Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2011

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

March 31

[Posted] Resignation of Mexico's attorney general

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

Article updated
Support per global coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Support if there is a sufficient update. None yet. I'd usually not support the resignation of a country's AG, but the Mexican drug war risks destabilizing the government, and has effects outside its borders.--Chaser (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Support sufficiently newsworthy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Appears updated now. Posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Accession to departmentship of Mayotte

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

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

  • It is quite a small territory, so I'm not sure about this one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The size of the territory doesn't matter much, this is the political and legal significance that matters. What was a territory has become a new department. It is as if a US territory were given statehood, which without a doubt would be posted. Cenarium (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
...Except there are no states (in that sense of the word) in France.  狐 FOX  21:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm making a comparison between US states and French departments, as they are the main administrative sub-entities of the respective nations (a region is more like an association of departments). Though there are critical differences from a domestic point of view, they are not as apparent from an international point of view. Cenarium (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
No, as I say there has been some confusion, but the accession has now been confirmed: [1] [2] [3]. Cenarium (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Support France is still a fairly major country, and I think a territory changing status like this is probably significant enough to post. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. Mostly per nom's arguments. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. Such a status change in a major regional (arguably world) power is relevant. I believe we also mentioned on the Front Page the political changes involving Caribbean islands of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Mayotte development is equally notable. The linked articles are all in a good state. Missionary (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Support Good article, interesting topic. RxS (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Ivory Coast events bigger than other below

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

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

  • Comment SupportAbidjan may be under siege as well. This hasn't been too prominent in the news and the death count (462) isn't as high as Libya which is probably why. Sadly, it is probably also viewed as another Sub-Saharan African country in a political/military conflict. With the capital(BF) Abidjan under siege, it'd support it for ITN. The article needs some updating though. I added the {{ITN candidate}} template above.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Changed my vote to support.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Should've been added already. --bender235 (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, the capital (Yamoussoukro) falling is huge news. Abidjan is not the capital, though it's vastly more important. --Golbez (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it still needs more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support if updated, big things are happening in the Ivory Coast. Passionless -Talk 18:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support it looks up to date on the recent seige, for clarity maybe we should pipe to the relevent section in the article, 2010–2011_Ivorian_crisis#March_rebel_offensive. --Jayron32 19:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • P.S. I tweaked the blurb to be factual. Abidjan isn't the actual capital. --Jayron32 20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The usual thing is 5 sentences and 3 sources. There is 5 sentences, but going back to 28 March, Support if updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the update is now sufficient. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've updated the article, and I see no reason not to post it now. So unless someone objects or an admin does so before, I'll post it soon. Cenarium (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Posted, note that I didn't add ", as violence continues", as a siege generally implies violence in and of itself, I also changed "rebels" to "forces" as it seems more appropriate and neutral here, though I'm open to hear arguments. Cenarium (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Update needed They report about 1000 deaths as resulted from the clashes. Makes sense to insert in the blurb. GreyHood Talk 00:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Indian film actor jailed for 7 years

March 30

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sure they have. But pinning or relating anything to the World Cup match is pure original research, as sources such as the Economist show. Please don't ask me to "go and read the sources provided". I've read the source you've provided. You're proposing the blurb. It's incumbent on you to demonstrate its accuracy. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Blurb changed to "India beat Pakistan in the semi-final of the 2011 Cricket World Cup amid the two countries agreeing to improve their relations". I hope that is satisfactory. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Have they ever "agreed to improve their relations" or have they merely entered specific and limited measures which may have the effect of improving relations? Agreement and effect are two different things, especially in diplomatic circles. An agreement to improve relations between India and Pakistan would be very significant. We need a source to back it up. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) Posted I think the political implications go without saying; instead, I just mentioned that both countries' prime ministers were in attendance. I'm similarly uncomfortable with making the match sound like more than what it really was. Regarding consensus, here, it's not overwhelming, but I feel this nomination was primarily harmed by the fact that the World Cup final is very soon. I'm fine with replacing this blurb with the World Cup final blurb should this one still be on ITN on April 2. -- tariqabjotu 19:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice blurb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • WHAT THE FUCK? 5 supports and 4 opposes means posting? Even ITNR items require consensus before posting. Nergaal (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
We just had an item where David Levy's comment formed consensus over opposes. and now we have another. so before you go all ballistic please make sure you know the meaning of consensus. -- Ashish-g55 22:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Post Posting Oppose What's next? Will Americans begin posting the AFC Wildcard during the playoffs? The India-Pakistan Cricket rivalry is just like all other sports rivalries. And the reason why so many people watched it are because there's so many people in India. Remove it and wait for the final, this is ridiculous and it opens the door for fans to start posting all sorts of playoffs for all sorts of sports. FreddyPickle (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
When the AFC wildcard playoffs make the top story of news organisations as different as Xinhua's global edition, the Guardian and the Economist and make the front page of the New York Times, BBC and the Sydney Morning Herald (and I'm sure there are many more) online, I'll be more than happy to support posting that as well - until that point the events aren't remotely comparable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Let me repeat: this is dumb. I am sure that when Iran will meet USA in the World Cup (like they did in 2006) people will surely not want to post it. But something equivalent happening in a lesser sport, gets posted anyways, even WITHOUT consensus. Good job ITN! Nergaal (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Can you drop the stick please? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Post-post support. Anyone who has seen this on the news knows that this match was very important, not only for followers of the sport, but for diplomatic relations between Pakistan and India. Seeing the two heads of state shake hands, after the many incidents between both over the years, alone makes this notable enough for inclusion. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Post-posting strong support. I had wanted to help update this article early but didn't have time. This is clearly notable. As above, you have the heads of state of two nuclear powers and bitter enemies meeting. Huge audience and interest in global media. There's clearly grounds for posting this in advance of the final.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, I meant that. What I meant to say is the two Head Honchos of India and Pakistan met. The Big Cheese. Hope that clarifies things ;-) --Johnsemlak (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Pulled by Prodego: rationale. -- tariqabjotu 06:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd love to hear a good explanation for this, because I can't find any way to read this discussion as a consensus to pull it down- the leaning towards posting it only got stronger after the posting, which is a real rarity at ITN. Courcelles
      • I am extremely disappointed that the item was removed without any explanation or prior warning or discussion other than what appears to be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT justification by the pulling admin on his talk page. This is unacceptable behaviour. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 06:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Link fail. Revisit the link in my previous post to get to Prodego's rationale (what I intended to link to), not my complaint about not providing one yet. -- tariqabjotu 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Post post pull support for re-postingwtf? Seriously people. A sporting event between two countries that really don't like each other causes them to agree to resolve their differences and agree to work together to investigate a large terrorist attack likely perpetrated by extremists of one nation against innocents in the other. Oh, and 1/6, 1/7 of the world's population watched it? A billion people? I don't know what cricket is besides what our article says (and even after reading it I still don't get it) but I know something significant when I see it. N419BH 06:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Taken to ANI. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa resigns

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

US funding Libyan rebels for weeks now

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

  • Support something coherent which combines this with the entry above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as above. --candlewicke 03:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support Throwing money at the cause isn't going to solve anything. The rebels are in full retreat and equipment contracts will take weeks to deliver. It's embarrassing enough to put it up anyway. Marcus Qwertyus 03:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Where is the article? This is not a news ticker. – SMasters (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm curious about that also, plus how embarrassing something is isn't any reason to post something. I'd oppose this. RxS (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • And as a follow up, it doesn't appear that any funding has actually taken place. [8] RxS (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We do not post bold and contentious claims to ITN arising from statements by unnamed "government officials". --Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:V. Abductive (reasoning) 00:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Decades-old Burmese junta 'dissolved', new president

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

  • After reading several of the provided news stories, this appears to be more a restructuring of the existing government than a change of key players and policies. Than Shwe remains firmly in control. --Allen3 talk 11:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Oppose if Than Shwe is still in command, I'm not really clear on what has happened here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Indeed, Its still the same puppet master altering is usual stage act to included some new puppets and take out the trash. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • And anyone really believes the same puppet master is not in charge in Syria, whose "government" also resigned? In strong president sorts of non-democratic governments the resignation of the government is no indication of any real change - this whole thing brings to mind the scene in Evita! where various men in uniforms keep switching chairs, noteworthy perhaps but not newsy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

April Fools' Day is over. Extremely long discussion is hampering the page's readability when scrolling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 29

[Superseded] Ivory Coast offensive

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

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

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

[Posted] Syrian cabinet resigns

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

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

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

[Pulled] MESSENGER takes first ever orbital photo of Mercury

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

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

Did you know there was a MESSENGER story on ITN less than two weeks ago? -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Neah we just posted the orbital insertion, and the new pics don't appear to reveal anything extraordinary. Nergaal (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support . . . when there are some interesting new images, such as a complete color composite. The fact that this was posted prematurely by editors too quick on the draw doesn't mean that it shouldn't be posted again when there is some material of actual interest. I note that no one opposed the most silly posting of the London "protests" on such a basis. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support iff said photos show aliens, otherwise oppose as we just posted an article about Messenger a while ago, and these photos are not a major event. Passionless -Talk 04:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose this has already been posted recently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The messenger that we've sent to Mercury sends greetings home. To be posted on April 1st. --Tone 11:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Alt1 NASA decodes messages originating from (the vicinity of)(the direction of) Mercury. Passionless -Talk 19:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I like this one :). Is both fresh, funny, and arguably correct. Use "the vicinity of". Thue | talk 22:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Support Alt1 for April 1 only. Nergaal (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Alt1 for tomorrow only. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Procedural non-admin comment — was posted by Tone on April Fools' Day, and was pulled on April 2. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 11:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of José Alencar

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

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

  • Sure But the citation tag should be resolved first. RxS (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  Done Missionary (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support He was vice president of Brazil for 7 years until just three months ago. Passionless -Talk 04:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Clearly he's notable enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a head of state or head of government. Significant, but not significant enough for ITN, in my opinion. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • The thing is he's also an entrepreneur. I think he meets #2 of the death criteria. Just posting presidents and nobel prize winners isn't covering deaths broadly across all topics, which is the primary reason I haven't dropped the stick below. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I frankly couldn't give a stuff about the death criteria, which is hidden in an obscure page and is not policy (or apparently even a guideline). We have a sticky for recent deaths for deaths of notable people so I'll continue to apply my own views on what should go on the main page. I'd also caution against lawyering the criteria. It says they are criteria that the death "must meet"; it doesn't say that if the criteria are met, the death will be posted. It's explicitly subject to consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, article is a bit short, assuming that he aren't that known. --Kslotte (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Mkativerata said: "Not a head of state or head of government. Significant, but not significant enough for ITN, in my opinion". OK. We have recently had the deaths of Geraldine Ferraro and Knut up there, so it clearly doesn't take a head of state (which José de Alencar was, temporarily, for over 500 days) to reach consensus; Kslotte said: "article is a bit short, assuming that he aren't that known". Article is currently bigger than Jaʿār munitions factory explosion and Eduardo Souto de Moura, which have been promoted, so I don't think its size is a major impediment. However, I will include more information. Missionary (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. Long-time vice-president and successful entrepreneur. Mostly because of his vice-presidency, of course, which was cut short because of his health. The update is fine. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment given the timer is red, and this article has been updated and appears to have consensus (especially given Missionary has done a good job of refuting the opposing arguments) marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ignoring the other differences, Ferraro is a GA. José Alencar is a long way from being even C-class, and contains almost zero information on his vice-presidency itself. I can't support putting this on the main page. Courcelles 21:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Admin note: I'm not comfortable posting this. The article is in very poor shape. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Marking unready per Courcelles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
      • For the record, if the article gets whipped into shape, I'd support this on the merits of the person, my concern is purely about the state of the article. Courcelles 22:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support once the article is ready; this is newsy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The article looks to be in better shape, any other objections to posting this? RxS (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose who? VP of Brazil dying of cancer at 70? Not really notable and not unexpected. Nergaal (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how his notability is questionable, long time VP of a major nation, and deaths don't need to be unexpected as seen by Geraldine Ferraro and Leslie Nielsen. Passionless -Talk 04:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Both good points, Brazil is the 5th most populous country in the world. And this whole unexpected death thing isn't supported by practice here. RxS (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional oppose based on the state of the article. The subject matter would be appropriate for ITN, in my opinion, but the article is barely above stub level, and does not showcase anything I would wish to be on the main page of Wikipedia. If someone could do some massive expansion on it real quick, and make it a decent article, I could support including it. But right now, this article isn't something we should be proud to put on the main page. --Jayron32 04:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry for the delay everyone, I pledged to improve the article and was almost finished writing an introduction when power went off in my block, and didn't come back before I ahd to leave. Luckily Firefox recovered the content because I always save my open tabs. Now that the intro paragraphs are improved, I'll try to furnish more content on his political career. Missionary (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC) 06:23 update: Just expanded the article some more. Note that this is still a relevant ongoing event, since Brazil is in the "state of mourning".
    • Marking [Ready] as the article has been updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to support. The article isn't great, but it has improved somewhat since I last saw it, and as long as we continue to improve it, it seems OK to put it up. --Jayron32 13:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 19:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

