although I think it's not mandatory). Can I ask why the UN can't be piped to the updated and far more specific article Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations, which itself contains an early and prominent link to the UN? Tony (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per Candlewicke. GreyHood Talk 13:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per Candlewicke. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Nowhere to be seen on front pages of news sources, even in their US sections (BBC, Telegraph, CBC, NYT). Seems to me this isn't much of a big deal, or at least not out of the ordinary. Vetoes happen somewhat often, and it is not very surprising -- as mentioned above -- to see the US vetoing for the benefit of Israel (seeing as they have done so nine out of the last ten times they've vetoed). Although we don't ordinarily post many UN resolutions, AFAICT. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
This actually has very little to do with the U.S. They're just the perpetrator. The impact is on the Middle East and it's a huge stepback for negotiations, since the Palestinians have refused to resume talks until the settlement activity stops. Nightw 12:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • support - definitly supporting this event.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

February 18


Scientists create first antilaser

Physists have created a device that removes certain electromagnetic wavelengths completely. See BBC and Arstechnica. This seems like an interesting new discovery that's worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose. I'm not overly convinced by this - all it does is have very high absorbance at certain wavelengths. That could be achieved using a simple vapour cell, the only difference being that in this version you could in principle pick the wavelength. I'm open to persuasion otherwise though. Modest Genius talk 17:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

February 17


Watson (artificial intelligence software)

Wins against the most prolific contestants in the history of Jeopardy! This is reminiscent of the 90's Deep Blue computer who beat Kasparov in chess. Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The competition should have been about Watson's ability to answer. Yes it was good. But it turned out to be about can a human buzz in faster than a machine. How the hell can you beat a machine in clicking a buzzer. answers were also not too hard. oppose since i dont think it was truly fair competition. -- Ashish-g55 18:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the designers figured it was about even. A human can tell when Trebek is reading the last word of the question and be moving their thumb down on the buzzer in anticipation, whereas Watson had to wait until it received the signal that it was okay to buzz. --Golbez (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
the only times watson did not buzz in was when it was unsure or it took longer to compute its answer. only like twice in the game did it actually get beat on the buzzer. mechanical precision of watson was obviously better but thats not really part of its intelligence. you dont really need a computer to push a button faster than a human -- Ashish-g55 18:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You forget that Watson still had to know the answer. It was far from simply a competition of if a computer can hit a button faster. --Golbez (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
i already said it was good. very good infact. not questioning its intelligence in processing natural language. just saying the buzzer was an a decent sized advantage it had over humans. -- Ashish-g55 19:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. A huge artificial intelligence milestone. Thue | talk 20:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Support after reading the article this seems like a pretty big AI milestone, and computing topics are undercovered. I don't think the buzzing advantage, although reasonable is enough to detract from the achievement made by IBM here - additionally the article is well and truly updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Support I dont know if its a big a milestone as the "Deep Blue computer's Chess Game" but impressive none the less and computing is undecovered The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I read over the article a few minutes ago, and I found it incredible that the AI was sophisticated enough able to utilise human reasoning to analyse the hints given by Trebek, and translate them into computer-friendly information for the purpose of answering a question. That is definitely a demonstration as to just how far we've progressed toward creating an AI that can process human speech with improvisation and respond accordingly. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Support All reasons listed above. cgmv123TalkContribs 21:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • We seem to have consensus. A nice blurb please? --BorgQueen (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
IBM's artificial intelligence software Watson wins the quiz Jeopardy! for the first time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
It should be "wins the quiz Jeopardy! against the most prolific competitors in the history of the show". GreyHood Talk 22:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Jeopardy! isn't a quiz, it's a quiz show. cgmv123TalkContribs 22:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • IBM's artificial intelligence program Watson wins the quiz show Jeopardy! against the most prolific competitors in the show's history. Nergaal (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted I prefer the blurbs mentioning the two other contestants. Saying for the first time suggests it may happen again. I don't know if it's correct to say that one wins the show, so I said that the program won on the show. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I can't think of any way to improve that blurb; it looks fine. Ks0stm (TCG) 01:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
we do have articles on both Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter. link them somehow? -- Ashish-g55 01:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm late to this discussion, but oppose. This is a media stunt, and there's no way we would normally report the results of a gameshow. I don't see this as a major breakthrough in AI. Modest Genius talk 17:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Human-influenced climate change confirmed

Scientists recently completed a study confirming a connection between human emitted greenhouse gases had a significant role in the severity of a disatrous flood in England during autumn 2000. This is the first instance in which scientists have stated the connection. All over the news through a Google search

  • Proposed hook: "Scientists confirm the first connection between human emitted greenhouse gases and global warming." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment but I think this issue long been the standard accepted theory as you propose it the blurb. The stories seem to be linking Extreme Rains and flooding to global warming. Since this is pretty much been agreed upon theory for at least two deacade I oppose Unless I have profound ignorance on the issue (which is entiirly possible ) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The burden of proof is on the proposer to point towards a specific headline, and all I see right now is "just do a Google search", along with a vague and possibly weasel-worded blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The articles appear to be two-pronged. They briefly mention the link to the England floods: "Increases in greenhouse gas emissions have also been linked, in a separate study, to a specific flood event – a devastating inundation in Britain 10 years ago." The main focus was on the finding that the risk extreme rainfall and flooding has doubled due to climate change. In regards to your statement, ResidentAnthropologist, this is the first instance in which the scientific community has agreed that an event was linked to human enduced climate change, resulting from greenhouse gas emissions.

"Our research provides the first scientific evidence that human-induced greenhouse gas increases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events over large parts of the northern hemisphere." Sydney Morning Herald Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • WaltCip, the link to Google News was to show the number of sources reporting on this finding. Not sure why you'd want me to just point one out. Also, my intent was not to be vague in blurb to avoid something but rather to keep the subject on a general level since the finding is in regards to two things, the England floods in 2000 and overall climate change. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Specificity is something we prefer here on ITN, If we alter the blurb a bit We can make it work for ITN. Thus upon clarification from Cyclonebiskit I support. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Support before it has been a "balance of probabilities" thing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Support empirical evidence might have a 1% chance to convince Fox News. Nergaal (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment—human-emitted (hyphen). Tony (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose until I see greater evidence of the notability of this. The headline sounds notable at face value but we pretty much have known this for a while. It may have been all over the news two days ago but I doesn't even crack the BBC Science and Environment page right now. It's a bit WP:Crystal of course but I don't see any evidence that this will change the debate, such as reactions by prominent officials or think-tanks.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. From the paper: "Here we present a multi-step, physically based ‘probabilistic event attribution’ framework showing that it is very likely that global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions substantially increased the risk of flood occurrence in England and Wales in autumn 2000... The precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution remains uncertain, but in nine out of ten cases our model results indicate that twentieth-century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%." The argument is still a probabilistic one. It is more specific than previously, in that they analyzed specific flood events, but probabilistic associations between climate change and extreme weather in general aren't new. The news articles are giving this a lot of spin, but I don't think the paper justifies anything even remotely like the hook being proposed above. Dragons flight (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. First of all: what does this study link to what? Carbondioxid emissions to global warming? Or global warming to severe whether in England? And second, which is more important: one study doesn't prove anything. We've seen studies diagnosing an increase of hurricane intensity and connecting it to global warming, only to see other studies debunk both the increase and the connection shortly after. So let's not establish facts here where there are none. --bender235 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. This is not news. Almost every scientist has been convinced of this for decades. Just because a few of them have now specifically said one particular (decade old) event was caused by it, doesn't make it any more or less true. Besides, by posting this we would actually be casting doubt on the subject by making it sound like it's only just been shown. Modest Genius talk 17:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, a connection between CO2 emissions and global warming is what scientists are rightfully convinced of, but a connection between global warming and severe weather is not. So, like I said, we shouldn't establish facts where there are none. --bender235 (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Scientists are convinced of that latter connection, albeit at a lower level than the former. The point is that climate scientists agree that there will be more extreme weather events as a result of climate change, but have been understandably reluctant to unequivocally identify any particular event which would not have happened otherwise. That one group of scientists has done so for one event is new, but not ITN fodder IMO. Modest Genius talk 23:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I agree with MG. Climate-change news needs to be pretty fresh to make it onto the main page. Tony (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan protests

Can we add Libya, 2011 Libyan protests, to the current list of countries? The main page currently reads "Anti-government protests are held in Algeria, Bahrain, Iran and Yemen." Jesanj (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Any objections? The article looks fine and reasonably updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't see a reason not to add it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Dar es Salaam explosions

Dozens killed - [10] - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. Is there an article? --Golbez (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Guess not. Strong oppose. --Golbez (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I honestly don't think that the lack of an article within a day of the event's occurrence is grounds for a "strong oppose". Especially since you showed clear interest a few hours earlier. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
My interest was purely sarcastic; I was annoyed that it was posted here without an article existing first. Requested Articles is thattaway. --Golbez (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I created a stub for the event just to get it going: 2011 Dar es Salaam explosions. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Suggested blurb: "A series of explosions at an ammunition depot in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania kills at least 32 people." - Might also want to add that 145 were wounded. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I have copy-edited the article. The "blood pressure" bit was strange. Tony (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It was the way that source worded it. I believe they meant heart attacks (or something along those lines) but dind't say it outright so I couldn't add that in. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong support. Dozens of deaths, hundreds of injuries, thousands of people fleeing their homes, buildings destroyed, a school flattened, roads closed, an international airport shut down, "plenty, plenty of explosions, and we felt them far away" over several hours, all in Tanzania's largest city. --candlewicke 04:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose At least while the article is as thin as it is. Unless there are further developments I don't see where an expansion could come from. RxS (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The explosions only took place two days ago, I don't know what you're expecting at this point. ;) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not expecting anything. But the purpose of ITN is to highlight articles and this one isn't really worth highlighting (at this point). RxS (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought TFA and DYK were for the purposes of highlighting articles and ITN was for significant current events (granted the article is of reasonable quality and not necessarily size). Or have I just been under the wrong impression? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Nope :) ITN is to highlight Wikipedia articles providing up-to-date information about a certain recent event, but it isn't a news ticker, and therefore there are standards. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
There are three paragraphs and seven references. The article is in good condition. It seems to have been a major event. --candlewicke 06:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Belgian government deadlock

After 249 days of deadlock, Belgium becomes the country to go without a government the longest.