March 28

Death of Paul Baran

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

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

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

[Posted] Yemen explosion

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

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

121? Likely support if an adequate article is created. Nergaal (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Per Nergaal --Shrike (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose No article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Could we give editors at least a few hours? Support the story per the cause and the death toll. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do for an article... C628 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Article created. See 2011 Ja`ar munitions factory explosion. ~AH1(TCU) 01:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Support 121 dead is notable enough for ITN, marking [Ready] as the article looks good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Support due to the high death toll. --candlewicke 07:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Support per ITNR, but the article needs improvement first. Passionless -Talk 18:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Support and will try to make some changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Support looking through Pritzker Architecture Prize a lot of interesting building have won the prize, including the obvious greats like the Sydney Opera House. It does appear to be the nobel prize of architecture. Additionally Pritzker Architecture prize is an FA, and while it won't be the bold link I how we can like it from the main page. The article does need improvement however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Minor, but significant correction - Pritzker Prize is a featured list, not article, but hopefully will be updated, along with the winner's article, shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Note, de Moura's page has been updated, I think also that Pritzker Prize is ready to roll too. So let's post. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Marking [Ready]. Of note I would rather put Pritzker Architecture Prize in the blurb as I hadn't heard of the prize before today. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Amended blurb, hopefully to suit all-comers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Even better :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the official name has changed recently! Blurb re-up-dated, page moved... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Posting. NW (Talk) 19:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Pulled, sorry. Eduardo Souto de Moura contains only one sentence about the prize (and is thin generally). Thats not "significantly updated". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • While there could be more on the prize itself the update today has been rather big - which is why I marked it [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) We posted John Milnor when it had a similar amount of updates though. There's only so much you can say about the awarding of a prize. NW (Talk) 19:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Confused what (at the moment) you could say more than he won the prize. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Reposting, update is sufficient per Eraser, NW, and Ramblin' Man above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Sure, sufficient if we totally disregard the line updates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient on WP:ITN. I strongly object to posting an article that contains no more information than the ITN blurb and such items are routinely pulled, but I have better things to do than get into a wheel war. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I've added some more content on the prize as well. There's now definitely a 5 sentence update, as there were 3 sentences already. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I boldly bolded the FL architecture prize over his biography – please revert me if this was wrong. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • The update there is smaller, I'd say Eduardo Souto de Moura should be bolded, but <shrug>. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • One for you ITN regulars to scrap over. The bolded link now highlights a featured list with a nominal update for the news item while the previous article about the architect himself has had a reasonable update but is not exactly more than a C-class article. Interested to see what pans out here, i.e. what is the point of this update? Architect, prize or what? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Exactly my thoughts. I'm around occasionally, but not enough to be a regular. I've followed the clashes over article quality vs. updated & news and I'm not sure which side is the 'correct' one. Being a FA writer, I'd probably fall on the article quality side, especially seeing as FLs rarely hit the main page, but it's not a big deal to me if ITN regulars don't agree and revert. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • As much as i would like bolded link to be GA, FA or FL but in this case i dont agree. The person who won the award deserves bolded link even if other links are featured. please revert -- Ashish-g55 23:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

North pole ozone hole

Ozone depletion

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

Support ozone holes are a big deal and usually they've been in the south so far. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. Significant environmental and meteorlogical news story. ~AH1(TCU) 18:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Support Important story--Shrike (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose This is at present hypothetical – the cited National Geographic article itself says "It's too early to call, but stay tuned." The second cited article says "the thinning parts of the ozone layer could turn into an "ozone hole." In other words, an ozone hole might develop, but the evidence is not there at present. (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Wait. Any "prediction" should never be rushed. If this happens, there will be repercussions, and a proper conclusion can be made. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Wait and see just a prediction now. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 23:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Wait. Add when it is more than a prediction. --bender235 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - for now it is only a prediction, which is not yet widely accepted. Nsk92 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Update: [27] the ozone layer over Finland is reduced by a third. Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

UN hands over control of East Timor security

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

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

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

[Pulled] Harry Coover Inventor of Super Glue Dies

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

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

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

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

  • There's no mention of his death in the article (other than the date), (now briefly updated) let alone a decent update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Make it a sticky. Lugnuts (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted - I updated the article quick too. There's not much to say – he died of natural causes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    As noted at Wikipedia:In the news, "updates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient." Unless and until the article is substantially expanded to reflect the death (which, as you note above, might not be feasible), this item doesn't qualify (irrespective of Coover's importance). For this reason, I've removed it. —David Levy 09:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but update or not, under what definition of consensus did this qualify? I understand people want more events on ITN, but this... seriously, people. This is so obviously below our standards of notable, ITN-worthy news items. -- tariqabjotu 14:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    I read it as three supports, no opposes (Lugnuts included), sorry. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Oppose This is a classic "for recent deaths" case. His death has absolutely no effect on current events. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • A death doesn't have to impact current events to qualify per WP:ITN/DC. Although I agree with the pull. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
oppose there are 1000s of simple items which the world wouldnt be able to live without... all invented by someone. also death at 94 should be expected. we really should not post death of every famous person. -- Ashish-g55 11:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think age at the time of death has any relevence at all to the notablity of an individual. --Dorsal Axe 15:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
yes it does! an early unexpected death definitely increases notability for ITN. its a very relevant thing if a famous person dies at 94 when humans tend to die anyways vs. dying of a car accident in their 40s. -- Ashish-g55 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Far from important enough for ITN; recent deaths is much more suitable for him. Passionless -Talk 18:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

March 27

Tsumami Warning Issued after 6.5 Earthquake

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

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

2011 UCI Track Cycling World Championships

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

Oppose Exactly like the boat race. Its annual not notable event.--Shrike (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Please go and read what ITN is. We post a great many annual events. That's why we have WP:ITN/R for a start. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok I got it thanks.Anyhow it stated that only Tour de France is notable enough so I still think its unimportant--Shrike (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The Tour de France is about as similar to this as football is to rugby. Kevin McE (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Which football? American? Canadian? Gaelic? Australian? HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Wait, so are you saying football and rugby are dissimilar or football and rugby are similar? -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I know it hasn't concluded but hte article currently has two sentences and one reference, so it certainly isn't ready yet. The 2010 event doesn't have a better article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A lot bigger than the boat race, which is obviously restricted to fewer than 20 people from only two institutions. This involves 41 nations and is open to all countries. Big event. HiLo48 (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment point of clarification, I think you mean "more participants than the boat race", not "a lot bigger", because I very much doubt these championships are broadcast to over 200 countries. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
No. I definitely mean a lot bigger, probably in every way except the claimed number of countries to which it is broadcast. Such claims are usually pretty pointless, and clearly don't indicate interested audience. HiLo48 (talk)
Okay, well in any case, oppose as a poor article, a minor sports championship (which even Great Britain do well in but gets just a passing mention in sports reports). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
How can the World Championship of an Olympic sport, in fact, several olympic events) be a "minor" championship: Close parallels to the alpine skiing last weekend, which was posted. Kevin McE (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
No-one said ITN was consistent. I imagine this will get bum-rushed because of "regional bias" in any case. My main gripe is with the quality of the article we'd be linking. It's rubbish. It is a minor sport (arguing Olympics is odd, see beach volleyball, Greco-Roman wrestling, trampolining) in the big scheme of things, but the article is weak... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Great Britain does well in the boat race. HiLo48 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, most of the participants are from outside of GB. That's part of the global appeal. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, the article is just a list of medalists. --Tone 16:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Support if and only if the article is updated to include more prose, the point about alpine skiing is legitimate and a large number of countries participated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Iff updated. Likely not a candidate for FL, so it needs to move more towards an article that contains a list, than being 90% list. References would help, too. Courcelles 22:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support if updated. Nergaal (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

March 26

2011 Estonian cyclists abduction

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

Biosketch (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support not necessarily the most obvious story ever, however foreigners don't generally get abducted, given the article is reasonable I think its worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Major international implications; stop using astericks. ~AH1(TCU) 14:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Not going to comment on the merits here, but if the abduction took place on the 23rd, this should be listed under that date (unless something new has happened, which doesn't appear to be the case). And since the oldest story on the template now is from the 24th, there's no room too post. WhiteKongMan (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, this can be considered when they are found. --Tone 16:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Would changing the blurb to something like "Lebanon intensifies search for seven Estonian cyclists abducted on 23 March" perhaps make the story more current? Then, conceivably, it wouldn't be about the abduction itself, which admittedly is not new news, but about the intensified search efforts, which are newer. E.g. this article from 26 March: Lebanese troops intensify search for Estonian cyclists kidnapped in Bekaa Valley.—Biosketch (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think later news articles are enough. Sorry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I'll know for next time. Thanks for the reply.—Biosketch (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Boat Race

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

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

Weak Oppose is this really notable enough for the front page? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is broadcast to 200 countries and 292 million households. Perhaps not as notable as a US politician dying after suffering from cancer for many years, but significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair point. Switching to neutral as I'm ambivalent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an annual event. Unless something particularly out of the ordinary occurs this time round, I can't see a reason for including it. HiLo48 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Oxford won and humiliated Cambridge utterly. And as for "this is an annual event", yes, many dozens of such make ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hahahaha  狐 FOX  17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, really just the BBC that care about this...  狐 FOX  17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Sort of funny considering we have a "Canada" item on the main page which, clearly, only Canada cares about! To be fair, the race is broadcast to hundreds of millions, but it is a niche event, albeit of minor worldwide interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose partly because it's a regular event featuring teams with little general relevance beyond the Alumni of the Universities, but mostly because the wrong side won this time. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support why not. But seriously, what's the over/under on how many times it's non-inclusion this year is referenced when the NCAA Championship game is nominated next week? I put it a 4.5 WhiteKongMan (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Toffs having a day out on the river isn't newsworthy. Lugnuts (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Geraldine Ferraro