Many news sources are suggesting that they've broken the record with 250 days e.g Telegraph, Australian. Any way it's a very notable event which has been gaining interest outside Belgium. yorkshiresky (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support when updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per BorgQueen. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Weak support. Very interesting record. I'm just wondering if this would be more suitable for DYK than ITN. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment—please do not link a common term such as "government". Tony (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggest this blurb—
After 249 days of deadlock, Belgium has broken breaks the record for the longest period for which a country has gone without a government in modern times. Tony (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer something that doesn't use a "has broken", tbh, when you can use "breaks". Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 14:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops, changed. Tony (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, but that's a horrible blurb. How about
That avoids the number which would need updating, plus sounds better. Modest Genius talk 17:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Modest Genius talk 22:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I think Somalia would disagree with the blurb. 204.116.109.80 (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment, this 'record' is dependent on a narrow definition of 'form a government'. And it's really a rather trivial event. We should be posting when Belgium forms a government (this tidbit could be added to such a blurb if necessary). Belated Oppose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per my comments on WP:ERRORS. I don't like to oppose after the posting but when sources like the AP and BBC are refusing to put their names to the claim that it is a world record, we should too. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, a narrowly-defined concept that could easily be applied to Somalia, as the IP suggests. It's not even news, really. It'd be better suited to DYK. Nightw 07:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
There was unanimous support for this item before it was posted, so contributors clearly saw it as a significant event. Note that we have a suite of pretty good articles on the topic and the surrounding political crisis. Could we find a better way of phrasing the blurb that satisfies these objections? 'longest time taken to agree to form a government after an election' or something? Modest Genius talk 13:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea to invite getting caught with our pants around our ankles on this for a second time. For so long as sources like the BBC and AP explicitly distance themselves from saying there is any kind of record, we should do the same. Sky News equivocates with an even different kind of record: "the country with the longest running political crisis in recent history". FWIW I don't think the update to the article is the issue (except to the extent that the update was of dubious accuracy). Any more than one sentence on this "record" would be undue weight. Nothing has actually happened here so we shouldn't feel any pressing need to put it on the main page for the sake of it. Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I've removed this for now, as all we have is a one-sentence, one-source update. While we can't even figure out what this record is, and can't find multiple sources and a somewhat substantial update, it shouldn't be on our doormat. Someone can readd this when the update is there. (Noting that two of the supports were conditional on there being an update, and as of now, there really isn't one.) Courcelles 13:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the statement just can't be backed up without doing some major historical research. I would much rather see something in the news about the danger of Belgium breaking up because of the current crisis. That would be real news. Calistemon (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Glad to see this bizarrely parochial and historically blind statement was removed. World history is not limited to Europe since 1989.μηδείς (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose This ↑ Australian Matt (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Now I'm getting the hang of this, I agree that the breaking-the-record bit is very risky (too vulnerable to how it's framed, chronologically and geopolitically). Been-without-a-govt-for-X-days is safer, if it has to appear. Tony (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin protests

One of the greatest shows of solidarity in history. http://www.wkow.com/Global/category.asp?C=205519 http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ncl=d0zpr8gG7xg5__MnR50W2G-wX5JBM cgmv123TalkContribs 21:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not really. This is not very different than the other thousands of strikes held in the country, let alone in history. We've featured five protests this past month, each with a significance exceeding this one tenfold. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I wouldn't say these protests are extraordinary - they're certainly not "one of the greatest shows of solidarity in history". Franklinville (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No special story.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The events are significant in the US, but the scale can't compare with recent global protests. Midlakewinter (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

February 16


China becomes world's second largest economy

This is now ready to post. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment Haven't this been reported several times already, though perhaps not ITN? You have to specify by which measure (GDP I assume, not PPP), and by whose calculations. Thue | talk 18:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
China's second place was finally confirmed this week, when Japan issued its official statistics. Also there is no need to specify anything. The nominal GDP is already specified, and I believe China is now world's second largest economy by any estimate and by any type of GDP measure (except for per capita GDP, of course). GreyHood Talk 19:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
FWIW it has now been posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Operation Power Outage

I think Operation Power Outage is important enough to make its way, the article is in good shape. Ehud (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. A blurb please? --BorgQueen (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
It's above, in the Feb 16 template, under Law and crime. Ehud (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Two supports and gets posted? Nergaal (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, there was a prompt for objections. Nightw 17:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Two hours isn't much of a time to allow for objections really. Although I would have supported anyway. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support, and I believe you are "allowed" to give objections as soon as a nomination is made. Do you give objections only when you are asked? :) --BorgQueen (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Laron Syndrome

I just saw this on the news, but it appears that those who have Laron syndrome are unable to get cancer. Do others agree with me that this should be known by others? I also added a simple sentence on the article's page but if others want to expand it, I have no problem with it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

February 15


Stardust flies by Tempel 1

I don't have time to do an update or upload the image myself, but BBC and NASA coverage will help. A pity we don't have an article on flybys to link to either. Modest Genius talk 20:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, nice space story. Pending update, of course. --Tone 21:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - Significant undertaking (after years of waiting) into the study of how comets develop. The probe visited this same comet years ago and this is the first time, according to JPL, that a comet has been revisited. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Easy support. Article is in good shape and there will be general interest. RxS (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Support as it is an interesting milestone. Nergaal (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
We're still pending an update. When there's more than one line and two photos of update, I can post. --Tone 16:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm away on business this week and just don't have time. It wouldn't be a hard update to do if anyone has a spare 15 minutes. Modest Genius talk 09:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - I too am able to edit here just a few minutes a day here of late. Can no one update this article? Thanks. Jusdafax 10:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, it is the comet article that has a better update, so I'll highlight it instead. --Tone 10:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
why are we using deep impact picture when we have this mission's picture right here -- Ashish-g55 14:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Alberto Contador to retain Tour title

We posted in October when Contador was suspended, now he has been proven innocent and will retain his third Tour de France win. Grsz 11 17:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Probably should include it on ITN in those circumstances. --candlewicke 20:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I am a fan of cycling news, but I don't really see the news here. He is not suspended anymore and that's it. UCI might file an appeal anyways. Nergaal (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

NYSE/Deutsche Boerse merger

This was nominated last week when the rumors surfaced but now its been announced as offical. [11] The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Support although much bigger companies have merged without getting ITN, the stock exchange organizations have higher visibility. Crnorizec (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support its a big business story and high profile. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per previous discussion. GreyHood Talk 21:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  Administrator note: Given that this (barring a flood opposers) is likely to be our third post in about six hours, I'm inclined to leave it for a few hours to balance things out rather than end up how we were the other week with a lot of posts in quick succession and then nothing for days, making the template look stale. I would suggest posting sometime in the early hours of tomorrow (UTC). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

IS this any different than the TSX/LSX item? Support if we include both deals. --PlasmaTwa2 00:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The only major difference right now is that the Boerse deal has happened, while the TSX has not. Both are equally notable for various reasons. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Support A merger with such extent is clearly sufficient for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - good time to post this one, as I see it. Jusdafax 10:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Update? Which article is updated? -- tariqabjotu 14:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Silvio Berlusconi indicted

BBC: Article needs to be expanded to cover this, but a European head of state indicted, accused of sex with an underage girl, probably news-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Newsworthy, yes, definitely agree there. But this is potentially a BLP timebomb. So neutral. StrPby (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a point of information at this point: This prosecution has been in the works for weeks. The indictment itself has long been expected.--Chaser (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - also check the related entry Rubygate --ItemirusMessage me! 17:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Extremely rare to have a sitting head of state indicted for any crime in the western world The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - rare event. support this..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support but Berlusconi is head of government, but that doesn't matter... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. Big deal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support We usually post every indictment against such politician.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support but link Rubygate--78.2.39.213 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support sitting PM formally indicted is a major news. Crnorizec (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per The Resident Anthropologist and Crnorizec. --candlewicke 20:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Is the article updated? Nergaal (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything at all in the article related to this particular indictment. — RockMFR 03:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There was an update earlier in the lead.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Bahraini protests

..should be added--78.2.29.139 (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: two dead, getting as much attention as Yemen and Algeria. Iran now also has a death, and members of parliament are calling for opp leaders' executions. Current Mideast protest blurb should be expanded significantly. Cjs2111 (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Any objections? The article looks fine. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead. Maybe combine with the other protests. --Tone 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Chevron fined $8 billion for pollution

BBC: "The lawsuit was brought on behalf of 30,000 Ecuadoreans, in a case which dragged on for nearly two decades." The trial seems to have started as far back as 2003. I don't know if there is a specific article? --candlewicke 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: This is a massive court case that incorporates a variety of topics. And it's rare that we get to post positive stories on ITN. Nightw 06:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Obvious reason The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support The sum of money is quite impressive. GreyHood Talk 20:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Updated. Suggest: Chevron Corporation is fined $8.6 billion after being convicted in relation to Texaco's pollution of a large part of Ecuador's Amazon region. --candlewicke 21:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Support per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support A massive decision by the court, deserves inclusion ITN. Zarcadia (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Nergaal (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

February 14


2011 Iranian protests

This is my first ITN nomination, so forgive me if I made a mistake. I tried to follow the instructions above carefully.

Anyways, I consider this to be very significant news because it has allegedly attracted approximately 350 000 protestors.[12] Master&Expert (Talk) 01:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Currently third on ITN: "Anti-government protests are held in Algeria and Yemen amid similar protests across the Arab world."
Solution: Add Iran and move to the top? Anti-government protests are held in Algeria, Iran and Yemen amid similar protests across the Arab world. --candlewicke 01:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
That may be implying that Iran is in the Arab world, which, of course, it's not. -- tariqabjotu 01:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Iranians would be so utterly pissed off when you'll group them with the Arabs. See Persian Gulf naming dispute. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
solution change arab world to middle east. -- Ashish-g55 02:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Algeria is not in the Middle East. --Stephen 02:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
And the article for "similar protests" is 2010–2011 Arab world protests. You'd need to add info about the protests in Iran and get talk page consensus to re-title the article.--Chaser (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Middle east also consists of north africa... i dont understand how Algeria is not in middle east. if you really need to be picky then you can call it Greater Middle East. -- Ashish-g55 03:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Pakistan is also included in the definition of the Greater Middle East, but it is definitely not in the Middle East and we'd look uneducated if we said it was part of the region. It'd be best to say "...across the Middle East and North Africa". But, as Chaser mentioned, the article probably needs to have its title updated first. If the Iran article were put up on its own -- say after the Algerian and Yemeni protests dropped off -- it would probably be okay to put "Anti-government protests are held in Iran amid similar protests across the Arab world." as that sounds much less like we're saying Iran is in the Arab world. -- tariqabjotu 03:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────I think this may still imply we're including Iran in the Arab world. Hardly any of the discussion has been about whether to post this as a separate blurb. I'm still unclear on basic details. Are these protests in support of the Egyptian revolution or against the Iranian government? This NY Times article suggests the former. I'm not sure that's ITN worthy. Other comments?--Chaser (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I gather, it started as a solidarity protest and devolved into an anti-Iranian government protest. That being said, at what point do these protests stop being similar? It's unclear there is a movement toward ousting Ahmadinejad. -- tariqabjotu 05:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that it's mostly monarchists who want to see a reversal of the 1979 revolution. The target is Ayatollah Khamenei. It may have been inspired by the Arab revolts, but it's quite different. Nightw 06:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Are the protests in Iran even related to those in the Arab states? There needs to be a visible connection for me to support them being included in the same blurb. Nightw 04:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 100% related. The protests originated as a rally in support of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia by opposition leaders who headed the 2009 protests in Iran. The government is trying to tread a line between praising the Arab revolutions as versions of its own 1979 Islamic Revolution and condemning the protesters in Tehran for being agents of foreign governments rather than in solidarity with the Tunisian and Egyptian protesters. It's directly linked in several ways. Cjs2111 (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Plus the 2011 Bahraini protests--78.2.29.139 (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - even if the title/scope of 2010-2011 Arab world protests isn't changed, it would be possible to add a blurb reading something like "Protests in Iran flare up in response to the 2010-2011 Arab world protests", avoiding the issue of associating Iran too closely with the Arab world. Cjs2111 (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • But it's not really true. It was in response to the protests in Egypt.--Chaser (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I see Tunisia popping up in references to the Iranian protests everywhere, e.g. "Tunisia, Egypt, now Iran," they chanted, naming the deposed leaders Ben Ali, Mubarak, adding Khamenei, the supreme leader.' [13] I can find more of these if necessary. Cjs2111 (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Couldn't we just say that they are all in the MENA region? SilverserenC 17:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted, but I had to trim the blurb a bit. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Honduras plane crash

policitian figure dead - 14 fatalities. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. A user (can't recall who exactly at the moment) did an analysis of the last 100 ITN news stories and found that there were too many accidents whose effects are limited to a small number of people. Colipon+(Talk) 19:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. Not many fatalities, so I'd agree ordinarily. However, a sitting government vice-minister and a former finance minister were on board. The vice-minister is getting more press, but the finance minister is more important in most countries (at least before retirement). Unfortunately we don't have an article for either one of them. I also can't tell how important this union leader was. Regardless, the article is not yet long enough to be posted.--Chaser (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm working to make it longer. wackywace 20:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Chaser makes a good point. The line to assess "importance" is always somewhat arbitrary. Here, I would say that if the people who died do not have articles to begin with and will now only have articles written on them by virtue of their involvement in the plane crash is in violation of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:RECENTISM. Many of these articles completely fade after the news cycle ends. Colipon+(Talk) 22:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose An user (can't recall but know is the one who first posted in this section) refuses to understand that Wikipedia is not for NEWS. I strongly disagree (and get frustrated) when people (repeatedly) post articles about aircrafts crashes, earthquakes and all that stuff without exactly knowing if that will become something worthy of remembering in ten or more years. Many of Eugen Simion's articles have been deleted per the concept of NOTNEWS, and they still do it. There's a news wiki! Come on! Go use it instead!