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

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

  • Oppose who? Is she, in some way, significant other than being "well known"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say she was particularly well known, however she was the first female major US party vice presidential candidate, and her article is a GA. Support due to her article being a GA, and the vice presidential thing being reasonably notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Certainly more historical significance than some polar bear in the zoo. Geez. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
        • All a bit tenuous though isn't it? "the first female major party US vice presidential candidate" "major" party, "vice" president, "candidate", who died after being ill for some years. Not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Major party means republicans or democrats, the two parties who actually matter in US politics. And I don't believe there have been any female US vice presidents or female presidents, so actually its not as minor as it might seem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Still, she was a "candidate", nothing more, and didn't die unexpectedly. Could read "Female US politician dies of cancer" I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. The article should be updated to include information about the death's impact (e.g. statements by prominent politicians). —David Levy 17:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    Such expansion has occurred, so I now fully support the item's inclusion. —David Levy 03:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support based on the GA status, pending a good update. I agree with TRM's concerns about her real significance. Aside from her VP nomination, the highest position she held was a House Representative. On the whole she doesn't seem all that notable but the first woman VP candidate did seem like a big deal at the time as I remember.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm only speculating but from what I've read, her nomination came as a bit of a shock to her, and it was, overall, pretty unsuccessful. It may mean a lot to some folks in the US who remember this at the time, but it's really not ITN-material, despite the fact it's a decent article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
To be honest there is always someone who did it first in some specific way. Thats a lot of deaths on ITN. but i will stay neutral as i dont want some anti-american misconception to start. -- Ashish-g55 20:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment it is the lead story of the New York Times' US edition. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment the article has been updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Never held high elective office; has been out of public life for some time; death has little to no impact on current events; worldwide media coverage is not overwhelming. If wikipedia had existed for the last 30 years, she would never have done anything to make it onto ITN, which suggests that she shouldn't in her death. The fact that the article is a GA helps but in my view that shouldn't overcome the need to avoid an ITN post every single time a famous person dies. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Mkativerata and The Rambling Man - your arguments are persuasive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This story is certainly more important than baby polar bears or the banning of cricketers though. NW (Talk) 21:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Polar bear, perhaps, cricket, I doubt it. Cricket affects hundreds of millions of people. The death of a US politician who never made the office she was suddenly nominated for 30 years ago doesn't, and isn't ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • kinda getting tired of people comparing deaths to polar bear for inclusion. we dont post animal deaths everyday and the topic at the time of posting had consensus. just because that got posted we can not post every death afterwards since clearly the next one is more important. -- Ashish-g55 21:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because there must be thousands of these first woman/ethnic minority/insert discriminated-against group of your choice to be nominated for something important and if we posted all their deaths, we'd have nothing else on ITN. If she had actually been the first female VP, I'd probably support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We have an interesting recent parallel, in another failed vice-presidential candidate who died this year, Sargent Shriver. His death was posted, but more on the basis of the foundation of the Peace Corps: indeed, his candidature was not mentioned in ITN/C. Lloyd Bentsen and Thomas Eagleton have also died during the lifespan of the ITN feature, and these deaths were not even proposed. ITN has no policy of positive discrimination: Ferraro should not be posted simply because she had more X chromosomes than other unsuccessful candidates. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • And I'm sure that Thomas Eagleton's death was mentioned on the first page of March 5's New York Times. If Ferraro isn't on A1 of either The Times or the WaPo, I'll eat my figurative hat. NW (Talk) 23:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support major figure in U.S. politics, important for trailblazing status in the face of the wide expanse of history of gender discrimination. It isn't merely the number of X-chromosomes she has, its that the presense of the extra X-chromosome was considered highly significant by the thousands of years when women were considered inferior to men. Men made the extra X-chromosome significant by using it as a means to discriminate against women for all that time. --Jayron32 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Rambling Man. The deaths of U.S. political figures are not lacking in their presence in the ITN section. Are candidates for vice positions now to be included as well? I would understand if it was Bill Clinton or George W. Bush or Barack Obama or any of the other presidents of that country if they're still alive (or even Hillary Rodham Clinton if there must be a woman) but this person doesn't seem to be as significant despite the sadness that has no doubt been caused by her death. --candlewicke 01:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Ferraro's candidacy was a major event in terms of women in public life in America. To this day, she remains the only woman on a major-party presidential ticket. And it's a quality article, which is the whole point of ITN. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. She may have been important in the context of U.S. political history, but she made not much impression on the global public. __meco (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    International interest no longer is an inclusion criterion. Global interest never was. —David Levy 03:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support at least as significant as Knut the Polar Bear. WhiteKongMan (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: The section is not a news ticker. Its purpose is not to report the biggest news stories; it's to link to high-quality articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent/current events of significant interest to the encyclopedia's readers. In this instance, a good article has been updated to include statements by prominent politicians from both major U.S. parties (Barack Obama, Walter Mondale, George H. W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and the pair of Bill and Hillary Clinton).
    Geraldine Ferraro's candidacy failed, but it will forever remain a landmark in American politics (and one for which we offer a highly informative article, of potential interest to Americans and those who avail themselves of non-domestic political history).
    I happen to be American, but I can honestly state that I would support the inclusion of an item about the death of any politician responsible for a comparable milestone in his/her country (i.e. the first woman or minority nominated as a major party's candidate for an equivalent office), provided that the requisite article update occurred.
    As an encyclopedia, we cover subjects that aren't familiar to everyone. Geraldine Ferraro might not be a household name around the world, but she clearly accomplished something very important and made a lasting impact. It's unfortunate that this nomination is being shot down because it fails an arbitrary checklist that we appeared to be moving beyond. —David Levy 03:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, if I hadn't made it clear already (David Levy says it well). NW (Talk) 04:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I suppose I should supply a rationale, given the number of opposers. The number of support/opposes is close, but David Levy gives one of the strongest supports I have seen in a long while, one that combats most of the opposers. This, in my view, swung consensus enough to post. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This isn't Today's featured article, this is ITN where the most important items in the news are posted. This woman was a candidate for a significant position, so what, thousands of people who were candidates for high governmental positions die around the world every year. That article was posted due to american and liberal biases, no one outside of America cares, and I doubt that much of the American population really cares either. Passionless -Talk 05:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    Please read my above note. In particular, I address the mistaken impression that the section is "where the most important items in the news are posted" and explain the item's value to the encyclopedia's readers. I also express my perpetual support for comparable items pertaining to the deaths of politicians from other countries (which also extends to all social and political ideologies), so your accusation of "American and liberal biases" is disheartening.
    I supported the oft-mentioned item about the death of Knut (a zoo animal from a continent on which I've never set foot). But I don't cite that as an example of a lesser item; I cite it as an example of our recent progress toward fulfilling the section's intended purpose. Instead of trying to be Wikinews II, let's continue on the right track. —David Levy 05:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    I did read your post first, but I still agree with HJ Mitchell's above comment that ther "must be thousands of these first woman/ethnic minority/insert discriminated-against group of your choice to be nominated for something important and if we posted all their deaths, we'd have nothing else on ITN." And as for Knut, well he already ahd international attention before his death and I believed he was the most famous animal of his time, up there with Laika, or Koko (gorilla). Anyways I just fear ITN will be taken over by this article because of the number of similar people in various nations, also I do believe that people use Wikipedia's coverage of current events a lot, even though it is suppose to be wikinews' job to update people on the news. Really if you wanted to know about the earthquake/nuclear problems in Japan, wikipedia was the best source during the events and ITN is there to link to our coverage of big news stories. Passionless -Talk 05:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    1. I respect HJ Mitchell a great deal, but the quoted statement is an exaggeration. The number of politicians to accomplish a comparable achievement is inherently small, the number to die in given time frame is far smaller, and the number of such deaths resulting in substantial English Wikipedia article updates is smaller still. (This raises the matter of systemic bias, a genuine problem that cannot be solved by excluding the available material.)
    2. As noted above, "international attention" isn't an inclusion criterion. Knut was known to many people, but the fact that they happened to be spread out (instead of concentrated in a particular country) didn't increase the item's value to our readers.
    3. There is no dispute that many people rely upon Wikipedia's coverage of current/recent events. But no, the section is not "there to link to our coverage of big news stories." It's there to link to high-quality articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent/current events of significant interest to our readers. Some of these articles will pertain to "the most important items in the news," but this isn't the section's purpose (because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news website). —David Levy 06:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Let's think about this. HJ's thought is a mischaracterization. Ferraro didn't represent one of the plethora of ethnic minorities in a minor third-world country, she was the first woman (that other ~50% of the world's population) to be a major candidate in a country that provides 50% of our readers and has been the world's strongest for the last 60 to 65 years. Also, if you want "big news" stories, check out the front page of the New York Times tomorrow – an article on this will certainly be there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Huh, guess I just disagree with what the purpose of ITN is, though I'm still quite new to ITN, so I still have more to learn about it. Passionless -Talk 06:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think recent 'firsts' in politics recently have numbed us as to the significance of Ferraro. I can't speak for other countries, but inclusionary politics has become quite the norm in the US over the years and as a result we're getting loads of 'first Republican Native American governor, first openly gay mayor of..., first Latino SC justice, and of course, the first black US president. Some of these 'firsts' are more significant than others. But Ferraro's nomination came at a time when all of this was much less common, and US politics was much more dominated by white males. And her nomination did have a lasting impact, as th reactions in the article indicate, of providing opportunities for women politicians in the US later on.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Belated oppose. I am in agreement with many users who posted opposing views above, and am shocked at the fact that this has been posted despite such a large amount of opposition. For that reason alone it should be taken off. Colipon+(Talk) 20:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    Frankly as someone fairly neutral in this particular discussion (as I've switched sides from support to oppose) David Levy's argument is better than the opposes. The opposes are persuasive too, but they are less persuasive and he refutes a lot of the arguments made by the opposers. Wikipedia is not decided on a vote, but is decided on consensus.
    And actually as most people don't wish to lose face (or they may simply not read the discussion again after leaving their two cents) people generally don't change their minds explicitly after they've laid out a concrete position. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    This was posted without consensus, by a US editor based on the opinion of US editors. Systemic bias is clear. Please remember that we are English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    Please don't make anti-American "systematic bias' comments, its not even remotely true and its totally counter-productive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    I see no consensus, can you show me it? I see exactly what I said. Sorry if it's painful to accept that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • David Levy attacked the ITN criteria as a 'random checklist' yet he goes on to attempt establishing Ferraro's notability with his own criteria. To me, his strongest point was to say that posting Ferraro is about the article and not necessarily the subject; i.e., since the article is worth showcasing, so long as we have some kind of nominal notability, we should post it. But the crux of the issue is this: does article quality always trump notability? This issue comes up repetitively on ITN and we do not have a consistent policy to deal with it. Do we, for instance, post all articles of sufficient quality and that have been of recent news interest? If Charlie Sheen was a Good Article or Featured Article, do we post his dismissal from Two and a Half Men? Because it seems the consensus in that situation was a no basically because Wikipedia has tried to avoid overtly 'popular culture' items. I'm not sure what makes the Geraldine Ferraro case any different based on that comparison alone. Colipon+(Talk) 21:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    The two (quality and notability) go hand in hand but the point recently is to ease off on the unnecessarily high notability standards while making sure the article standards don't slip resulting in more postings. We don't post all all articles of sufficient quality but not because of any policy. I'd like to see people start proposing more topics rather than complain about postings they don't agree with. If you don't agree with a certain post, jump in a nominate a couple. RxS (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Given we have made a lot of progress (as I've spelt out here in a lot of detail) I don't think comparing to what we did before is necessarily reasonable. And actually while we may not have posted popular culture items, we also didn't post business stories, or many science/infrastructure stories and the overall total inconsistency was one of the primary issues MickMacNee bought up about ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    I struck my hissy fit, but what's missing here is consistency I'm afraid. I don't know how it can be achieved but why (and how) this article was posted, is clearly a mystery to several contributors. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    Also, if quality of article is a driving factor, should I nominate "Girl wins Oxfordshire World Pooh Sticks Championships" as our Poohsticks article is currently a GA...?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    My point was easing off the unnecessarily high notability standards, not dropping them completely. RxS (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Unlike this story that story hasn't made the equivalent to the front page of the New York Times. It has merely been covered as part of the BBC's local coverage for Oxfordshire - and looking at the list of winners most of them appear to come from Oxfordshire so you can't even claim national importance for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    No, I did not "attack" the inclusion criteria, nor did I use the quoted phrase "random checklist." I used the phrase "arbitrary checklist" to refer to the unofficial standards that some editors impose (e.g. a successful candidacy, unexpected circumstances, international fame).
    Geraldine Ferraro "was a very important figure in [her] field of expertise" (an actual criterion), despite failing a checklist that might appear to suggest otherwise. I realize that persons from outside the United States might not appreciate her impact, which is why I attempted to convey it. I have not suggested that an article's high quality can compensate for its subject's insignificance. But a subject can be highly significant without this being obvious to everyone around the world.
    In the past, I've supported the inclusion of items about subjects from other countries whose significance was unknown/unclear to me. I've done so based on similar explanations from Wikipedians residing in those countries, whose assessments I respect and trust. And I've plainly stated above that I'll support the inclusion of items pertaining to the deaths of politicians with comparable achievements in other countries (provided that the requisite article updates occur). So I resent the accusations of American bias, which invariably arise in these cases. I'm more than willing to accept the fact that someone or something can be noteworthy despite not affecting me personally, and I only ask for the same in return. Comparisons between Geraldine Ferraro's death and Charlie Sheen's scandal truly stun me. —David Levy 21:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This item did not have clear consensus (as seen above). whether in favor of posting or not i will not debate. but i think the posting was way too quick. when the consensus is not clear next time if the admin can atleast give a little bit warning that it will be posted then that would be great. All you have to do is go "posting soon"... and if opposition wants to argue more then they have a chance. nothing (in most cases) can be done once item is posted and this one needed a bit more of a warning IMO. -- Ashish-g55 21:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    ITN may not be a news ticker, but we do need to post stuff in a timely manner as otherwise we aren't covering events that are in the news currently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    Consensus is based on the strength of an argument, not a simple vote. WhiteKongMan (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
yes... whats you point? i did not say count them like votes to form consensus. i said consensus wasnt clear and a warning before abruptly posting may have been better. -- Ashish-g55 01:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the point is that the arguments for are stronger than the arguments against, and thus a consensus to post can be derived despite visible opposition. Determining consensus is an art, not a science, I guess. Perhaps it was an a abrupt decision to post but I must agree that David Levy's argument was thoroughly persuasive.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Belated support per David Levy. Courcelles 22:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Belated support: "Groundbreaking US Democratic politician," the BBC News said. The Irish Times said her candidacy "was just 64 years after women had got the vote in the United States. It would be 24 years before there would be another female candidate for the vice-presidency." The Straits Times of Singapore said "Ferraro's presence on the Democratic ticket generated excitement on the campaign trail, particularly among females of all ages." Her article had massive page views implying high readership interest. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] TUC Anti-cuts protests in London