¬¬

Diego Grez (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. I think to be fair that a plane crash resulting in 14 fatalities with some senior political people on board isn't going to be completely forgotten immediately. --candlewicke 01:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Article is very thin and appears to be up for deletion (though as I look it appears to be a snow keep). The current state of the article is enough to keep it off ITN. RxS (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ronaldo leaves football

Ronaldo announces the end of his career in football. GreyHood Talk 12:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Non-story. I'd support if he was still at the top of his game and the retirement was unexpected, but as it stands it's just another sports star retiring. StrPby (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. I am of the camp of editors that believes ITN is a great way to showcase good articles on Wikipedia. This isn't small news, and the Ronaldo article is quite good. Colipon+(Talk) 15:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support he isnt some random soccer player. theres only few that should make it to ITN for retirement and i believe he is one of them. -- Ashish-g55 15:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. One of the greatest ever footballers. We don't normally post retirements here but I agree this is a rare case where an exception can be made.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support as nominator, per Ashish and Johnsemlak. There are indeed a very few football players whose retirement should be posted unconditionally, no matter if they are at the top of the game at the moment or not. GreyHood Talk 16:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I never like posting retirement stories because they often don't last. There are so many cases when people changed their minds... --Tone 16:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
oppose Ronaldo as "one of the greatest ever footballers" is highly dubious and subjective. he had his time under the sun and faded as fast. his notability has gone a miss a longe time. Roberto Carlos playing in the Caucausus is more notable.--Lihaas (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Nah. Ronaldo already had his five minutes of fame. Not interesting either. Diego Grez (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Footballer gets a bit old, retires to count his money and polish his Ferrari. Where's the news? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support One of the most iconic and successful footballers in the modern era. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Top goal scorer in the FIFA World Cup, and an iconic footballer, very much worthy of a mention. Zarcadia (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. This appears to confirm the point Zarcadia has made. --candlewicke 22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Can't see this event is particularly noteworthy, even though Ronaldo is. Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Everyone eventually retires, there's nothing special about the event (regardless of how important the football player is). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Chinese railway minister dismissed, charged

Thread below

(article below is ready for posting)Lihaas (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Support if it is needed again. --candlewicke 03:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support again if it is needed. Blurb prepared below. Colipon+(Talk) 15:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment I don't see any consensus down there. Legitimate points are made for and against the item. If we were really desperate, I might put it on, but there are items with greater amounts of support that are only an update away from being added to ITN. -- tariqabjotu 17:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that there was no consensus - the only user opposing with some sort of argument was Cjs2111, who later seemed to withdraw his opposition after reasoning with another user. Only two others opposed, one of which cited Cjs' reason, and the other is a one-time IP user who gave no reason. Many events with much more controversy, such as Prince William's engagement, were posted. Colipon+(Talk) 19:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support This is ready to post and here is my vote to add for consensus. GreyHood Talk 20:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Grammy Awards

The 53rd Grammy Awards are on-going. Per ITN/R we generally post the Record of the Year. Grsz 11 01:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Blurb: American country group Lady Antebellum wins five Grammy Awards including Record of the Year, while Canadian indie rock band Arcade Fire wins Album of the Year in the 53rd Grammy Awards at Los Angeles.
(Pending article update. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC))
A bit long, but something like that. Judging from last year's article, I'm not optimistic the article will be updated. -- tariqabjotu 04:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I remembered updating last year's article, but there was an edit war there on whether to have prose updates I got disinterested. For this year, I believe Lady Antebellum and Arcade Fire have been updated. At the risk of being accused of WP:RECENTISM the updates should be enough. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Assuming everything IS updated, this is an obvious choice for the front page, but I'd like to note that Lady Antebellum won five awards (they had seven six nominations). -- Mike (Kicking222) 13:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Oooops. I could've swore I saw "seven" earlier. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. Why isn't this up yet? Radagast (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted. I took the nationalities and genres off the blurb for brevity. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    I was just coming here to ask where the update was. Neither of those articles seem updated beyond a sentence and there are several places where they just mention their nominations but no wins. -- tariqabjotu 17:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    Teh updates are in the leads -- aside from stating what else could've been added that won't violate WP:RECENTISM? Comparing The King's Speech's update, it was similar in length -- the latter was longer as it was also nominated in another award-giving body. (P.S. It's a good idea to bring back Arcade Fire, a GA, into the blurb.) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    Et tu, Brute? After this remark, I think it's finally time for you to remove the complaint about lack of updates in your signature. The update criteria is in its eleventh hour. -- tariqabjotu 18:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    LOL wut? The article is updated. What else will you have to add aside from they've won? The Bieber fangirls blasted Esperanza Spalding? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    Believe it or not, we are not required by law to put every major news event on ITN. There have been a number of items that have gotten support, but never received an adequate update and therefore never make it on ITN. I fail to see what's different in this situation.
  • As with the World Cup opening, people complained there was "nothing else to say". Really, three sentences can't be said about one of these two groups winning a top Grammy award? Nothing could be said about how, for Arcade Fire, this award and their performance could put them on the map for a market that otherwise wouldn't know about them? As a GA, Arcade Fire deserves a better update than an uninspiring, grammatically poor sentence in the body ("The band was nominated for awards in three categories: album of the year, best rock performance by a duo or group with vocals, and best alternative music album (forThe Suburbs); it won Album of the Year.") Nothing could be mentioned about how they were huge underdogs against Lady Antebellum and Eminem? That's not recentism; for Arcade Fire, this is a major milestone.
    Lady Antebellum is even worse; its history section makes no mention of its win, and the intro, despite mentioning the win in the last sentence, has a sentence that sounds like the Grammys haven't occurred yet. And, it's not difficult to mention that Eminem was expected to clean up at the Grammys, but Lady Antebellum played spoiler. Again, this doesn't need to be elaborated in depth, but it could be said. Alternatively, all of this information can be put in the Grammys article, where it is not at all recentism because that's what the article is about.
    But, oh, Howard, you raise some stupid straw point that I was not saying at all, making yourself look dumb in the process by employing the same baseless arguments that every comment of yours has decried for the past eight months. I got it; I'll fuck off now. -- tariqabjotu 19:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    Do you really honestly compare an awards show to a soccer game? Arcade Fire stayed on stage for less than the time a referee allots for stoppage time (except for their perfomance). Sport articles don't usually have updates on the aftermath, just the scores and what happened on the match -- in this case, the match time per se is the time they received an award. You could write an FA's worth of an article about a soccer match; for things such as this, that happened on one night, you won't have to write much the day after.
    P.S. I love it when people resort to profanity. So cute. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    P.P.S. It wasn't I who even updated the article, I just added the references. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
"But, oh, Howard, you raise some stupid straw point that I was not saying at all, making yourself look dumb" is this behaviour of an admin to resort to NPA attacks instead of being level-headed.? tariqabjotu needs to be recalled, hes done this before too.
and as the nom pointed out it is on ITNR--Lihaas (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Tariqabjotu, this is the wrong forum; please follow WP:DR. Regarding the blurb, ITNR just means that we don't need to discuss the story's significance. The other criteria still apply, including the requirement that there be a sufficient update. WP:ITNR says this in the lead, third paragraph.--Chaser (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

China becomes world's second-largest economy

China overtakes Japan as world's second-largest economy by nominal GDP. BBC

Japanese economy data have come out. There was a small discussion about it in January, and we agreed to wait until the issue of Japanese statistics. It's top business news on BBC, and quite an important development in the world economy. While China has surpassed Japan by GDP (PPP) several years ago, this new sfift shows the growing financial power of the People's Republic. GreyHood Talk 00:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Full Support. It had long been speculated that this would happen, but now we have official confirmation and confidence. One of the defining shifts in our generation. Good summary in WSJ: [14] Only thing more historic would be the surpassing of America as number 1. That will happen maybe in a decade in nominal terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.61.95 (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
oppose this ahs already been posted. how mny times shuiold we post? when every single body confirms?Lihaas (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
no this was only posted for a few hours then withdrawn because many thought it was not definitive whether it china had passed japan. see the history. Now it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.61.95 (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
When exactly was this posted? GreyHood Talk
In August, but it was pulled very quickly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.. I was on vacation then. GreyHood Talk 08:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Old news. Colipon+(Talk) 02:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. The BBC is reporting it now so it must have been confirmed. Either way is seems like a major event of significance and interest. --candlewicke 03:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support due to the fact that it is confirmed (if it indeed is). Big news. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - I see this in the major media, so it appears to be ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 06:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support as clearly ITN worthy and a huge business story that was pulled last time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support as nominator. GreyHood Talk 08:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. There is no story here, besides a fact of dubious importance already contained in the blurb itself. We could have many stories of the form X surpasses Y to become the Nth largest Z, but in reality such changes rarely ever matters, and don't see a case why this one is different. If there were an article on the historical growth of China's economy, then maybe, but the article you are highlighting is a simple list that basically provides no more information on this "event" than then blurb itself does. Dragons flight (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The story here is obvious and its all over the world news: China has been confirmed to become the second largest economy in the world by any type of GDP measure. Also, there are plenty of candidates for the article on the historical growth of China's economy: Economic history of modern China, Economic history of the People's Republic of China or even Historical GDP of the People's Republic of China. If there is agreement to bold link some other article, very well, but I think that the international GDP list is most informative and most handy link for comparison with other countries. GreyHood Talk 09:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment I've removed "in 2010" addition from the blurb (made by someone else). Specifying the period is redundant, since China is sure to have overcome Japan, say, by per month statistics as well. It's just the second largest economy in the world nominally and really, by any chosen period in the last months, and there is no way Japan could return its second place in the near future. GreyHood Talk 09:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, it's in the news now, is of a great economic and political significance, and we've got an article and an update, so it's fit for posting. StrPby (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - both a current news event, and a historic event of encyclopedic value. This is a watershed moment for the world's economies that will be discussed decades from now. Radagast (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
That's silly. China has been a major economic power for many years. Japan is and will remain a major economic power. The long-term trajectories of these economies is very important, but the marginal change in any single year is of little importance, and the order on a specific summary list is of essentially no economic importance. Decades from now we will be talking about the economic dominance of China, but I find it very unlikely anyone will care about this "event" for when and how China passed Japan. Dragons flight (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment Which article is updated? -- tariqabjotu 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The link already in the blurb is updated and is the best one. If non list article is preferred, than we have two updated articles: Economy of the People's Republic of China and Economic history of modern China. GreyHood Talk 12:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - once in a lifetime event. Now officially confirmed by Japan's latest statistics. --Logwea299 (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Ready to post? We have 75% majority support, two updated articles to choose from. Where are the admins? Too many nominations are likely to get posted soon. GreyHood Talk 20:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Very important economic topic, should definitely be mentioned ITN. Zarcadia (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
No Update Three sentences. That's what the ITN criteria request. None of the three articles associated with this topic seem to be updated with three sentences. Someone point them out if they're there, and I'll gladly post. But at the moment, with the backlog of close-to-posting items, there's no rush. -- tariqabjotu 01:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Update is here: Economic history of modern China. And here is the blurb ready:

February 13


64th British Academy Film Awards

  • The BAFTA ceremony is taking place now, Best Film to be announced shortly. This is ITN/R Source - JuneGloom Talk 20:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per ITNR pending an update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The King's Speech has been named Best Film and the article is a GA, which is nice. - JuneGloom Talk 21:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The blurb in this case should read something like: The King's Speech wins X awards including best film at BAFTAs. Ready to post when the articles are updated (feel free to modify the blurb as well). --Tone 21:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Important event in the film calender. wackywace 21:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The film won seven awards altogether. I've updated the film's article, does the 64th British Academy Film Awards need some prose too? - JuneGloom Talk 21:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That would be nice - try to expand the intro a bit. --Tone 21:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Expanded and ref'd. - JuneGloom Talk 21:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 21:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The missing artifacts from the Egyptian Museum of Cairo

The robbery happened after a break-in in the museum amid the protests in the country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course the key report is that the Statue of Tutankhamun is missing. I thought it's poorly to put it only, regardless the other missing artifacts. We could create a new blurb, which clearly emphasizes the Tut's statue.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Statue of Tutankhamun is missing after a break-in in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo amid the 2011 Egyptian protests.

This is the new blurb, containing only the main thing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
We still need a suitable article update. It will not be posted without one.--Chaser (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
oppose current incarnations is more notable anyways.Lihaas (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per Kiril. Having the arts- and history-related stories in the news is always nice. GreyHood Talk 21:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Support if they really were stolen this is major news as some of these are probably the most notable Egyptain artifacts in the world. --PlasmaTwa2 22:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
probably isnt that OR, an on te main opage?vLihaas (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hold on there is no "The Statue of Tutankhamun" sources on state Statues of Tutankhamun[15] The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment—Could I put in a suggestion for focus and more effective linking?
The Statue of Tutankhamun is missing after the Egyptian Museum in Cairo was broken into amid the protests last week

I realise "last week" may be an issue, but "2011" is just too vague for an immediate news report, and the close repetition of "Egyptian" could be avoided. "Cairo" is linked to in all three other link-targets, and is hardly unknown in this context: could it not be linked directly here, to focus readers on the high-value links? Tony (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Chadian parliamentary election, 2011

Election happens today. I've expanded the article a little, but the results still have to be added once they're published. (Ind. Online) Nightw 13:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Support per ITNR pending an update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per Eraserhead1. --candlewicke 16:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per ITNR. GreyHood Talk 16:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

February 12


More protests

Anti-government protests are held in the capitals of Algeria and Yemen following the success of similar protests in Egypt. (BBC News).

There's also currently reports I've heard that Algeria has blocked the internet, and we posted that when Egypt did so. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 02:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We did not post the ones in Yemen before. Given that the police successfully broke these up, I'd say the current round of protests is even less newsworthy. Same reasoning for the ones in Algeria.--Chaser (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Definite support for Algeria. As Strange Passerby has mentioned the internet and Facebook have been shut down. Riot police (30,000 of them in Algiers) have used tear gas and plastic bullets and "journalists being targeted by state-sponsored thugs to stop reports of the disturbances being broadcast to the outside world" / "The police station cells are overflowing" / "There are running battles taking place all over the city". (Telegraph). The protests were not just in Algiers but in other cities nationwide. It has received coverage in the international media, e.g. BBC, France24, Herald Sun, The Guardian, Gulf Times, The New York Times, euronews, Xinhua. It also seems that there have been international demonstrations today to coincide with the ones in Algeria, in places such as Montreal and Paris. --candlewicke 02:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

    • Bigger deal than I thought. Support posting Algeria. Has Yemen been getting this kind of coverage?--Chaser (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Strong Support for Algeria. Colipon+(Talk) 05:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • We seem to have consensus. Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Support but is the Algeria protest article updated? I didn't see anything in it just now. (UPDATE: Found it in the middle of the article, not at the end where I expected it to be.) Jusdafax 07:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - the 2011 Yemen protests are also ongoing, and there's no reason they should not be posted at this time as well. A blurb should also include the 2010-2011 Arab world protests meta-article as well. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The second part of your request is done, but I don't think we have consensus to post the Yemeni protests yet. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Support Yemen protests as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Arrrest warrant issued for Pakistan's former head of state Pervez Musharraf

A Pakistani court issued the warrant for former President Musharraf, who fled the country in 2008. The warrant charges him with not providing quality protection for the assassinated Benazir Bhutto. This sort of warrant is rare, and I believe this to be a first for a country that is a member of the Nuclear club.[16] Jusdafax 23:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Support if updated a bit more. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: A warrant is just a bit of paper. If something comes of it, then okay, but it's not notable until then. Nightw 10:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per Nightw. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

New York Fashion week

This should be an interesting one, and I'm interested to see how this goes. Obviously a specific article needs to be created, but AFAIK we've never posted any fashion stories. This one also has clear international interest - I read about it on Xinhua while looking up the story below. Fashion is part of world culture and thus I feel worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be one of four "major" such events like the golf and tennis. Support if Paris, London and Milan can be accomodated as well. Like Eraserhead1 said it is part of world culture and will be of interest to readers. --candlewicke 00:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - there are many significant news items to be posted on ITN right now. This is too frivolous by comparison. I understand that major sports events get posted, but there's no precedent for culture, even if that seems unfair. I worry this could lead down a slippery slope to far too many events getting highlighted on the main page (what's next? "major" art fairs [how are they determined?], international auto shows, what?). Cjs2111 (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It may be a bit different, however its of interest to women who we don't post much for. There is a large fashion section in even the Financial Times every week so its hardly totally frivolous. There are also four obvious events to post. I doubt we'll post them all - look at the state of Paris Fashion Week but I think it could be worth a try. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Diversity of subjects is a good reason, but it borders on sexism to assume that women are necessarily more interested in this subject than men (or that they aren't as interested in some of the other topics posted). Cjs2111 (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, unless there's something particularly notable about this year's events. I'm not seeing any...? Nightw 10:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
There isn't anything particularly notable about this year's events, but the same applies to a lot of the sport or elections or violent events that we post. And they quite often don't exactly make front page news in a news source on the other side of the world. EDIT: Frankly none of the cultural proposal additions made on ITNR will attract anything like this kind of high-level coverage.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The opening of a Harry Potter movie will attract high-level coverage. It doesn't mean it would be posted on ITN every time it happens, unless there's something particularly exceptional about it (e.g., records, controversy). Nightw 12:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I very much doubt the new Harry Potter movie will be on the front page of Xinhua. And if it is it will be because its the last such movie - which might make it worthy of posting on ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
For future reference the release of the final HP book was added at ITN. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose This is not even really big news in . . . NYC. μηδείς (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
But it is big news in China and I'm sure the New York Times has a whole section on it - whereas we only have one "section". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
You could try again when it's London Fashion Week's turn. ;) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Chinese railways minister sacked

Liu Zhijun, who presides over the largest, busiest, and fastest-developing railway system in the world (by far), is sacked due to a corruption investigation. According to the New York Times, this is the biggest corruption scandal to come out of China since Chen Liangyu. For those who will no doubt criticize this nomination for regionalism or some such, let me remind you that the magnitude would be equivalent to if, say, Ray Lahood or Janet Napolitano got fired then investigated for crimes. And if that were to happen it will most certainly be on ITN. (New York Times) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colipon (talkcontribs) 22:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Support clearly notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I had no idea who the any of those people were (until I consulted the articles), so your analogy was of no use whatsoever. The news source you provided is behind a paywall, but the BBC say he hasn't been sacked and that there are absolutely no details whatsoever about his alleged crimes. Regardless of support here, how on Earth could we get a decent article update from that? We'd also need to expand his article beyond the current 2-paragraph stub and avoid undue weight on the allegations. Modest Genius talk 22:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. Who are Ray Lahood and Janet Napolitano? I don't get your point. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I think his point is that if these American Cabinet Secretaries (Ministers) had been sacked for crimes, it'd be a clear ITN post. I'm inclined to agree. However, given the qualifications that would be necessary for a main page story about this BLP, I'm inclined to wait for something clearer (like a conviction). Lots of people are investigated and later cleared. I'd prefer less ambiguity.--Chaser (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so it was a US.centric view. Would the sacking of the equivalent New Zealand Minister make it? (Or that of any similar "small" country?) HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it's a big and important-centric view. We post changes of government in every country, no matter it's size. China is the second largest economy in the world and in the midst of a huge expansion of mass-transit, so this is more newsworthy than it would be if it had happened in New Zealand.--Chaser (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
NZ maybe, now if this happened in Paraguay... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
In response to Chaser's concern above: in Chinese-bureaucracy-talk, "discipline inspection" essentially means he has already been convicted. The only question now is how many years he will get in jail and not whether or not he will be cleared. The Chinese judiciary operates somewhat... differently. Colipon+(Talk) 05:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Due process much? Well, in that case, sure.--Chaser (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no paywall for me for the New York Times. Here's the article on Xinhua.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Support if he has been sacked (and I can't think of any reason for The New York Times to tell a lie). Corruption and removal from office is nothing new for ITN. --candlewicke 00:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support — thought the word sacked had something to do with the Spanish saquear. Clearly huge news. Diego Grez (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the issue is far too domestic. To answer concerns above, no, a US cabinet level sacking would probably not be ITN worthy, unless it had international implications. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I think your point is belied by the fact that we posted the impeachment of a state governor, who then had no power or influence outside Illinois.--Chaser (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I would have disagreed with that posting, too. Cjs2111 (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Agree with Cjs2111. Jusdafax 07:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support my concerns above have been addressed.--Chaser (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose News about the alleged or proved corruption of state or provincial governors, cabinet members or ministers nor railway officials of any country are In The News(worthy) in my opinion. 81.148.254.213 (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment if corruption by a senior government minister in one of the worlds most important countries in the world isn't worthy of posting what is? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Wars, revolutions, earth shattering and unprecedented scientific discoveries...a lot of things, really. Cjs2111 (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Well fair enough. But the vast majority of stuff recently posted isn't at that level of importance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
True. And I suppose it would fall under "political crime". Fair enough. But there's really inconsistent application of this category, it seems. Ideally it would be limited to heads of state or governments in the future. Cjs2111 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
And then ITN becomes overly elitist and doesn't post enough stuff - at which point it risks being removed from the homepage all-together. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── This looks like it could be ready for posting. There is a good paragraph on the latest scandal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Notify admin? Colipon+(Talk) 02:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Give me a blurb to use? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Chinese Railways Minister Liu Zhijun undergoes investigation for corruption after being sacked as ministry party chief. Colipon+(Talk) 05:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Bone of Lucy discovery

  • The discovery of a bone of the fossil of Lucy which confirms the walk upward is announced.BBC

This evidence is of key importance in the evolution of the human.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Science is under-posted and this is a key event in the evolution of humanity. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Indeed, this seems to be an important discovery. GreyHood Talk 14:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Agree with the people above. Diego Grez (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, but, it's not Lucy, it's the A. afarensis (Lucy is just a nickname of one particular skeleton of this species). Also, there needs to be an update in the corresponding articles. (A. afarensis and possible Evolution of human or upward walk). --Tone 15:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Support if we get a good update, and echo Tone's assertion that this is NOT Lucy itself, but a member of the same subspecies. The correct article to update and feature would be Australopithecus afarensis#Notable fossils. Modest Genius talk 20:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - per Eraserhead and Greyhood. Jusdafax 21:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Needs an update before being posted. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I've made the update, and it seems that we have the consensus to post it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I did some copyediting and added a citation to the Science article diff. Looks good to post. Modest Genius talk 15:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - this is a quite significant science finding & answers an open question about bipedalism. Midlakewinter (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • A new blurb please then? --BorgQueen (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The discovery of a 3.2 million years-old bone of the species Australopithecus afarensis that indicates the human walk upward is announced.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Posting. --Tone 15:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Mars500 simulated mission 'lands' on Red Planet

The crew of the 520-day simulated spaceflight mission, a part of the Mars-500 experiment, lands on the "surface of Mars". RIAN

This project received a fairly big coverage when the 520-day simulation was started last year. The day after tomorrow they will perform the spacesuit walk on the "surface" . GreyHood Talk 14:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say let's wait until they "return home". This is a simulation and it counts when it is completed. --Tone 15:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Wait per Tone. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Wait per Tone as well. Modest Genius talk 23:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Good reasoning, but from the news-making point of view, the current part of the experiment is the most interesting. Though, I guess, by the time when experiment ends we will have the article in a far better shape, and the 'landing' and walk on the 'surface' will be covered in the article... GreyHood Talk 02:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

February 11


Microsoft and Nokia announce strategic alliance

Support This is a huge deal in the smartphone market which these days sells 100 million devices a quarter. This alliance may well make a third serious competitor to Android and iOS. Additionally business stories are generally underposted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggest NOKIA#Alliance_with_Microsoft as the target article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Sounds interesting, but it's only a deal. We do not use to post vastly larger joint ventures which aim future development, so this is an operating deal which could only standardize the smartphone. If it was a merger also, I would support it surely.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This is probably bigger than any tech story that occurred since the start of 2010 other than Android becoming the #1 smartphone OS and the launch of the iPad. I'd be more than happy to support other business stories or a similar standing in other industries, but this one is definitely worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose WP:NOT a business rag, and Nokia has become a very small player in the cellphone market in recent years. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 13:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Nokia's OS Symbian is still the #2 Smartphone OS worldwide, and was #1 until Q4 2010...
And ITN hardly posts any remotely sensible number of business stories. We live in a capitalist world for gods sake. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Nokia is the world's number one cell phone manufacturer by a considerable margin.--~--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per Eraserhead1 and Johnsemlak. GreyHood Talk 13:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - per above supports. Jusdafax 21:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - rare business deal. Colipon+(Talk) 22:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment this should be ready to post. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose This amounts to incredible undue weight. I am a supporter of radical laissez faire, so perhaps somewhat pro-business, but this is simply not news. These sorts of business deals are what big companies do, and we need not promote any specific deal.μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
What else other than the launch of the iPad and Android becoming the #1 smartphone OS is bigger tech news in the past year? This isn't just any old deal, its the worlds second largest tech company teaming up with the world's largest mobile phone company, who already had their own smartphone OS.
It is extraordinarily rare that you'll find a tech story that is this big. It turns the two horse race between Android and iOS into a three horse race. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Not a crystal ball So your argument is that this is going to be big? We need to be in the business of reporting news, not creating it. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Wait a minute, there's no crystal ball here. Nokia is the world's number one cell phone manufacturer. Microsoft is 'big'. Of course the potential success of the alliance is yet to be determined, but it certainly is highly notable as it is.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there no further comments on this one?--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well if the admin in question feels the consensus is there, this one is ready to go :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be much interest. Surprises me this one. Business stories don't get much interest apparently.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Its a big step forward over something like the launch of the iPad which was universally rejected. I think people have been reconsidering their views on things like this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Resignation of Hosni Mubarak: For reals

Vice President Omar Suleiman has announced the resignation of Hosni Mubarak. Authority has been transferred to Egyptian military. BBC --Dorsal Axe 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both BBC and Al Jazeera reporting that Mubarak has just resigned as President of Egypt... --candlewicke 16:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Support (edit confilict) I was just gonna write that.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. But for the love of God, please don't just post 'he resigned' padded out with the protest information which has been repeat-posted god knows how many times by now. Let's see if we can actually be encyclopoedic, and inform readers by also giving what confirmed details there are about who the hell is actually in charge of Egypt right now. MickMacNee (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
DAMN! beatme to it. i think its straightforward and obvious. article is updated with the info.(Lihaas (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)).
Suggested blurb: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak resigns and transfers authority to Egypt's Higher Council of the Armed Forces, following 18 days of protests challenging his thirty-year rule. Obviously we can tweak as necessary, but we need mention of the army being in charge. --Dorsal Axe 16:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • support - definitly support this.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"President of Egypt Hosni Mubarak resigns after 17 days of mass protests" (picture of Mubarak)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I support using a picture of Mubarak over a picture of protesters.--Dorsal Axe 16:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I previously uploaded and used File:Mubarak.jpg because I'm not totally confident in the OTRS permission for the other image. I'd say it's good for ordinary article use, but I have a higher standard for our main page. Mubarak.jpg is PD-USgov, which is beyond doubt.--Chaser (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The posted blurb mentions a "Higher Council of the Armed Forces" which is not explained in the wikilinked article Egyptian Army. Is the "High Council" meant? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I just went by what several news sources, like BBC, were calling it. It might be "Supreme Council of the Armed Forces". I'm not entirely sure, as it doesn't seem to be totally clear... --Dorsal Axe 16:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with changing the photo. The protesters are why this has happened. This is their moment. I'm fine with the protesters as the picture. Jusdafax 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    This is their moment? POV much? Wikipedia is neutral, period. And besides, the logical picture for 'someone resigns' is of the someone, all day every day. MickMacNee (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. Your NPOV is not my NPOV, is all. Let's try to focus on light and not start with personal attacks here. Jusdafax 17:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You can't have 2 versions of NPOV. Putting up an image of protestors because it's "their moment" is an obvious example of POV. Let's try and focus on that form of legitimate policy comment, instead of inventing 'personal attacks' where there are none. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
MickMacNee, I don't see the POV you're talking about. Jusdafax is correct; the big story here is that the protests created a very big change. The effect is amplified by the cause. Compare this to a picture of a crumbled section of the Berlin Wall compared to pictures of protesters on top of the wall, or a smoldering Ground Zero vs. the picture of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center. The effect is more intriguing because of the way it happened. Saying that does not at all suggest -- as you imply -- support for the result; it's just obvious.
Similarly, Jusdafax, MickMacNee did not throw a personal attack. -- tariqabjotu 17:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It's the reason behind the support that was POV, not the image itself. If he had simply said 'we need the to retain the picture of the protests to illustrate the protests', I never would have said anything, except of course that the portrait would still be the most obvious choice given the item is now about the resignation. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Right... and I just agreed with him... It's the protesters' moment because they are the cause of this remarkable event, regardless of whether one agrees with the result. You may not agree with the statement, but that doesn't make it POV. -- tariqabjotu 19:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Saying that the protests caused the resignation is speculation absent a statement from Mubarak confirming that. Until we get that, please excise all wishful POV speculation from the discussion. Thanks. 24.159.24.36 (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I had to read that statement at least three times to ensure I was reading it correctly. Saying that the protests caused the resignation is speculation absent a statement from Mubarak confirming that. You're joking, right? So what; do you think it might have just been coincidence that his resignation came at the same time there were mass protests in the streets? Even if there were a coup involved, the statement that the protests led to Mubarak's resignation would still clearly be true. That's why that's said in... I dunno... the blurb on the Main Page. Did you notice the blurb says he resigned following eighteen days of protests? Did you notice that the bolded link is not Hosni Mubarak but the protest/revolution article? Or do you think that's wrong and POV as well, because it's possible he might have resigned simply because a fortune cookie told him to? There's no "wishful POV speculation", as you so arrogantly request be "excised"; anyone who has been even remotely following this story, regardless of whether they supported the protestors or Mubarak, knows that the protests ultimately led to Mubarak's resignation. Your denial of that is either due to your lack of awareness of the event or, more likely, a desire to find something -- no matter how illogical -- to back up an already discounted point. Regardless, neither explanation warrants my attention. -- tariqabjotu 08:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The sky is also "clearly" blue, but we still require reliable sources if we say so. Right? And unless Mubarak states his reasons for resigning, we cannot know his reasons for resigning, only speculate. But, as a compromise, I will accept altering the blurb to say that "experts speculate" the protests were involved. 24.159.24.36 (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
No, we don't. Take a look at WP:BLUE and Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed. That Mubarak resigned due to the protests is patently obvious to everyone. Besides, this is what every newspaper and TV station is saying. Modest Genius talk 20:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
We're not negotiating a "compromise" with you. Your suggestion is insane.--Chaser (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Article needs update I'm not going to remove the blurb, but the Hosni Mubarak article could use a much better update. There are perhaps only two one-sentence pieces on the matter. -- tariqabjotu 16:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Suggest blurb go to the protest article, which is updated. Jusdafax 17:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
wait why? Hosni resigned so bold link should be for him... it has resignation mention already. im ok for waiting till it gets properly updated but it should be his link thats bolded. -- Ashish-g55 17:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Jusdafax. The protest article has several paragraphs on it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It's unclear whether it was his own decision to resign. If it was, why didn't he announce it himself? Therefore I would suggest the following blurb: "Vice President Omar Suleiman has announced the resignation of President of Egypt Hosni Mubarak". Nanobear (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems unnecessarily wordy. He resigned. Doesn't really matter who announces it, given that he actually did (which he did).--Dorsal Axe 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That still says he resigned. -- tariqabjotu 17:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Nanobear that this is an important point. Mubarak has not yet made a statement about his departure and we should take care with the wording, but leave the rest of the blurb as it is. Jusdafax 17:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This level of details is normally explained in the article, but not the ITN blurb. We had a similar discussion about whether to say that Obama had been elected right after the election, since the electoral college actually casts the direct votes.--Chaser (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Further comment: A quick check of various news sources shows they all use variations of 'Mubarak resigns', so it seems OK to follow their lead. Jusdafax 17:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Anyone? It's mostly the links that need updating.--Dorsal Axe 20:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Prisoners right to vote