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

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

  • Comment article has appeared but categorised as a "riot" and "anarchism", which I'm not sure about at all. Yes, it's a significant number of people, including a "speech" from the leader of the opposition Ed Milliband, but neutral at the moment until the article is improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pure domestic politics. Trade unions protest against job losses? Protestors break windows? In other news.....polar bear bites man. And let's be accurate - [31] The Telegraph states that there are 'reports' of over 400,000, whereas when it has to put it's own reliability on the line, it's " tens of thousands". MickMacNee (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I think its reasonable to wait for the numbers to come out, if its less than 200 thousand or so then I'd be against posting it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Even the BBC are saying "tens of thousands" although Red Ed is saying 250,000... I wonder why he'd do that... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Regardless of any views my assistant has after participating, I'm going to oppose based on the WP:ITN rules. It's a bit too local to the UK and it is hardly out of the ordinary for the public sector unions to seek to protest against public sector cuts. It was a well-planned demonstration; it happened; it got a good attendance; but it's not a major world event. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Given its been covered by international sources including Al Jazeera, Sydney Morning Herald, Xinhua, CNN who all covered it on their front page I don't think the "too local" argument is legitimate. Now sure if you want to make it about the boat race or the death of Geraldine Ferraro, fair play. Neither of those stories have made the front page internationally. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN is not PITN. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
So how is this protest not significant? Its the biggest UK protest since the Iraq war protests. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Protest over a hundred thousand in the developed world. Passionless -Talk 19:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support iff multiple decent sources are stating that there were definitely 250,000 people on the march. A quarter of a million people taking to the streets is significant enough for ITN wherever it occurs, but only the organisers seem to be citing six-figure numbers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Can I suggest that an item beginning with an abbreviation unlikely to be known by anyone outside the country is poorly titled? How about a more universally understandable name for use in this global encyclopaedia? HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I see it's just been changed to TUC Anti-cuts protests in London. How is that better? What's a TUC? What cuts? By whom? Boy, we really need better, more globally oriented headline writers here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
      • As backed up in the article the Metropolitan Police, BBC and New York Times have both publicly stated the 250k figure, and the Guardian and Telegraph have both stated the higher 400k figure in their reports. Therefore marking [Ready] due to supports above and the fact that "too local" is a very weak argument given the worldwide high-profile coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
        • So, despite it having two opposes and just three supports (including the nominator), it's now "ready" for main page? Wow. And I worried about Featured lists on the mainpage without a week of updates... And I'm also not comfortable with a nominator proposing that his own nomination is "ready" for main page, that should be down to someone else.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Of the three opposes one is clearly very weak saying ITN is not PITN, and the other two claim it is "too local" which given the worldwide media coverage and high turnout mean they are both very weak arguments. I do accept that as nominator it was inappropriate to mark as [Ready] so I apologise for that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: the scale of this protest surely warrants its inclusion.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC))
  • Query: Did we post the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear? Because that had basically the same number of people in the end: 215k. NW (Talk) 23:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • We didn't and it wasn't nominated, but I wish we had posted it. We are currently posting a lot more stuff than we were when the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear was on the front pages. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The article has come a long way, the turnout seems to be very high (well over 6 figures). RxS (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've marked this ready for posting. I think there's a consensus to post, especially since we do have global coverage nullifying the "too local" claims and have multiple RS backing up the supposed size of the protests, which was the other concern. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 01:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Belated support per Eraserhead1's use of multiple international front page sources and the biggest such event in that country since the Iraq War plus HJ Mitchell's point about the six-figure numbers which seem to be used by at least two different sources (The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph). --candlewicke 01:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support London is a major world hub, and although these numbers aren't overwhelming, I think we could afford this event a spot as part of the continuing protests against the austerity measures in the UK. The article also is in a decent state and worthy of highlighting. __meco (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support we did post the wisconsin ones after all. WhiteKongMan (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed a new blurb at the top; as follows: A protestin London against government spending cuts draws 250,000 people, making it the largest protest in the United Kingdom since protests against the Iraq War. This not only simply states the attendance but the significance of the attendance. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 09:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've made a minor change to the blurb to use 'Britain' rather that 'the United Kingdom' as otherwise its getting a little long. I see you've found the ANI thread as well - I prefer your blurb FWIW. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted, but I used a slightly different blurb—I don't think the comaprison to the Iraq War protests is significant, personally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Pre-Clovis peoples

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

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

  • Comment If you read Clovis culture it seems like there have been many proven cases of sites pre-dating the clovis culture over the last few decades, so I don't think this is anything new. Passionless -Talk 02:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • This puts the predates those confirmed cases that were almost contemporary to the site. They were older but could have a another contemporary culture and close enough to not really indicate much. Those were found to have dates ranging from 10-15,000 . This places it over 15-17500 yeas ago much more than those. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 03:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • No update yet at Clovis_culture#Evidence_of_human_habitation_before_Clovis. Some of the scientists quoted are equivocal about what this will mean.--Chaser (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Update has been listed but could probably be better put in the running pros and intro.
  • Support Off the beaten ITN track which is nice. Update is there, good topic. RxS (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Is there a diff for the update, I can't see much. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
      • There's a section under "other sites" that outlines the findings. It's also included in the section above that in a bullet list. RxS (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

  • Oppose This is inappropriate because evidence for Pre-Clovis peoples in the Americas has been around for decades (some of it was later discredited). The idea that there was a Pre-Clovis culture(s) is not new, the evidence for it is not accepted by everyone in the field, and only the accumulation of a lot of evidence followed by a lot of discussion and debate will lead to general acceptance that the evidence is valid. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It doesn't have to be accepted by everyone to be in the news. The article is in good shape and it's getting wide coverage. RxS (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

March 25

[Posted] 2011 Syrian protests

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

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

  • Support Newsworthy and important.--Shrike (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The situation there has gotten worse. It is currently the lead story on (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, major news story. Nsk92 (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Passionless -Talk 03:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Posted. NW (Talk) 04:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 41st Canadian federal election

Article: 41st Canadian federal election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Conservative minority government of Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper falls to a vote of non-confidence by the opposition, forcing an election. (Post)
  • Pretty much guaranteed to be triggered today. Proposed blurb is for when it gets confirmed. Radagast (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment'. What's the deal with 'major' elections now? I know we post the results of any election that occurs anywhere, but for major countries (which I can agree, Canada is) what are we doing? Posting the announcements, official result and then permanent outcome? Bearing in mind it's normally months between the first two for any state, and for the many which employ some form of de-facto permanent coalition because no party can ever 'win', it can be a month for the second period too. So, what is it now? First and last, last only, or all three? Anyway, I'm sure it doesn't matter either way, I haven't 'voted' so I'm assuming this comment will be completely ignored. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
You could put forward a non-confidence motion, on this 'major elections' trend. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Obvious support this will be the fourth election since 2000 if I recall correctly. I have a suggestion, however: it is likely today that Harper's government will be found in contempt of Parliament. I believe we shoudl mention that in the blurb as it will be the first time in the history of the Commonwealth that this will happen. --PlasmaTwa2 16:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting now and wait for results per established precedent. Obvious ITNR post once the election takes place, there's nothing that screams out at me as needing to post now. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 16:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as this federal election is being forced by a historical non-confidence motion. Never before, has a Canadian government been defeated on a contempt for parliament non-confidence vote. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Canadian government failed no-confidence motion and found in contempt by parliament. Passionless -Talk 19:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose current wording, an election is not official until a writ of election is issued by the Governor General. I would suggest the following:
Support per the portugal posting, but without the election as the main link (or mention at all). Again we didnt do that for Portugal. list stephen harper as the main article.Lihaas (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should make the news the fact the Canadian government was found in contempt? --PlasmaTwa2 18:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
i digress, the fall of the government is more important than the reason/. those internatial politics are better for the page itself. Its also then a damn long blurb ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Update the vote of no confidence just passed. All that remains is now Harper must go to GG Johnson and ask for him to call an election. We should wait for that. --PlasmaTwa2 18:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Next couple of days you think? if so we can even wait.Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Why not post now without election bit, than update it once the election is called? Passionless -Talk 23:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
definate oppose for inclusion of election page Both per precedence with Portugal and per the page itself which mentions nothing of any date fixed, nor is it a 2011 election yet. see this Talk:41st_Canadian_federal_election#Moving_to_.222011_Canadian_federal_election.22.
With another blurb i would change to "obvious support"
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government falls after it failed a vote of non-confidence.Lihaas (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support without election page Put up the fall of the government for now. Wait to mention the election until it is officially called. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 20:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Without the election context as others have mentioned. RxS (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The government has lost the vote, the prime minister has announced he will see the governor general to have the election called tomorrow. - Pictureprovince (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the inclusion of the vote of no confidence and bold either Stephen Harper or Premiership of Stephen Harper for now; the no confidence vote is significant in itself. Then add the election tomorrow when it is officially called. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Probably whichever one is updated, which is currently neither. -- tariqabjotu 02:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I believe this event is of as much international significance as the Portuguese Prime Minister's resignation. Perhaps mention should be made of why it's historic: "The Conservative minority government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is found in Contempt of Parliament, a first in Canadian politics, and falls to a vote of non-confidence." -Guessing Game (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Posting, without mentioning the election, as suggested above. --Tone 11:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The contempt motion is the first to defeat a government in the entire Commonwealth of Nations. The election is set for May 2. ~AH1(TCU) 14:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
As noted above by Tariqabjotu, that article has barely been updated beyond what's stated in the blurb. As the election is now officially scheduled, I'm editing the item accordingly. —David Levy 14:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

March 24

Google Books

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

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

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

Kelly Gneiting

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

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

[Posted] NATO takes over Libya no-fly zone

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

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

  • Support I wanted to suggest this myself. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support this seems worth posting, the Libya thing is really important at the moment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sorry, Article still needs update. ignore my initial comment. -- Ashish-g55 23:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • There's been updates in both the lead and the "enforcement" section. C628 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Anybody care to suggest a blurb while we wait for more comments? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Major news"? NATO (dominated by the US) takes over the command and control of the no-fly zone, previously commanded by....the US. I think I missed what the major news is? This is just one bit of news in this crisis, no more significant than the other things coming out daily. The beginning of the arms embargo and designation of the state oil company are ones I can think of that I heard about just today. If people want it on the Main Page again and this is the level of 'major news' to do that, then just do a sticky. These interminable repost discussions really are a waste of time. MickMacNee (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I kinda agree with MMN, where is the news here? The no-fly zone goes from being three NATO nations to NATO, so what? Maybe, post a sticky on the invasion of Libya? Passionless -Talk 01:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Great article and an unusual real military action by NATO. RxS (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Article looks updated, so marking ready, and adding a blurb/template. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Posted. --Tone 09:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow. Well that sure was one useful 'discussion'. May I please nominate both the beginning of the arms embargo, and the designation of the Libyan state oil company. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 2011 Burma earthquake

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

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

  • Support - ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the BBC puts it - ""The area where the quakes struck is sparsely populated and remote." The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I first attempted to remove this item as yet another incomplete nomination from this user - offering yet again a 1 line stub article with absolutely no indication either in the article or here why it would have a hope in hell of going on the Main Page, and infact not even an explanation at all why the nomination was even made - this this is totally contrary to the very clear instructions for this page. My removal has been reverted by Eraserhead for no other reason that someone had already given it a 1 word vote in support - which is also against the rules, and was completely irrelevant as it has absolutely no chance of being posted on the Main Page in the state it was when voted on, and still doesn't now. Either people are serious about these instructions, or they aren't. Carrying on like this is simply a complete and utter waste of time for everyone concerned, and is only going to lead to me proposing more formal action against this user and anyone else who encourages this behaviour, to stop it happening (or on the other hand, to amend the ITN/C instructions to reflect reality). As plenty of people have said time and again, this is the ITN suggestions page, not the editor assistance page, and nominating entries for ITN is supposed to be a complementary activity, it is not supposed to be your sole reason for being here, certainly not if half the time you are messing other people around getting them to do your work for them, such as finding the sources to back up (or rather discredit) your nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant earthquake affecting four countries, high potential for dozens of fatalities. ~AH1(TCU) 18:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as its currently #1 on the BBC's most shared stories list, and the quake's epicentre was only 70 miles from Chang Rai and was felt in Hanoi and Bangkok. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding? "Most shared"? That usually includes nonsense like "Ferret gets bus from Edinburgh to London". Where's the actual evidence that this is significant? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Quite possibly, but like many countries the British aren't exactly known for their great interest in foreign affairs[citation needed] - that a story like this is top does show its significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Interesting (and entirely speculative, unsourced and unfounded) observation. But you haven't proved anything with your original research and personal point of view. And, in case you hadn't noticed, earthquakes are "all the rage" right now, see NZ and Japan. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
          • For the citation needed you've inserted into my comment, look at the newspaper circulation figures for starters. The most popular newspapers are things like the Sun and the Daily Mail, which do an extremely poor job of covering foreign affairs. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
            • What? How on earth does circulation figures of redtop newspapers equate to British not being "known for their great interest in foreign affairs"? More original research and personal point of view I think. In any case, show me how this is more significant than the ferret on the bus train with your "most shared" argument. And then show me how it's ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Wait, what? A Ferret took a bus! OMG, why isn't there an article about this!?! But seriously, I'm neutral about this so far, it seems to be on the edge of ITN worthy, once it becomes more clear how much damage was done and how many died than we can see if it is ITN worthy. Passionless -Talk 19:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per MickMackNee's perfect rationale, and Rambling Man. I just dislike to see this person creates 1-lines stubs and he comes here and says "Another drama." This is utterly unacceptable. --Diego Grez (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
oppose till there are real reasons (destruction, deaths, missing people etc) to post it. -- Ashish-g55 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Strong comment. Err, did anyone even bother to read the blurb? Reports suggest 11 people killed, though many sources are still reporting one person killed. That report comes from Thailand, in Chiang Rai where the Mercalli scale shaking intensity was only IV, and more than four million people were exposed to shaking at least one level stronger. USGS PAGER data suggests an inferrable approximate death toll around 200, and a 25% chance of it being higher than 1,000. This is a significant earthquake, and in fact far more people were exposed to heavy shaking than what occurred during the 2011 Yunnan earthquake, which killed 25 and earned its rightly-deserved ITN spot. Please do not overlook an event just because it is an earthquake in a particular area of a poor country known for heroin/opium grow-ops (Golden Triangle). In fact, ITN is severely under-posted in Myanmar topics, and only covers major protests and flag changes. For example, we failed to post Cyclone Giri, the strongest storm of the 2010 N. Indian Ocean season, and which affected Myanmar (Burma) as its main target country, in addition to Bangladesh, killing 167 people. Now, Cyclone Jal which came later in the season was posted on ITN, and it claimed 116 lives in India, Sri Lanka and Malaysia. Back to today's strong earthquake: this tremor affected six countries. Pay no attention to how the nominator does the nomination or words it, but instead focus on what the story actually entails. I strongly believe this is worthy of posting. ~AH1(TCU) 22:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose relatively small amount of deaths for a natural disaster, in a region not of particular interest to the English wiki readers. Nergaal (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
i dont think your second reason is valid. makes no difference if english wiki readers take interest in burma or not. there is just not enough damage done by this earthquake thats all -- Ashish-g55 23:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, PAGER suggests a damage figure around $100 million USD. It is also incredibly short-sighted to suggest that ITN should not post stories on any areas where the English-speaking population is low—how about Libya? By the way, the article is no longer a stub. ~AH1(TCU) 23:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That's a really stupid rationale. How comes you posted an ITN item of Japan, then? You are obviously biased. Diego Grez (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I was attempting to refute the previous rationale, that Myanmar (Burma) is of low interest to the English Wikipedia. This is also probably the deadliest earthquake event in Myanmar since the 2004 tsunami. ~AH1(TCU) 00:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is very thin. RxS (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment. What further updates are you looking for? More news expected to trickle in within the next few hours. ~AH1(TCU) 23:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, but at this point the article is no where near where it needs to be included here. If events warrant it and the article gets expanded I could change my tune. RxS (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose 6.8 is not all that strong; and only 10 deaths reported. Yes, it's notable, but not so overwhelmingly so that it should be highlighted "in the news". I'd guess you'd be hard pressed to find anything above the fold on this in a major world newspaper and many won't be on page one at all. Hardly "news". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The magnitude is not very important in this case, since it was about half the strength of the 2010 Haiti earthquake and nearly the strength of the 2010 Yushu earthquake, and the much weaker Yunnan earthquake this month was also posted. ~AH1(TCU) 00:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The strength isn't that important, as not all strong earthquakes are devastating. What is important is the amonut of damage done and people killed(10). By this measurement this earthquake is no where near the 2010 Haitian quake(100,000+ died) or the Yushu earthquake(2,700 died). An example of a natural disaster of a similar magnitude of death and destruction in the developed world are tornados in the U.S.-which I don't believe we post. Passionless -Talk 01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Update. 25 casualties, Burmese officials warn "there could be many more". ~AH1(TCU) 01:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Update. 60 casualties - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment the article is now actually updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Devastation apparent and it is front-page on as well. I am also curious how this will play out with the fighting on the Burmese side of the border in that area earlier this year.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support when the article is ready. This is definitely a notable event - it is stronger than the Christchurch quake last month (which was 6.3), and the death toll has now increased to more than 60. That said, the article is in need of some work. (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support at 70+ casualties it is a notable natural disaster. Nergaal (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Are we going to wait until official casualties rise above 100? ~AH1(TCU) 22:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Given that all the opposes were made when there was only one casualty, and given that there haven't been any opposes since, and given that the article looks pretty good now, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Posting. Although 6.8 isn't necessarily the strongest, we've put up earthquakes that caused fewer than 75 deaths before. Another concern mentioned in the discussion is article size and quality: both are now more than sufficient. SpencerT♦C 04:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Abel Prize for John Milnor