The British House of Commons votes 234-22 against prisoners receiving the right to vote in the United Kingdom. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

source
Oppose No real international signifance, and not even the final step of this dispute apparently. This past 2 days I've seen about 5 different versions of what this specific vote actually means for the ECJ-UK treaty status. MickMacNee (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Run of the mill failed domestic legislative proposal. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment It's not a failed legislative proposal at all, if you read the story. It's the British Parliament's reaction to a ruling by the European Court. 87.114.93.203 (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Fairly low-key domestic politics. It's certainly interesting to those of us in the UK, but really doesn't have any international notability. Modest Genius talk 19:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

February 10


Hosni Mubarak addresses Tahrir Square

Redundant, he's resigned, see above renomination (#423) MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following over two weeks of protests in Egypt, crowds gathered in Tahrir Square to hear an address by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in which he stated that he was handing power over to Vice President Omar Suleiman, but stopped short of resigning. CNNMSNBC KimChee (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC) / 21:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, obviously, as nothing has occurred yet. BBC News and Sky News (live, not on websites) are now saying that they are hearing he may not be resigning after all. If it does happen though, then this is an obvious support. --Dorsal Axe 16:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I am now seeing the same hedging on CNN. KimChee (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Support and Wait Once he formally accounces it we can post. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Support and Wait When its official, then we can add it -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
obvious support in the next few hours when it happens.Lihaas (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Wait until he actually announces it. It might not happen. Modest Genius talk 17:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and wait - first of all we dont know if Omar Suleiman will be handed over the power after Mubaraks resignation. We simply has to wait until it happens.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If he renounces, strong support, if not, NO Diego Grez (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
We must never base content here on what a politician has SAYS he will do. There is often little correlation between that and what he actually does. HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)n
UPDATE. Speech on now. ~AH1(TCU) 20:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as he's not resigning after all. Support a mention of the speech, however.--Dorsal Axe 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Now Going in September, so 'support something like

After two weeks of unrest, the President of Egypt announces he will stand down in September. (provided relevant articles reflect this, of course). Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we've already featured that item in ITN before. Perhaps something more like:

Following the largest gathering since protests began, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak reaffirms his intention to step down in September and announces major reforms to the Egyptian constitution, in a televised address. --Dorsal Axe 21:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Deeply oppose any such wording as since the largest gathering since protests began. Whilst the blue-link clarifies things your wording implies that these are the biggest protests in human history (clearly not) and the text should read cleanly without the link being the only explanation. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: a few hours ago it looked as though a major update would be in order before the end of the day, but that was falsely raised expectation. We don't need to update to say that the anticipated update was unnecessary. Unless something really changes, let what is there run its course. Kevin McE (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose per Kevin McE. (And on a side note, Egypt just got burned.) --PlasmaTwa2 21:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Obvious oppose Nothing new, nothing news. President gives speech reiterating what he said a few days earlier isn't news. -- tariqabjotu 22:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Nothing happened. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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

The end of Guitar Hero

Clearly not getting posted, so no need to leave this open.--Chaser (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Despite video game sales of over $1 billion per year in 2008, Activision shuttered its once-successful Guitar Hero business, citing weak sales of the declining rhythm game market.CNN/Money --MASEM (t) 17:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. A new record breaking game would be notable, stopping making a previous-successful series is not. Modest Genius talk 17:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Not making a video game is not news. --Golbez (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose At this point, this has a such narrow audience that it would be silly to announce this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose This is definitely not so important news. -Diego Grez (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Clearly not. Not even close to ITN standards; as per Golbez "not making something" is "not news". Pedro :  Chat  21:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose This is really not ITN material. --Dorsal Axe 21:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, sorry but this doesn't meet the criteria IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

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

February 9


Resignation of Chris Lee

Republican congressman Chris Lee of New York resigns abruptly from the U.S. House of Representatives, following reports alleging that he has been posting solicitations on Craigslist to meet women. CNN KimChee (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Horrible feeling that this would piss all over BLP if it went up.  狐 FOX  23:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps stop at "House of Representatives."? The genie is otherwise out of the bottle anyway. KimChee (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No. For BLP and international interest reasons, this should not be posted.--Chaser (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. A fairly tame scandal about an obscure member of a national legislature. No widespread significance. Modest Genius talk 00:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Another editor has added this to current events for February 9; I think that should be enough. A "fairly tame" scandal? KimChee (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
There are dozens of events on P:CE, but that doesn't mean that they're all notable enough for posting. And yes, in the grand scheme of things, this really isn't important. Even in the States. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I meant to say that P:CE is enough and that I no longer thought ITN was warranted. The "fairly tame" question was a poor attempt at humor. KimChee (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: the resignation of a member of parliament... Is there a big deal I'm missing? Nightw 05:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Of no importance or interest outside the US Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Gossip news that doesn't affect anyone outside the U.S. --bender235 (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
doesnt really affect to many people in the US either. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Moldovan parliamentary election, 2010

  • This is a weird item. In short, the constitution of Moldova requires the parliament (elected directly) to choose a president, otherwise it gets dissolved and new elections are held. There were two more elections in 2009 because they could not choose a president, and now it looked like it would be the same thing and there would be a 4th round of elections. However, Moldova's highest court ruled that the parliament can stay in power for its full 4 year term even without choosing a president, thus ending a deadlock lasting for 2 years. [17]. Nergaal (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
hmm, what would the article be? and a blurb? I was workign on tht article some time ago and its certainly worthy of ITN, but not sure if it the most appropriate.Lihaas (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
So, uh, who's going to do the presidents job? Is it just going to sit vacant for four years?!? Note we already posted the results of the actual election. Modest Genius talk 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
There is an Acting President of Moldova, the president of the Parliament. Nergaal (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Is he going to serve the entire four year period? Or is there likely to be further wrangling? The reason being we could craft a blurb along the lines of 'court declares that Marian Lupu will remain acting president for the whole parliament, since agreement could not be reached on a new president' (with better phrasing, of course). Modest Genius talk 01:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Axel A. Weber stepping down from Bundesbank

Head of the German central bank steps sdown a year earlier than expected. this is on eof the largest central banks in the world and easily one of the mot influential (the most influential in the largest economy that is the EU.). also in line with Jean-Claude Trichet's upcoming end of his term at the European Central Bank[18]Lihaas (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the significance of this? Sure it's an important institution, but if he's leaving peacefully and with no major fuss, so what? Modest Genius talk 00:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No signification to this date. Let's wait until Trichet's successor is determined. --bender235 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Deutsche Börse and NYSE Euronext merger

live news right now of Deutsche Börse and NYSE Euronext merging with a markey cap of $14b and $9b respectively. statements have been made saying its an all-stock merger with the former having the larger stake..with a market cap of US$15 TRillion.Lihaas (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support per comments below. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Wait. Nothing prevents us from posting both mergers. Two sporting scandals were posted recently, and we shouldn't select just one from two in this case too. GreyHood Talk 19:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I've changed my vote to wait per the comments below. GreyHood Talk 20:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note they have not merged yet. -- Ashish-g55 19:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as far as I can tell, unlike the LSX-TSX item below, there has been no agreement on a merge between these two stock exchanges. They simply are in advanced talks. --PlasmaTwa2 20:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

LSE and TSX merger

I nominated this earlier then took it out. But now that it has actually happened i think its pretty big news. This merger makes it the biggest exchange for mining stocks. also making it second biggest overall with $5.9 trillion market cap -- Ashish-g55 15:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Damn strong oppose -- live news right now of Deutsche Bourse and NYSE Euronext merging with a markey cap of $14b and $9b respectively.
Also Axel A. Weber stepping down from Bundesbank is big news.Lihaas (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
did you even bother to read who merged... wth is DAMN strong oppose without a single reason towards the oppose. it doesnt matter if there are other things also happening around the world. -- Ashish-g55 16:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
why is it notable? is it the biggest? or with all those caveats, for whcih half-a-dozen stories couled perpetually come up. for ITN notability it needs to be bigger obviously.Lihaas (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment Isn't $5.9 trillion >>> $14b and $9b ? GreyHood Talk 17:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
oh right, trillion. that trillion is the market cap of all the companies listed on the exchange, the billion number is the market cap of the stock exchanges itself. (NYSE/Deutsche is much much bigger than a trillion even)Lihaas (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merger between the largest stock exchange in Europe and the largest in Canada is obviously noteworthy. --PlasmaTwa2 18:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
canada is not a financial leader, like SG and HK even.Lihaas (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Last time I checked, that doesn't matter. --PlasmaTwa2 20:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support we can post both mergers if both of them happen. This one seems like a pretty big deal and its 37 hours without an update. HK and SG are pretty damn huge financial centres. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thats my point ;)
and the SGX-ASX merger would be more notable too if it passes
the article doesnt have a single source and per Plasma Twa 2 "agree to merge" is just 1 step above advanced talks. nothing has been legalised. it could fall through for any reason, not least being regulatory oversight.Lihaas (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Eraserhead. GreyHood Talk 19:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support once merger goes through, due to the factoids located here. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • nevermind -- Ashish-g55 15:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Egyptian protests

 
Tahrir Square during Day of Egypt's love.

In one of the largest protests yet, over a million people gathered in and around Tahrir Square to demonstrate and demanding Hosni Mubarak to step down. The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This my first time to post ITN so I dont know what I should have written. All I know that it was the biggest protest so far and the new death toll is up to 300. BTW, the protests have entered their 3rd week -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - This story is big around the world and continues to have international implications. Clearly still ITN material, in my view. Jusdafax 09:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - the particular protest day in question is now over and no longer "in the news" though. Protests continue but the very fact that the proposed blurb has to use past tense ("gathered") means that particular event is now over... Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 11:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • All events on ITN have occurred in the past. It will be written with the present gather. -- tariqabjotu 16:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Support -The biggest ever gathering of protesters during the whol 2+ weeks saga occurs on 8 Feb. Article is sources and updated on that section.Lihaas (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Very big demonstration, and the article is adequately updated... I think. Nightw 15:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Support as per Nightw and others. Crnorizec (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • We seem to have consensus but I am not happy with that blurb. Can anyone suggest alt. please? --BorgQueen (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
hmm, this section changesd since my (initial posT)
but how about "After nearly 3 weeks of protests and international reactions, the largest crowd gathers in Egypt amid renewed calls for Hosni Mubarak's resignation."Lihaas (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sortu party announced

Spanish Basque nationalists announced a new political party named Sortu, categorically rejecting all violence, including that of ETA.