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

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

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

March 23

[Posted] Portuguese PM José Socrates resigns

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

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

2011 Jerusalem bombing

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

  • Support - Definite ITN. First case of bombing for a long time too. Terrorists attacks place on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not Iraq or Pakistan, but it's certainly no New York or London. No casualties make this rather insignificant. Grsz 11 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Tell that to the victims and citizens of Jerusalem and Israel overall. Also first bombing since 2004.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
One death confirmed so far by Israel. With 30 people injured it will rise even though I hope not.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Because the dozens of people killed in bombings in other contentious areas are less significant? I'm not following your logic. Grsz 11 15:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Why compare apples and oranges. If we would follow your logic no articles would place on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
That's really not what I said at all, but I don't feel like getting in to your circular argument. Besides, it's not the first since 2004. Sources says first major bombing in Jerusalem (not Israel) in four years, which is an entirely different thing. Grsz 11 15:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually other sources claim first bombing attack on Israeli grounds since 2004. Rocket fire from Gaza into israel is an almost every day thing. But a bombing that are placed strategicly to injure and kill people have not occured since 2004.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support unusual location and large number of injuries.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, definitely ITN worthy, front page news for most newspapers. Nsk92 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
wait no claimants yet if im not mistaken. see how this elevateds then post it.Lihaas (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose these attacks happen EVERY DAY, there is a violent incident in the I-P conflict literally everyday, to highlight one is ridiculous. A month ago today 1 Palestinian was killed and 11 other civilians were injured when Israeli artillary bombarded their homes...daily events. Passionless -Talk 17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • OR we could look at yesterday where an Israeli attack on Gazans killed 8civilians including 3 children.UN condemns the attack
  • Oppose - Agree that if we start posting every attack with even a modest death toll, it will take over ITN. My question: would this go in as part of a Middle East sticky? Jusdafax 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
should be deleted then.Lihaas (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it should not be deleted. The attack has been top news on all international news media.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The article itself should be deleted for failing WP:EVENT-"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.". Passionless -Talk 18:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a personal opinion from you, more than a standard for handling these kind of articles.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
No, the quote is actually from WP:EVENT, I didn't quote myself, and maybe you could read WP:NOTNEWS as well.
The applicable policy is WP:N/CA since this was a high profile criminal act and received considerable international media coverage.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support It is false to say that those attacks happen every day. They do not, not in Israel anyway. Here's what RS source says: "The first bombing to rock Jerusalem in four years" (highlighted by me)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Mbz1 I searched your entire history, you have never before edited this page, your first edit is one to go against me, while you call me a liar, this breaks both WP:HOUND and WP:NPA. Passionless -Talk 19:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Thank you for removing the offending part. Passionless -Talk 22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
No need from any of you to make this more personal than it has to be. It is obvious that there are different opinions on the matter of this article. But it cant be denied that there are people that thinks that the article places on ITN Passionless.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Mbz1 and Passionless, you have both previously been subject to a topic ban from articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you cannot either play nice here or ignore each other, then I am inclined to block you both and then get consensus that you be banned from discussions on those topics on this page. Whoever started this conflict (and I do not care), you are both exacerbating it. The choice is yours.--Chaser (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Mbz1 is absolutely right. It's the first massacre in years. Broccolo (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Note 8-9times as many Palestinians died in Israeli attacks yesterday with a similar number injured. To highlight an attack on Israelis while ignoring the huge number of attacks on Palestinians would of course be ridiculous. Passionless -Talk 19:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It might sound hard and cold. But the death of palestinians by Israeli rockets etc etc.. happens almost weekly. While a bombing of this kind is rare (not since 2004) in Israel. That is why this stroy trumps the Palestinian story mentioned. Sad but very true.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose hardly a "massacre" with only one confirmed death when we dismissed the shooting of two US soldiers in Germany with comments such as "Two deaths isn't very significant. And no, nationality doesn't make a difference". Would like to think we had some level of consistency here at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Tentative oppose As a one-off incident, it follows from TRM's logic that this isn't a strong candidate. The ramifications of it could make it very significant, so I think I and any other opposer should be prepared to review if things escalate from here, as they sadly have a habit of doing in that part of the world. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - tragic and such, but TRM's hit it dead on. Consistency is lacking at ITN, no need to fuel that.  狐 FOX  21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Tentative oppose. Even in Israel this is not an earth-shattering event. The leading commentators on Israeli television are rejecting the idea that Israel will be drawn into a new large-scale Cast-Lead-type offensive against Palestinian terrorist infrastructure. Also, shortly after the 8-o'clock news ended on Channel 2, they continued with regular programming and broadcast the penultimate episode of Big Brother. This is not generating the kind of media outrage that the Itamar attack did a week and a half ago. Reports now are that the 60-year-old woman whose body was recovered from the blast wasn't Israeli. The headlines in tomorrow's newspapers will showcase the attack; but unless the IDF mobilizes troops along the Gazan perimeter or takes out some top Hamas/Islamic Jihad commanders, the impact of the attack is minor. This is my first time participating in a discussion here.—Biosketch (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    If only one person got killed it was not from the lack of trying.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    In this particular case, it might have been. Reports are that the explosives weighed two kilograms, much less than the 10 to 15 kilos Hamas is known to pack in its bombs. This is of course a tragedy for the woman that died and for the people recovering in the emergency rooms; still, in relative terms, it isn't that newsworthy. In fact, the rockets on Beer Sheva, despite their not having killed anyone, are a far more disturbing development. If Israel does launch a new offensive, it'll be because of the rockets from Gaza, not because of the bomb attack in the capital.—Biosketch (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It would be a shameful example of systemic bias if we were to post this story here.--WaltCip (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    In what way?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry Biz, but a terrorist attack in the middle east with only one dead? It may have been 4 years, but there are bigger stories out there.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm sorry but I think its extremely important to act neutrally in these kind of conflicts, we didn't post an incident last week where a Palestinian was killed, I didn't feel that incident was notable enough to support, thus in this case, with fewer deaths, I don't think its fair to say this is worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1 death is a tragedy but unless the person (or bear, apparently) is notable otherwise, doesn't rise to the level of ITN; all those yakking opposing on neutrality grounds are misplaced; Palestinian bombs purposely targeting Israeli civilians occurs sufficiently frequently to be the "Dog bites man" where news is "Man bites dog". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Rare for this particular area, strong international reaction, but comparatively insignificant in terms of ongoing world events. ~AH1(TCU) 18:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Liz Taylor

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

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

Middle East Sticky

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

WE obviously have three events that could arguably vie for the sticky spot
  • Military action in Libya
  • Middle Easter Protests
  • Japanese Quake/Tsunami aftermath
Seeing as each is very viable sticky option... I think We should forgo the sticky and just keep the blurbs updated. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Since there is whitespace to the left of the current sticky we could post two stickies with a  · inbetween no? Passionless -Talk 02:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Support changing the sticky per Colipon's nom - The North Africa/Middle East issues have jumped over Japan's, in my view, and unless there is dramatic change we should switch back. As a strong second choice I'd go with two stickies, which also makes sense. Jusdafax 03:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. On a separate note, due to the recent prevalence of stickies, I will put forth a proposal in the next few days for ITN to adopt a 'permanent sticky banner' of the five or six most relevant news events of public interest. Essentially this banner would just include a bold link to the article which has been of recent public interest. This will allow much more space for the important news stories that we miss due to large 'controversial' discussions on this page - the Charlie Sheens and US Senator deaths that generate a lot of hits to articles but never get proper ITN coverage, and even the Tuvalu election might occupy a place as a unitary link rather than a 'blurb'. It will also allow for easier posting of 'deaths' and solve the debate of whether or not we should be posting the deaths of "important but not especially important" people on ITN. The purpose of this new addition would primarily be to showcase a wider range of Wikipedia articles and secondarily to solve the many 'undue weight' issues that we experience on ITN. I wanted to get a feel from other editors first on whether this would be a good idea, or whether it's been discussed before. Colipon+(Talk) 04:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Highly interesting, and I'm inclined to support this also, at first glance. Care would have to be taken not to clutter the ITN box too much, but I think it could be managed. Thanks, good suggestion... since it is a broader policy call, should it be moved to the talk page? Jusdafax 09:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
support nominated it some days ago, but it was rejected at the time. we now have: libya, syria, yemen, bahrain (quiet now).Lihaas (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at this discussion. Cheers. Colipon+(Talk) 18:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

March 22

Moriarty Tribunal report published

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

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

2011 Republic of Congo plane crash

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

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

[Not posted] Tokyo Sky Tree topped out

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

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

  • Support per nom. The story says they cancelled a planned ceremony because of the quake, but I don't think that should dissuade us from merely reporting on it like other media.--Chaser (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Made me look, good article, interesting topic. RxS (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support looks like an interesting story. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Good story in general and I was surprised to see things are still moving on in Japan. Obviously they are, but with all the news, it is surprising.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Interesting indeed. Agree that it somewhat balances bad news from Japan. Also suggest the picture would make a nice visual. Jusdafax 08:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Newsworthy--Shrike (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Not posted I think we're too late. This happened 18 March and the last item on ITN now is from 19 March. Even if we bumped one of those to put this at the bottom of the list, the article has not been yet been updated enough.--Chaser (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This seems silly. The fact that it happened technically 3 days ago doesn't make it any less newsworthy or true. What's the difference if we informed readers 3 days ago or today? --TorsodogTalk 14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Please view the source of the ITN list to see what I mean. We sort things based on when they happened. This happened later than everything else on that list. As to the update, the purpose of this section is to showcase Wikipedia's content that has been sufficiently updated to reflect what is "in the news".--Chaser (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
If the argument is that the article isn't updated enough, that can be easily changed. I don't agree that things need to be sorted by when they happened on the list though. It seems preferrable to inform readers of a newsworthy item than to not in order to stick to a sorting system out of whack because of a busy news weekend. --TorsodogTalk 15:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, not a big deal, we can still post this next spring at the public opening, I guess... --Tone 15:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This looks like an easy WP:IAR. its not like we missed an event like death or sports final. the building is still tallest. -- Ashish-g55 22:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection if another admin wants to post it on that basis (though they'll need to check for a sufficient update). You might check with Tone.--Chaser (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Interesting enough for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait until the official opening. A spot can be reserved on ITN for it to appear then.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talkcontribs) 13:37, March 23, 2011

March 21

[Posted] Death of Nikolai Andrianov

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

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

  • He won 15 Olympic medals (7 gold, 5 silver and 3 bronze), and is generally considered one of the greatest gymnasts of all time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Support the most successful men's gymnast is definitely worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per eraserhead1--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional support if the article is improved. The blurb should also mention he won 15 medals (only 2 others have won more). Nergaal (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Sounds like he was an extraordinary athlete. --candlewicke 22:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Per above. Baseball Watcher 22:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The update is very short. However, given the current size of the article, I"m not sure a longer one is appropriate. THe article should be expanded overall.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted - I combined the illness with the death info into a joint section. I checked the sources. There's nothing else to add besides who survived him, which is not something we traditionally include.--Chaser (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Support, but I am removing. The rest of the article is in no condition for the item to be posted. Notability is clear, but there is only a small amount of information about his life and virtually no prose about his Olympic career. This should be reposted, but when there are sufficient updates to the article about the rest of his life. SpencerT♦C 02:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
More specifically: The article says "Between 1971 and 1980 he won many international gymnastics competitions, including the Olympic Games, world championships and European championships." This needs to be detailed with referenced prose, not just a table at the bottom. If you see Larissa Latynina#Gymnastics career, this is an okay example about what I mean. SpencerT♦C 02:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I've added three brief paragraphs of referenced prose about his Olympics career, including a bit about his record in most Olympic gymnastic golds in a single games. I couldn't find anything on other international competitions.--Chaser (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


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

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

Khamis al-Gaddafi

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

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

[Pulled] .xxx

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

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

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

[Posted] Impeachment of Merceditas Gutierrez

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011 Wollongong floods

Article: 2011 Wollongong floods (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Article needs updating
  • Comment-I don't see this in international papers, so I wonder how serious the floods are. If this is just a small flood or a flash flood, which occur often around the world, I don't think it is ITN material. Passionless -Talk 08:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It's mass flooding due to a storm cell covering most parts of southern New South Wales, the floods only occurred recently. There is still heavy rain here in Sydney and the effects are being felt here as well (wild winds, random heavy downpours). —Ancient ApparitionChampagne? • 8:12pm • 09:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This hasn't even reached The Age in Melbourne. Maybe it will, but be patient. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • There was coverage in major National news bulletins (Channel Ten, Nine etc) as far as I'm aware, but you do raise a good point. —Ancient ApparitionChampagne? • 8:42pm • 09:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose localised issue. Revisit if it gains more coverage internationally, like the QLD floods did. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 10:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not very localised, the storm cell caused the floods and severe thunderstorms throughout Wollongong, but heavy rain and strong winds are being felt throughout southern New South Wales. Perhaps wait ~18 hours for enough coverage to occur, since the floods only just started and could get worse. —Ancient ApparitionChampagne? • 9:36pm • 10:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Constitutional Referendum Again

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

AT&T seeks to buy T-Mobile

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

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

Sources:BBCWikinewsBloombergWall Street JournalReuters Passionless -Talk 03:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
To clarify the two companies have reached a deal to merge, and are currently only waiting for government approval. Passionless -Talk 04:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure it is news that they announced their intentions. But this isn't Wikinews. We would almost certainly feature this if they were to buy T-Mobile, but not just announcing their intentions. Grsz 11 03:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Wait. Saying "I intend to buy this company" or "we're going to merge" is very different to actually merging. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I'd agree with the reasoning behind this nomination and for putting it up now. This is a big story for a number of reasons, is highly likely to go through, and for me the concentration of power in that 43% market share is indeed ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 03:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. This proposed merger may not pass antitrust review. Abductive (reasoning) 03:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it needs approval. I just thought of nominating this until I saw the strings attached to the announcement.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
If it fails antitrust we could post that when and if it happens. I feel we have a real lack of business news on ITN even though these deals affect a huge number of readers. Passionless -Talk 03:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, for what it is worth, in the current climate the merger is highly likely in my view. But as Passionless pointed out in the nom, at that point it is not much of a news story. Now is the time, as I see it. Jusdafax 03:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
But we don't post items based on the speculation of Wikipedians (or even experts). If it goes ahead, we'll post it, and I'm sure it will be in the media then, but right now it's just speculation and statements of intent rather than anything concrete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Major happenings can often have more than one blurb to point out major events within the happenings (Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Japan etc). I think it would be appropriate to post once now that this deal has been proposed and is now seeking approval, and another report later that says either "the deal was blocked" or "the deal was accepted" both would be significant events. Passionless -Talk 03:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Support major business story that will affect the mobile phone industry in the US enormously, whether it passes or not. And business stories are woefully underposted on ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Wait until it actually happens. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 10:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It did happen already. AT&T and T-Mobile have already worked out a merger between them. Passionless -Talk 18:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
All we need is some more support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. Given the huge cultural interest in smartphones nowadays this should easily be of 'wide interest'. --Johnsemlak (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

If it didn't mean anything I doubt so many news organization would be reporting this. It is important that people know such an event is in the works before it is approved, as the public does have the ability to affect the approval, but they must be made aware while they still have a chance to voice their opinions, not after it is a done deal. Passionless -Talk 01:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Passionless, that's not ITN's role.--Chaser (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I meant that as the reason why it is being talked about so widely in the media right now. As it is being mentioned in the news now, I think it would be correct to put it ITN. Passionless -Talk 07:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Being WP:BOLD and marking [Ready?], I think the support !votes are probably for it, but I'm bias in this case, so someone else definitely needs to check. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, not yet. Just reading the discussion, I did not see consensus to post at this time. I also ran the numbers, and it is 4-6 in favor of posting now.--Chaser (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I do hope that those who say wait know they are really saying oppose as the chance of this story being such a popular item in the news again is very low. The media rarely picks up an issue a second time, their customers all have short attention spands and as a for-profit business their only interest is getting customers to sell to advertisers. The media only puts out new and large stories, not old and drawn out stories like this one will be by the time the deal is approved. Are you with me comrades? :p Passionless -Talk 07:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Can see no way in which posting this would improve Wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • This is ITN, where stories that are ITN are posted, this story is ITN, see? Passionless -Talk 17:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

March 20

[Posted] 2011 Syrian protests

  • Protests in Syria on March 18 and 19 were the largest to take place in the country for decades and Syrian authorities responded with violence against protesters. New protests planned for March 20.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. The article appears to have been updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - As nominator.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - clearly looks to meet the criteria. The update looks good too. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment One or two more supports would be nice. There's no rush at this moment, with ITN currently being updated at break-neck speed. -- tariqabjotu 14:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - This is a turning point in Syrian history. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Post-posting weak support. I take the point about the potential importance of these protests within Syria. News reports indicate that both the protests [44] and the government's concessions to popular pressure [45] are rare in Syria. That said, Al Jazeera's English homepage currently features only one story, about Syria freeing the child prisoners whose arrest prompted the current round of large protests. That story is in their second group of stories. Further, Syria is not in Al Jazeera's "spotlight" on a "region in turmoil" which contains stories from six other countries. The Economist's current selection of stories from the Middle East contains nothing about Syria. Still, I think the lackluster indications of international interest may just be the result of the situation in Libya dominating the news cycle.--Chaser (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Middle East North Africa Protests Sticky proposal

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

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

March 19

[Posted] 2011 Alpine Skiing World Cup concludes

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

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

[Posted] Six Nations

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

Support once the article has been updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Support ITNR item. Nergaal (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Support for this notable sports event. --bender235 (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I have never supported rugby and cricket, those kind of sports. only interesting for a few parts of the world. For example in scandinavia no country even has a professional level Rugby team.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
We're not going through this again. The inclusion of the sports currently on ITNR have been debated again and again and I refuse to watch it go on again for reasons even close to "it's not interesting to enough people". EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree. We recently had a discussion about ITNR and as you (BabbaQ) didn't propose to remove any items from it, I would suggest your opposition is baseless. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 02:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
As I stated above there are atleast one professional alpine skier in at least 50 nations. While Rugby and sutch sports only have about 10-15 truly professional nations, and in all honesty rugby/cricket are only of interest in nations that are old British colonies. Though extremely popular on those few countries I would still be of Oppose opinion for worldwide ITN for this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Support Sporting event with wide spread interest. An item doesn't to hold interest everywhere to be included. RxS (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
ITNR no need for support. Should be posted once an update is made, if it hasn't already been. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 02:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment I was thinking that at 23:00 (UTC) but there still hasn't been a prose update yet beyond a single sentence - now OK Europe has been asleep in the meantime, but we do need an update first. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sport with relatively poor global interest. Thue | talk 09:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose until article is referenced, formatted, and wikified (really, a list of all the teams and their rosters?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I've cleaned up the article a little and added some prose on the end of the tournament. Therefore marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted; this is on ITNR. -- tariqabjotu 16:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Knut

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Posted] Enforcement of Libyan no-fly zone

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

  • Support - ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Another Source - CNN is reporting this as well. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 15:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Consensus should be easy on this. I think the bigger issue is making sure that the article(s) is sufficiently updated. Help would be appreciated.--Chaser (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support. World leaders launch military action in Libya, international sources, unprecedented for what started as an Internet protest. ~AH1(TCU) 15:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The only enforcement that has begun is French warplanes flying reconnaissance missions. They've been making noises about starting enforcement with the use of force today, but I can't see that that has happened yet. I think the bigger story here is the civil war. Pro-Qaddafi forces are advancing into Benghazi with artillery, mortars, and tanks. Also, a plane was shot down outside Benghazi, although it's still not clear to me what happened there. The media sources are in conflict about this.--Chaser (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • They have fired on a Libyan military vehicle [47]. Rebels also announce that they have repelled Khadafi forces from Benghazi [48]. We could combine those two stories. Cenarium (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this relates to Operation Ellamy. Should this be mentioned in this post as well? Jaguar (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    UK air force didn't take action yet, and this is be too specific. Cenarium (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    Frankly, this British codename for the operation is silly as an ITN blurb, or even part of one. I'm sure the French have their own codename which they cover in French media, just as Ellamy has mostly been covered only by British media. In any case, French jets have taken the most action so far, doing flybys and attacking a military vehicle [49]. Even if the RAF starts dominating air enforcement, this article is too brief to be anything more than a piped link.--Chaser (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    Operation Ellamy is the only codename given so far to the Libyan no-fly zone, but I do see the point. Jaguar (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support clearly meets the criteria for inclusion. However there doesn't appear to be a sufficient specific update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments above. 2011_Libyan_uprising#No-fly_zone.2C_ceasefire.2C_and_attacks_on_Benghazi and the last two sections in the same article are a sufficient update. Second Battle of Benghazi is not quite ready yet, but is progressing nicely.--Chaser (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Blurb: "French warplanes enforcing a no-fly zone fire on Libyan military forces attacking Benghazi." Comments? I'm not sure how to work the uprising article into this blurb.--Chaser (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose to pipe French Air Force instead of Dassault Rafale as there are also Mirages taking part, and supporting aircrafts. Cenarium (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense. Done in sample blurb. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Blurb suggestion:
Feel free to shorten and refractor if too long. ~AH1(TCU) 19:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I have expanded the blurb slightly to take into account the US and UK involvement. Please feel free to tweak further - Dumelow (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Please include the following information: 48 casualties in Libya from Allied airstrikes. ~AH1(TCU) 19:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Clinton's SecState Warren Christopher

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

Support though the article needs an update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Support per nom.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Support per nom. Christopher also had a role in negotiating an end to the Iranian hostage crisis. Blurb?--Chaser (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Conditional support. As Eraserhead1 noted, the article must be updated beyond merely stating that Christopher "died on March 18, 2011, from complications of kidney and bladder cancer." It should contain information about the death's impact (e.g. statements by prominent politicians). —David Levy 15:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't have time to edit the article at the moment, but here are some sources:
Statement by Barack Obama
Statement by Hillary Rodham Clinton
Statement by Jimmy Carter
(I see that a comment from Carter's memoirs has been added to the article, but this obviously is more current.)
David Levy 15:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Great :). All of them are now in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
For the blurb I suggest Warren Christopher the first secretary of state for US President Bill Clinton dies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Marking [Ready], we have support, a blurb, and the update looks to just about meet the standard. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 15:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
1. we dont vote count. the 2 and 3 supports have no reason whatsoever. and 2. what his global notability? a foreign min dies and hes automatically a saint? this needs to be removed.Lihaas (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • To give a reason, support due to the lasting significance of a number of his initiatives in the Middle East and Europe including in the Balkans, the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel and the Iranian hostage crisis. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Post-post possibly pointless oppose. I can understand why a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama type might be posted in similar circumstances but would disagree with posting less senior figures as there seems to be so many of them. And that he was Clinton's first secretary of state suggests that there was more than one which, in the space of eight years, seems a little too frequent. That he died of cancer suggests his death, while tragic, was not unexpected. That U.S. presidents (or presidents of any kind) should line up to pay tribute to a former colleague hardly seems unexpected. --candlewicke 03:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
As laid out above by Eraserhead and myself, he was actively involved in a number of major peace and war operations, thus is thoroughly notable for what he did. C.f. WP:ITN/DC points 1 and 2. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 03:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Moon

Not particularly noteworthy, if interesting. Not exactly ITN material imo, so oppose. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 10:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Well, I did anticipate that kind of oppose - but I am still disappointed. It is the moon. The closest for 18 years. It is on BBC News (on rotation) and features in worldwide newspapers - today.
I'm sorry that my suggestion does not include any blood and gore, but I rather hoped that this was an Encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. Millions, if not billions, around the world will be looking at the full-moon tonight.
Our article, moon, is an FA, and is excellent; this is a rare opportunity to feature quality, encyclopaedic content on the main page, for a short time. It will not happen again for another 18 years.  Chzz  ►  10:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Despite my tone, above - thank you for considering it. I do appreciate that, in spite of my clear disappointment with your opinion.  Chzz  ►  10:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Support while the update isn't quite up to ITN standards it is an opportunity to get a Featured Article on ITN. And there are comments from a lot of people at WT:ITN3.0 (and actually below in the Frank Buckles discussion) about including more articles of Good/Featured article status. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we should really encourage any more extensive updates. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I did think about that; however, the article previously had no info on the moons distance from the Earth - which I found odd, in an FA. I think this one-off date, the closest during the "Wikipedia era", warranted mention. But anyway - that'd be an issue for discussion over at Talk:moon rather than here, presumably - 'coz if we start complaining about recentism here at ITN, we'll get into some problems :-)  Chzz  ►  12:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - Of global interest, and I buy the argument about a Featured Article on ITN. Jusdafax 12:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: There is nothing here that was not forecast decades ago. Where is the news element? Has the Moon article been substantially revised in the light of this? Does it deserve it? Astronomy is replete with once in a lifetime/once in x thousand years events. This something that was surpassed 18 years ago. In any case, as drafted, this makes a completely non-notable point in that it refers to something that occurs frequently. The Moon reaches perigee once a month. The only difference this month is that purely by chance the moment of perigee is very close to the point of full moon. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The news element is, that it is happening today - for the first time since Wikipedia existed. Once in eighteen years is hardly "frequent". If not accepted though, we can discuss it again in 2029.  Chzz  ►  12:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
@ Crispmucher, you could make the "chance" argument about every Sport story we post. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll say it again: this blurb does not refer to anything at all unusual: it happened last month, the month before that and the month before that. The notable element is the "super Moon", where two essentially unrelated phenomena approximately coincide - namely the full Moon and perigee - and that is the chance element I referred to above. The result of this coincidence is a full Moon of greater than normal apparent brightness - that is the thing that is unprecedented since 1993. You can argue that that is notable but as above I still view it as non-newsworthy. However, as drafted the blurb does not refer to the Moon's phases or brightness. It refers to the Moon's perigee only. Just so that everyone is clear on this: this is something that occurs every month. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The blurb suggested states: The moon reaches its closest point to the Earth since 1993 Today (19th of March), and will appear 30% brighter and 14% larger than at its furthest point. So that isn't something that happens every month. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
So can we work on the phrasing, perhaps? How about, ":*The moon reaches its closest point to the Earth during a full moon since 1993 Today (19th of March), and will appear 30% brighter and 14% larger than at its furthest point. " - or can others word it better?  Chzz  ►  13:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Good point: I should have checked back for the precise wording of the proposed blurb. But the point still stands: it is not because it is at the closest point: that is a monthly occurrence. It is a rarer combination of factors at play. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and add to WP:ITN/R. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support - this is a very rare event.  Kenrick  Talk 15:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; nice space/science article, it is news, anything that hasn't happened for 18 years I think is unusual enough to be called news when it does happen, and it's a good opportunity to get some featured content on ITN. C628 (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Rare astronomical event. Suggest omission of "Today", link apogee and Supermoon (as common name), mention that these happen 4-6 times each year but this particular one is a bit closer. ~AH1(TCU) 15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
AstroHurricane001, there's a few too many suggest/comment things in that - I think your suggestions are good, but could you possibly suggest an alternate tag, to show what you mean? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
How about:
  • The Moon reaches its closest point, or perigee, to the Earth during a Full moon since 1993, occurring on March 19 in a particularly close 'Supermoon', and appearing 30% brighter and 14% larger than at its farthest point in orbit at apogee.
I realize it's somewhat awkward, but "apsis" does not have an update nor needs one though "perigee" and "apogee" seem to refer to the closest approach by Earth to another object, while Supermoon is a bit informal and tends to cause media panic when linked as the main article. ~AH1(TCU) 15:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment As this event actually happens in about 3 hours in the UK (moonrise, 18:34 UTC) - and a bit longer in the US - then if it is accepted, it'd be nice if it were fairly soon.  Chzz  ►  15:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I was about to post this, but the information in the article needs to be corrected. From what I can tell, this is not the closest the Moon has been since 1993. This is just the first time since then that the perigee has coincided with the full moon. The article used to support the relevant section seems to say precisely that. -- tariqabjotu 15:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing by 'Ready' you refer to the alt from User:AstroHurricane001 above? Which looks fine to me, except I don't think "full moon" needs a capital F. And anything to make it a bit clearer would be nice. Can't think of that right now; I might later. But time-wise, it would be nice to get it up. Chzz  ►  16:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Ready means the article is updated and there's enough support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
+surely it should be [moon]] bolded, not apsis.  Chzz  ►  16:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Constitutional Referendum