  • I spotted the new article Sortu (created by User:Tygerpencil in newpages and have expanded it and added additional sources over the past hour or so. Given the potential NPOV concerns around this issue, it would be great if editors more knowledgeable about the conflict can give the hook and/or article a read. Zachlipton (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It may or may not be of use to pull Batasuna into the hook as well, which is apparently the name for the banned political wing of ETA. Depending on what source you consult, Sortu is either "the new Batasuna" or something new. Zachlipton (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Only since the November 2009 Declaration of Alsasua Batasuna has decided to work towards a non-violent solution for the Basque conflict. As Sortu seems to be certainly a post-Batasuna party, where its leaders come from the outlawed party, it is precisely Sortu's "no way back" rejection all forms of violence what makes this move particularly interesting. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Interesting, but there is a slight chance that it will be declared illegal by the courts. Nergaal (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • True, but that doesn't make it non-newsworthy. When I first edited the article, I added a paragraph on precisely that issue. Zachlipton (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Leaning toward support. I think being declared illegal would actually make it more notable, not less. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
conditional support if we didnt mention the ceasefire, then this could go up with the ceasefire info. Otherwise we never post new parties.Lihaas (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment We posted the announcement of a ceasefire, but did not post in January when they declared that the ceasefire would be permanent. Grsz 11 20:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Lots of new political parties get formed, all the time. There's no guarantee this one will perform well at the polls or anything else really. Modest Genius talk 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I think there's a big distinction here between this event and the formation of most political parties. This (and I'm taking off my NPOV hat and drawing a very rough analogy, so don't shoot me here) is more akin to a branch of Hezbollah forking off and launching a political party with a statement that categorically rejects all violence and terrorism. It's notable not because it's a new political party, but rather because, as I understand it, it's a number of prominent figures in the Basqu nationalist movement forming a new organization to reject violence and peacefully lobby for an independent state. As this is a break from decades of violent attacks, it's a substantial step. Zachlipton (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan's Government Resigns

Pakistan's cabinet has resigned as part of plans to reduce the number of ministers by more than a third and cut government spending amid an economic crisis, and warnings from US for reduction of foreign aid.[19][20] Crnorizec (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Support this seems worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, but the blurb should be shorter. GreyHood Talk 19:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan's cabinet resigns as part of government spending cuts amid economic crisis, and warnings for reduction of foreign aid. Crnorizec (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I still don't know which one should be bolded and where the update should be... Any suggestions? Crnorizec (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per nom--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
condition oppose with that blurb. the warning of aid cuts are not at all related to the economic resignations, they pertain tot he arrest of a diplomat. (which is more notable for ITN, btw) after he shot 2 people dead in lahore.Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

February 8


February 7


South Sudanese independence

Nomination withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Official results have finally been confirmed (BBC). Nightw 06:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - already posted last week when preliminary results were issued. We agreed to post the results and actual independence; since we've done the former the next SS item to post should be in July. StrPby (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I must've missed that discussion. Nightw 14:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Clashes at Preah Vihear Temple

I heard Cambodian and Thai soldiers were killed. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Very important event which continues the clashes that lasted for years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Support deaths of soldiers is a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose as there is very little information at the Preah Vihear Temple article about the latest confrontation. --PlasmaTwa2 18:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - It does seem pretty thin as far as the current clash goes; just a couple lines, and so could stand more work. But the article on the site itself is reasonably well-written and gives good perspective overall on the long-standing conflict. Jusdafax 19:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
gosh, this is the article Cambodian–Thai border stand-off --78.2.9.87 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The armies of Cambodia and Thailand and clash over the disputed Preah Vihear Temple. --78.2.9.87 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: we should post now Cambodian–Thai border stand-off has loads of content - and its well sourced. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

February 6


First Ever 3D Images of the Entire Sun

First ever 3D images of the entire surface of the Sun are produced by NASA's STEREO probes. NASA GreyHood Talk 21:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We'd need an article update, but other than that, I'd support this, particularly if we have a nice freely licensed image.--Chaser (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Support when updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Support when the sun scans are completely assimilated. Marcus Qwertyus 23:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Support — clearly major science event. Diego Grez (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. Important development. ~AH1(TCU) 00:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we have an update anywhere? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Weak support, but not with that blurb (since the probes are on opposite sides of the sun, the images are in no sense '3d'). Update should go into the STEREO article.
Modest Genius talk 17:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. It doesn't make sense to wait for the scans, it will take years until they are completely processed. Crnorizec (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. First time in human history we are seeing the entire sun at the same time. -68.117.76.96 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - After reading this Time Magazine article [21] , I see why this is ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 19:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

  Administrator note: I'm not seeing an update, and there's at {{update}} tag on the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of seeming dense, what is the article? Sun? NASA? Jusdafax 21:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
STEREO. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
STEREO... silly me. OK, all someone needs to do is update it with a couple quality refs. If I had more time I'd take a whack. Anyone? Jusdafax 21:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm amazed that such an important NASA mission has such a poor article. Doing a decent ITN update would double the number of references, and we'd still be left with several other sections that would need expanding. Modest Genius talk 21:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Updated [22]. I also removed the {{update}} tag. I think it is a fair question, but given that my perusal of sources did not answer it, I don't think it's a fair tag.--Chaser (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And posted, looks enough.  狐 FOX  09:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Death of Gary Moore

  • Any thoughts? I'm not a big fan of his music but he does appear to be famous. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I had never heard of him, and I am big on blues and music in general. Still, I see what you are saying, since he worked with a lot of notable names, and also created a considerable body of solo work. But I'm going to lean Oppose for now unless there are good arguments advanced to convince me otherwise. Jusdafax 20:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Worth raising here, but oppose. He might have been famous, but he doesn't seem to have been at the top of or highly influential in his field of expertise as far as I can see, though blues isn't something I know an awful lot about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Who? <-- full rationale right there The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep it serious, cheers. (For what it's worth, he was a guitarist in Thin Lizzy for a good while.)  狐 FOX  09:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Weak oppose, did a lot with his life, death was very unexpected (one article seemed to suggest he was completely healthy, unlike a lot of rockstars), but I don't think he's quite notable enough.  狐 FOX  09:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Death of Josefa Iloilo

Fijian President 2000-2009 - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As he's not currently in office is he notable enough? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Those years are more than long enough (George W. Bush was around for a similar period of time) and the article states "At the age of 88, he was the world's oldest head of state". --candlewicke 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The comparison to GWB is uninstructive. Iloilo doesn't meet the death criteria. We get enough flak for posting changes of government in states few English speakers care about. Posting this death (which was no surprise) won't help us there. Finally, the oldest person in a field (politics) that is dominated by older people is also not enough to merit ITN coverage.--Chaser (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chaser and because he was far from the most powerful person in his country during his presidency. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, assuming the article is updated. I think we should generally post the deaths of any former head of a fully-recognised state. Heads of state/government, especially those who serve for several years (like the best part of a decade), often have a huge impact on their country and on the world through the country's foreign policy. A former head of state, even of a relatively small country, probably had a comparable impact internationally to either of the US Senators whose deaths we posted in the last 18 months or a SCOTUS appointment (and I think we were right to post those) and Iloilo's death is certainly vastly more important than every sport tournament to feature on ITN in the last year put together. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, pretty much per HJ. No one cares what English speakers care about. ITN is for what's in the news. And this is important news. I have no idea what Chaser is rambling on about. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
What part of it did you not understand? Perhaps the part about English speakers being most of our readers--Chaser (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The part that this doesn't match the death criteria (which it does, from which I quote "The deceased was in a high ranking office of power, and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region."), and the part that the fact that the guy was the oldest head of state is undeserving of a mention (which it isn't on its own, true, but it adds to the significance). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Is that what that means? I read that as saying he died in office ("was [at the time of death] in a high ranking office...").--Chaser (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it could be worded more specifically. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
English is an official language in Fiji. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. He was a major figure in the 2006 military coup. Nightw 06:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

365 marathons in one year

BBC. "15,000km (9,569 miles) in a year". --candlewicke 06:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, it's a world record after all, and he wasn't doing some weird stuff, but an Olympic sport. GreyHood Talk 11:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
What's next? Longest amount of time a person dribbled a basketball continuously? Most number of people who swam in a pool in a day? The most number of times whatever the bandy players do? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
All that sounds weird. Marathon sounds great. GreyHood Talk 12:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Great acheivement: hope he made loads for his chosen charities, but not competitive races, and successive marathoning is not a competitive sport: he is world champion at something that no-one else does, and to that extent it is equivalent to a world record standing on one leg in a bucket of baked beans while reciting Shakespeare's sonnets in Sanstrit and flipping pancakes. Kevin McE (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually he beat the record of a bit less marathon-crazy Japanese runner, so that's not something that no-one else does. GreyHood Talk 14:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Awesome achievement, but I thing this would be best for DYK. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yup, this is an excellent DYK item. Provided there is an article...--Tone 17:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Event cancelled for the first time since 1946

Daily Yomiuri Online BBC News The Japan Sumo Association cancels the Spring Grand Sumo Tournament in light of a match fixing scandal, the first time the event has been cancelled since 1946. --candlewicke 06:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Lowest temperatures in more than 50 years

BBC: Freezing weather, snow, no electricity / water in thousands of homes, schools and factories shut, people dead. 35 zoo animals also dead. Among them two crocodiles and a monkey. Does an article exist? --candlewicke 06:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. It's winter. Previously the record for the coldest day in Sri Lanka was rejected. What makes this different from all of the countries breaking national records for coldest temperatures? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
You have very nice point here. All countries are equal, and should be regarded as such. Every classification is by prominence, which becomes bias.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Or rather, it's the country that nobody feels the need to name, on the assumption that everyone reading automatically knows which one it is. 87.112.177.117 (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
We could add this to the blizzard article. Maybe it will be eligible for DYK instead. ...Maybe. ~AH1(TCU) 15:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I'd support the lowest temperature in a country ever recorded, but the weather being a bit chillier than normal isn;t that significant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLV