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

March 18

Ongoing clashes over South Sudan

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

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

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

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

Operation Ellamy

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

[Posted] 2011 Yemeni protests

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

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

Fukushima I nuclear accidents

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

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

Air France Flight 447

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

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

Voyager 1

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

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

[Posted] MESSENGER does Mercury orbit insertion

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

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

March 17

[Done] Sticky for Japan

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

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

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

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

  • UN security council will vote on if the USA och NATO will be allowed to use military powers against Colonel Gaddafi and his forces at 22.00 GMT tonight in New York. Countries that would have voted against it (amongst them China and Germany) has told they will abstain from voting at all, leaving a open window for the Yes voting nations. Also the vote will include a decision on the Proposed Libyan no-fly zone.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    source for this story.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support if they vote in favor of military intervention. Highly unusual for the UN to sanction armed intervention and/or invasions of countries, and it's especially important given the state of the conflict. Foreign assistence to the rebels could easily save their entire revolution. If they vote no, it's just the status quo (although we'd get to post the fall of Benghazi in a few days). C628 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The measure just passed with a vote of 10 yesses, 0 nos, and 5 abstentions, so I would say Support Bcperson89 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - as I nominated this news.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - as nom.--The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - the west is about to use military force to depose another nations government. Passionless -Talk 22:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Suggested blurb: The United Nations approves a no-fly zone over Libya, and military intervention against Gaddafi's forces
I did not link to Libyan no-fly zone or United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, because the first does not talk about the potential for foreign military action, and the second is still a stub. Passionless -Talk 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Easily. This is a no-brainer. --bender235 (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support Major development in world affairs - adds a whole new, and potentially decisive change, dimension to the conflict. Franklinville (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • While the development is clearly important, the blurb really should link to the no-fly zone or the resolution articles. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted I put in as many links as possible.--Chaser (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
How come the very important part that foreign armies have been given the right to bomb Gaddafi's troops is not part of the blurb? Passionless -Talk 00:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Better?--Chaser (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Much, thank you, Passionless -Talk 01:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Update quake entry

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

[Posted] Waziristan drone attack

  • At least 40 people are killed in a US drone attack in the Pakistani region of Waziristan.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Reportedly, most of the victims were civilians having a tribal meeting, but some sources report that many militants are among the dead. The key article should be Drone attacks in Pakistan.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support one of the largest drone strikes ever (cant help but thinking it is payback by CIA for Mr Davis) --Wikireader41 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support per above. Sounds like it was a massive attack and the BBC calls it "the deadliest such attack since 2006". --candlewicke 18:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've created and am working on Datta Khel airstrike. C628 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above, but the article doesn't quite look ready yet. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support a large and quite deadly attack between two nations not at war, very notable. Passionless -Talk 22:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted.--Chaser (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

[Done] Remove MENA protests link

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

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

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

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

March 16

IAR: Non-free image on ITN

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

Just a note: the name of the image is misleading, since I uploaded a newer version. Nergaal (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
No thoughts? Anybody? Nergaal (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
No. And, to be honest, I don't think this image is that earth-shattering. -- tariqabjotu 19:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tariqabjotu. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the image wasn't all that great. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
One of the problems is that this image (or any image of all four reactors) shows nothing at the 100x100 pixel resolution of ITN images on the mainpage.--Chaser (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I do think that image is earth-shattering, when you understand what you are seeing. But I am not too happy about non-free images on the main page. Thue | talk 19:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • How about the current crop? Nergaal (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The last time someone stuck a non-free image on the MP, no less than Jimbo came by to take it down. This is pretty much a "thou shalt not" under Foundation policy, anyway. Courcelles 19:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
And that image is still useless at 100 pixels. Try removing the first : from this and previewing 100px Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Raymond Allen Davis

Oppose, I don't see how this case should be given special attention than any other case regarding diplomats in trouble (e.g. Silviu Ionescu). Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 15:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
no multimillion payouts there. AFAIK this is the first time money has been paid in a case involving diplomatic immunity.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support firstly while there is diplomatic immunity I don't believe there are any cases of a diplomat essentially murdering at least relatively innocent citizens of another country on their soil, secondly I've never heard of millions of dollars of blood money being paid due to this sort of action. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - unusual case and of worldwide interest. Jusdafax 19:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support when updated a bit more. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Of note it isn't fully protected anymore. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This blurb is problematic. His status as a diplomat is in dispute. Both stories refer to him in the title as a "CIA contractor", so I think that would be more appropriate. Millions is vague. Better either approximate figures in rupees or dollars or no specifics. The problem with even approximate figures is that the news reports are still widely contradictory. So, is this OK?: "CIA contractor Raymond Allen Davis is freed in Pakistan after blood money is paid."--Chaser (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd be OK with that, all the sources are calling him a CIA contractor. As the article is now updated I'm marking it [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
      • well a major part of the notability of this case is that US demanded diplomatic immunity for this CIA contractor calling him part of "administrative & technical" staff of the embassy [52], [53]--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
        • They seem to have given up on that one though at this point - if what it takes to satisfy people is to call him an alleged CIA contractor lets go for that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
          • The U.S. government has acknowledged he worked for the CIA. The real issue is whether and how to integrate this claim that he was a diplomat. Discussion on that issue can continue, but I've posted what we have.--Chaser (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Not getting a lot of attention in the US, but it seems it's getting a huge amount of attention in Pakistan and some globally. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - This is an unusual story and ITN blurb, and Mwalcoff is right when he notes that the story has not had much attention in the US. May be controversial, but I stand by my support above. Jusdafax 23:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[Posted] Crackdown on protesters in Bahrain

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

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

Japanese stocks fall, then rally

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

  • They've started to rally, but the article's not been updated to reflect that yet. This is somewhat akin to the hit the American stockmarket took after 9/11, which would bring ITN full-circle after almost ten years.--Chaser (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Are we voting for Japan to randomly invade Korea same ways US did? Nergaal (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Not helpful.--Chaser (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I was just trying to make a point to be careful with analogies. Anyways, Nikei dropper 6% two days ago, 11% yesterday, and got back some 3% today. That by itself is not quite enough to get an ITN post, but I would be ok with some other bump for the quake effects. Nergaal (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Like what?--Chaser (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
            • The new developments at the nuclear power plant, or the developing humanitarian crisis? There is a big effort underway to get enough food and supplies to those affected by the tsunami and cut-off in isolated areas long the hundreds of kilometres of coastline affected. Carcharoth (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
              • I would support either of those, although I don't think we need a discussion to update the plant blurb.--Chaser (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

March 15

Frank Buckles

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

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

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

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

Oppose. Same as Passionless. Are we going to list the death of every last WW2 veterans in every country? I doubt it. I'll support the last WW1 veteran, but not one of any particular nationality. Nightw 08:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
WW1 and WW2 are far more notable than any other war in the 20th century at least. Posting the last WW2 veteran from the major countries wouldn't be a particularly onerous burden. However regardless unmarking ready. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Um -- "every last WW I veteran" now? Not even a potential handful, really. I think a grand total of two more in the universe? Surely not a big deal to allow for their eventual deaths - this is not like commemorating fifty or a hundred potential people - it is about a total of three (now two, IIRC). As for "impact on people" - frankly, I do not see that as a real issue. This death was covered in the US, Canada, Australia, England (The Times etc.), France (AFP), person notable enough for Malta of all places [56], and Switzerland ( - Mar 1, 2011 Frank Buckles starb am Sonntag friedlich in seinem Haus in der Nähe von Charles Town im US-Bundesstaat West Virginia. ) I trust the international nature is proven without needing cites from another dozen nations? Collect (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment - Actually three left, though it is debated whether the third actually was in WWI or not. There are only two confirmed WWI veterans left though. But still, you are right, not alot. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 09:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment ITN may be the only section in the Main Page except the FA section that rejected a WP:GA. LOL –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing news from Japan

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

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

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

[Posted] Explosion at Japanese nuclear plant

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

  • Support as an update. This one appears to be the worst with higher radiation levels and more evacuations now.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support radiation around the reactor is about 100 times above the background radiation, and roughly 1/1000 of that right near the Chernoby reactor after the explosion. Nergaal (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: radiation per hour is 100 times that of background radiation in a year => roughly 1 million above background (and a thousandth of that near the Chernobyl reactor in 1986). Nergaal (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support - there are other news stories, but the whole world is watching this. Jusdafax 03:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, I thought from the beginning that it was maybe being downplayed a bit. Had the same feeling with Deepwater Horizon so I'll venture to that this is going to get worse. Marcus Qwertyus 03:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I reactor #4 on fire

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

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

March 14

[Posted] Saudi Arabia sends troops to Bahrain

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

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

[Posted] Dalai Lama steps down

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

Oppose per previous - this is a political only change and this guy isn't a notable politician as he doesnt rule anyone or any territory. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Support for meeting the celebrity criteria I have proposed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Support Tibet may not be a sovereign country, but the Dalai Lama is an international figurehead for the Chinese opposition. He is widely recognized and so leaving his political post is ITN-worthy.--Chaser (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Support--aside from his political status, which I would say is notable, he is also the religious leader of Tibetan Buddhism. Less significant religious leaders have been notable enough for ITN in the past.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment We need an update in the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Support when updated.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Support We don't need to reckon the political status of Tibet to judge the significance of this report. I must notice that the Dalai Lama is not only a political figure as leader of Tibet, and the current sovereign has become a true cosmopolitan with very high international recognition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose the suggested blurb, which is inaccurate in two senses. He has proposed to relinquish his political authority. He hasn't actually done anything yet, and he would retain his religious office. I support a more accurate description. Raul654 (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
My proposal for better one: "Dalai Lama gives up his political role in Tibet after more than 50 years ruling the government in exile."
Emphasizing only the political authority is too short, so I put additional information to lengthen the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It also needs to be clear that he doesn't have a political role in Tibet, he has a political role in the Tibetan government in exile (otherwise we are pushing a POV) so I suggest