Wee. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Off topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[sarcasm]How can anyone even think about supporting this? American football is a national sport with no international significance whatever. ITN will be such a joke if this goes up.[/sarcasm] Obvious support --PlasmaTwa2 12:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Whether its international significance should be discussed or not, this is no place for it. Please, don't initiate it and remain serious.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Have a sense of humour. Jeez. --PlasmaTwa2 21:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Stop shit-stirring. Jeez.  狐 FOX  22:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Support As I promised before, I support this since it really is a significant sports event.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Off topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bet: This will have more opposes than the sumo event above. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I suspect it will have very few serious opposes, but don't mistake that for enthusiasm from those not voting to see it displayed. Talking of which no vote Kevin McE (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Support only after the game ends. Nergaal (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't think this would've gone up anyway at halftime. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Support μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Off topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support Unlesss it's called for snow, in which case list under blizzard. More people will watch this and it will generate more economic activity than a year's worth of sumo and cricket combined. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
i dont know how u managed to compare superbowl, sumo and cricket... care to provide numbers? -- Ashish-g55 18:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
IPL 2008 had a revenue of US$209 million, while in the same year, Cricket Australia had an annual revenue of A$150 million (US$148 million). Sumo's annual revenue is around 10 billion yen or US$121 million. Those three total US$480 million. This year's Super Bowl is expected to generate US$611 million w/in North Texas. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the math. I was just going by that fact that it's self-evident.μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a flawed comparison. This is the number 45, while the sumo item is the first cancellation in 65*6 or almost 400 events. When we will get to superbowl >100 and it will be cancelled, then such comparisons would make sense. Nergaal (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose American Football is supported only by a minority of sports fans across the world, is US-centric as a subject, is US-centric in terms of article content, does not promote Wiki's world view, and is a non-notable event in the context of sporting headlines. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, the outcome of the game. Nakon 19:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Why does this discussion exist? We have longstanding consensus to include the premier championship[s] of every major sport (provided that the appropriate article updates occur), with Australian rules football, Canadian football and Gaelic football receiving the same treatment as American football. We also have WP:ITN/R, the purpose of which is to eliminate the need for individual debates (beyond determining that the aforementioned update requirement has been met). The serious comments and satirical ones are blending together in a cacophony of pointlessness. Let's end this nonsense, please. —David Levy 20:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It was just an excuse to bash the theoretical population of editors who think there are too many American stories on ITN. We'd probably do well to summarily delete any discussion about ITN/R items. It's either one of these nonsense conversations or someone fishing for an easy {{ITN credit}} for their talk page. -- tariqabjotu 04:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I endorse the concept of on-sight removal. Apart from addressing whether the article update requirement has been satisfied, discussion of events covered at WP:ITN/R is pointless at best and disruptive at worst. —David Levy 06:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Take this elsewhere, please. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support posting the results per David Levy. for all others US is the worlds largest economy, only superpower and the country with most wikipedians whether you like it or not.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
But of course, none of that matters in this context. As noted above, we extend equal treatment to the premier championships of Australian rules football, Canadian football and Gaelic football. We even have a formal page on which this is documented. I don't understand why some users believe that American sports are singled out for inclusion. —David Levy 20:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
There are two(!) Gaelic games items on ITNR, either one or both are gone now. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The All-Ireland Senior Football Championship is included. I restored it to the list after it was removed inappropriately. (I assume that you recall the relevant discussion.) —David Levy 01:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
One was removed appropriately. See the ITNR discussion (buried at the proposals for new additions) for the notice that it was removed justly. Only hurling was supposedly left. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
To what discussion are you referring? I see none other than the one to which I linked (and no indication that a second Gaelic football item was included or removed). —David Levy 02:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I see that the discussion has restarted. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
If US is the largest economy and country with most Wikipedians, it doesn't make it the most important country or more important than any other. The use of such criteria as an argument is only a huge bias.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Is that reply directed at me? —David Levy 21:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
No, but to Wikireader41.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - pending outcome of game. Tired of attempts to flame this. Light, not heat. Jusdafax 20:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Obvious Support can we hat this discussion? Its not exactly productive... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Support  狐 FOX  22:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Why?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. Major sporting event. ~AH1(TCU) 00:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. ITN/R. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Has it finished yet and do we have an update? I personally don't think we should put sport on ITN, but the consensus is against me, so when the answer to both those is "yes", I'll post. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Game finished; article not updated. -- tariqabjotu 03:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Will the MVP (Aaron Rodgers, by the way) be included as usual? --PlasmaTwa2 03:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
If there's a free photo of him, we can shoehorn it in as (MVP [whoever] pictured) until the image is switched to something more recent. We don't normally put MVPs in the rest of the blurb, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Premier sports event outcome. --mav (reviews needed) 03:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Support is fine, but what we really need is a paragraph or two of prose on the game and the result (complete with reliable sources) before this can be posted. It is an ITN/R item, so already has consensus, so it's more helpful to get it updated than re-establish an already-established consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Article looks pretty updated now; been a fair amount of work in the past hour. Jusdafax 04:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not seeing where. Could you point me to a specific section that has a bit of prose about the game and the result? Also, that "Super Bowl pregame news and notes" looks suspiciously like a trivia section, but that doesn't have much to do with ITN. User:HJ Mitchell|HJ Mitchell]] | Penny for your thoughts? 04:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • There are Game Summary and Scoring Summary sections, and both are extensive and complete. Problem may be in the sourcing, as the Game Summary has one ref at the very end, and Scoring Summary section, a nice table, has none. Jusdafax 08:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • LOL @ ITN's utter wankness No.3,423,532. MickMacNee (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as an obvious addition based on precedent. I came here to find out what the hold up is since the game has been final for over an hour and a half by now. Imzadi 1979  05:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The hold up is the lack of an update (see a few lines above). I'm quite willing to post it when we have one. ITN has criteria in the same way that DYK does and articles don't go on the Main Page until they meet them, like with DYK, only the criteria are lower and the improvement is supposed to be more rapid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 12:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Removed 9 minutes after posting.[23] Can anyone find a description of the problem with enough details to allow an interested party to work to resolve the issue which caused the removal? I have checked Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in In the news, Super Bowl XLV, and Talk:Super Bowl XLV but find no obvious indications of where the problem is located in the article. --Allen3 talk 13:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      No evidence presented, putting it back. --Golbez (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      First, the reason I didn't elaborate immediately is because I had to go not long after I removed the blurb. In the limited time I had, I tried to research the issues that editors on the article had suggested. I assumed that was a better use of my time rather than explaining the details because I thought it would have been very easy to discover the source of the concern. Because it's... you know... in the article history.
      At the very least, I would have expected Golbez to attempt to credit the person responsible for updating the article (as you're supposed to do on ITN), which would have required looking at said history. If you had, it would have been very apparent what I was talking about. Chainclaw, the person who added the material to the article, had been reverted four times, and there was one time when Chainclaw -- in his defense -- argued that "What I put in comes directly from NFL.com". It's unclear to me whether he actually meant directly or what the precise allegations of Chain's reverters are (perhaps they took issue with another part of the article or were just weary of a new editor), but I don't think it'd be too much to ask that someone check them out.
      Finally, let me say I have no tolerance for this kind of impatience. Allen, I did not need you to post a notice on my talk page when I didn't respond in 45 minutes, and Golbez I did not need you to declare "no evidence for hours" in your re-adding edit summary. Understand that people have lives beyond Wikipedia, believe it or not. -- tariqabjotu 15:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      My apologies for taking so long to place a courtesy notification on your talk page. As you note, people have lives outside of Wikipedia and events caused it to took longer than to add the notification that I would have preferred. --Allen3 talk 16:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      That wasn't the issue. It came across less as a courtesy notice (fine) and more of a "can you respond faster?". Never mind, though... -- tariqabjotu 18:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      I saw no notice on the page of a copyright violation, I saw no discussion on the talk page of a copyright violation, and the facts that the event had happened and that the article had been updated were not in dispute. You claim the issue was with Chainclaw's edits; any edits of his that could be considered a copyvio were reverted (or later replaced) not only hours before you reverted yourself, but hours before you made the initial update. As for "required for ITN", I wasn't aware of this, but on the other hand, presumably you had already done this? I apologize for being bitchy about "hours", of course we aren't here all the time, but on the other hand, I was a little annoyed I had to be the first to undo your reversion, because - with the evidence presented - I saw no reason for the story to be removed. --Golbez (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      To be fair, it is not mandatory for the posting admin to give out credits. It is just a notification, not a trophy. According to Wikipedia:In_the_news/Admin_instructions: If not, somebody else will do it for you; these tasks don't require admin tools! --BorgQueen (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      Chain's initial game summary is essentially the same as what's there now. So, I don't know what you think was removed hours prior to my changes to ITN (+1 for the also saying hours before another edit nine minutes earlier [insert eye rolling]). I can't decipher what you're saying in the sentence starting with As for "required for ITN".... It's in the ITN requirements, but it's also just common sense. I don't think we post any articles on the Main Page (as bolded items) that have large swaths of unsourced content. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      To respond to something you said earlier: "It's unclear to me whether he actually meant directly or what the precise allegations of Chain's reverters are (perhaps they took issue with another part of the article or were just weary of a new editor), but I don't think it'd be too much to ask that someone check them out." You didn't ask; you said there was a copyright violation, without any notice on the article, talk page, or in edit summaries. Someone posted something said to come from nfl.com a few dozen edits back, and other editors reverted then apparently (I not being them, I cannot know their decisions) vetted it and put it back. If it's not too much to ask someone to check out a potential copyright violation, then it's certainly not too much to ask to be told up front what to look for. And you're mixing up my "Required for ITN" comment; I did not know it was required for ITN to give credit, that was what I said I had assumed you had done. I know we can't post a copyright violation link to the front page, but no evidence given pointed to one being present. --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      I have already addressed all the points above that are worth addressing, and, once again, you are misreading the article history. It's obvious there's going to be no discussion about the nature of the article, let alone whether it's still acceptable for ITN, so I'm finished here. -- tariqabjotu 18:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      With a cursory Google search and a look at the NFL page Chain was presumably talking about, it doesn't seem to be a copyright violation. Based on the comments on Chain's talk page, the issue, rather, seems to be with the unsourced nature of the summary. ITN requirements say updates should be sourced, and it can be argued that lengthy unsourced material is almost as bad as copyrighted material, but I'm not going to touch the blurb further less I have to drop everything else and spend the next couple hours responding to your queries. -- tariqabjotu 15:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      Then say the update is unsourced, rather than bringing up a copyright issue which was [apparently?] resolved six hours before both of your actions. That was what threw me; you were saying there was a copyright issue that didn't appear to be mentioned anywhere else. --Golbez (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      Again, I don't know what you're talking about. What was removed six hours earlier? Chain added content, and it was removed three times before one of the reverters opted to re-add the content as it originally was, with the caveat that it needed work. I assumed the problem was that it was a copyright violation as, indeed, it has almost no references and is a very detailed summary. Considering I can't find a copy of the text anywhere else (on the NFL website, or elsewhere), it seems their only concern is its unsourced nature, which is apparent from just looking at the article.
      That was what threw me; yeah, okay, right. So, did you ask me about said evidence so you could say "Oh, thanks for sharing", or do you actually want to talk about the content of the article? -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

February 5


New START treaty comes into effect

The New START treaty comes into effect after the ratifications of Russia and the United States are exchanged in Munich.

  • The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary Hillary Clinton met in Munich to exchange the ratifications of both countries. The new treaty replaces the old one, which came into effect in 1991 and expired in December 2009.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Already posted the Russian signing. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Eric. This is hardly ITN worthy news, especially since we've already posted it.--Chaser (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose as per Eric.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan cricket spot-fixing controversy

I'm not a follower of cricket so I'll allow others to comment on how significant this is but 5+year bans in a sport as big a cricket seems pretty notable to me. And all three players were full internationals. I'm fairly certain if three starters for Manchester United were banned for 5 years there would be pressure to post.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support when updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Are they banned from the sport or only from international plays? Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, all professional play sanctioned by the ICC. So that would include all professional domestic leagues in ICC member countries (ie everywhere with even a vague interest in cricket). Modest Genius talk 19:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed: [24], section 6.5. Modest Genius talk 19:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. Major match-fixing scandal, the biggest since Hanse Cronje. Criminal charges are due to follow (along with the inevitable appeal). Is there not a centralised article on the affair that we could bold-link? Modest Genius talk 19:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Pakistan cricket spot-fixing controversy--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, but it may also be worth mentioning that the three of them are to be charged with corruption too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talkcontribs)
Support. I know very little about cricket (or sports in general), but this seems highly noteworthy. —David Levy 20:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support They have now been charged with corruption. Possible two year prison terms. Details here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support This scandal was famous from the time it started; posting a piece of news would be a good decision now that the final decision has pretty much been announced. 124.187.1.155 (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Sounds significant. It's a huge sports controversy indeed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support I'm don't know anything about cricket, but if these were football/baseball/whatever American sport players, it'd undoubtedly get posted (and with good reason, too). Especially significant since it's apparently a worldwide ban. C628 (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

  Administrator note: I don't see an update in the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There's only a sentence. I'll see what I can do. C628 (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
How's this? Keep in mind I know shit-all about cricket. C628 (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Explosion of the Arab Gas Pipeline

Explosion of the Arab Gas Pipeline in northern Sinai suspends natural gas supplies to Israel and Jordan. Beagel (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not clear yet if the pipeline or which branch was exploded; however, gas supplies were stopped due to the explosion. Beagel (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The gas terminal / compressor station supplying both branches was exploded. Beagel (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support when updated a bit more. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The section has been expanded nicely, thanks. Any thoughts? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. Good enough article, international significance, and a way to push the Egyptian topic to the top of the template. GreyHood Talk 17:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support; decent article, it seems like a large enough pipeline that a shutdown, even partial, has repercussions. Though I don't see how it can be linked to the protests, it's the state television, hardly a reliable source, who says that, while the operator of the pipeline, who would presumably know more about it, just said it was an accident. C628 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support also per above. Jusdafax 05:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

February 4