Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2010

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.


November 30


Car of the Year 2011

Nissan Leaf is chosen as 2011 Car of the Year.[1]BBC.

Nergaal (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There are many different 'car of the year' awards, as our article makes clear. Is this the most significant of them? Modest Genius talk 19:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Support if and only if its the most significant award, as we don't post that many business stories, but otherwise it isn't important enough for consideration IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
i can understand posting a human who designed something innovative for the car. but posting a car... whats next, comfiest sofa of the year? i dont know it doesnt sound like ITN material -- Ashish-g55 20:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment This seems to be the European Car of the Year. --Kslotte (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought we were waiting for a Nissan Leaf posting until it went on official sale?. It's in the archive somewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - What is different here is that this is the first time an electric car was nominated and won this award. No car award will be considered "the most significant," but it is a major award. Notable, interesting and historic. Jusdafax 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As stated in a previous nomination, the best thing to do would probably be to wait for it to release, and then post a blurb announcing the release of the first mass-produced electric car by a major manufacturer. Unless ITN would want to re-post when that happens. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Eric. --Kslotte (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Motorcyclists attack scientists

BBC - Two separate attacks: One nuclear scientist is killed and his wife is injured, while another is wounded. --candlewicke 04:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

November 29


Bella Akhmadulina dies

Oppose: yesterday, editors only considered her worthy of a 19 sentence article. Kevin McE (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This should not be a default reason for oppose, we've had cases when the article was in a bad shape but quickly expanded afterwards and was thus appropriate for ITN. No particular opinion otherwise, in this case. --Tone 23:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The article seems to be in a good shape, and I don't see any serious problem there.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. She was as famous as Andrey Voznesensky, whose death was featured on the ITN. GreyHood Talk 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. Unfortunately not every article receives the attention it deserves unless something such as death occurs and then it receives attention. Akhmadulina, as GreyHood has said, was as well-known as Voznesensky and appeared in packed stadiums too. Voznesensky was also several years older when he died and was posted. Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin have both paid tribute and Medevedev has written on his blog that Akhmadulina's poetry is a "classic of Russian literature". She was given numerous awards and received high praise from 1987 Nobel Prize recipient Joseph Brodsky. She appears then to pass 2. "The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such." --candlewicke 00:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose KevinMcE's point is quite reasonable - if no-one could be bothered writing a comprehensive article on the subject while she was alive, it's a fairly good indication that she wasn't all that important. Anyway, I judge deaths on whether the death was notable, which usually involves weighing the following factors: (a) the person's age; (b) the extent to which the person was active in their field at the time of their death; (c) whether the death was in unexpected circumstances; (d) the impact of the death on current events; and (e) the importance of the person. (a) through (d) say quite strongly this isn't important so I don't think we should post it.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
But why should anyone be "bothered" to write comprehensive articles on everything that is important especially while alive? For example, the article on Mikhail Lermontov, a poet she has been compared to, is not in a good state (and he has been dead for some time) but surely his importance is not decreased because of this? Surely what matters is the current state of the article (which is better than when the nomination was made)? --candlewicke 06:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The current state of the article matters in deciding whether it is fit for posting. But the former state of the article is a useful reference for deciding whether the subject was that important: for important people, you expect comprehensive articles in good shape. It's only an indicative factor and care needs to be taken in applying it, but taking it into account is not illegitimate.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It matters because if no-one "is bothered" to write articles Wikipedia does not exist! If the individual were of great interest to Wiki readership there would at least be many comments in the talk page seeking expansion of the article, even if there were few editors qualified to expand it. Comments in an obituary, and even more so testimonials from public figures and erstwhile colleagues, will generally be glowing and tend toward exaggeration of the importance and merits of the deceased: we've all been to enough funerals to know that, so they are not the best yardstick of impact. We have established in the past that simply being a nobel prize winner does not make one ITNworthy on death: having had a laureate compliment one even less so.Kevin McE (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Plase, take a look at the article about Andrei Voznesensky before his dead. Based on your criterion, he wasn't also notable, but his death was mentioned in the ITN template. So, please note another criterion, rather than technically eliminating the nominations.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times now has an obituary stating that she was "always recognized as one of the Soviet Union's literary treasures and a classic poet in the long line extending from Lermontov and Pushkin" and "one of the great poets of the 20th century". --candlewicke 06:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per the aboves. And Candlewick, for the 1000th time, nobody gives a shit about what this or that obituary says. DC TC 07:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Eh, was that necessary? Obituaries aren't written for every death, especially by the New York Times, and as such they're usually a good indication the person was pretty important.  f o x  13:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The quote from a 1993 book calling her "one of the great poets of the 20th century" does not date from after the death. Not sure what to say to the choice of words above... :( --candlewicke 16:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
While I have no desire to defend DC's tone, you did present it as a quote from an obituary, not a 17 year old book. Kevin McE (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
But it is mentioned in that newspaper. Surely these are read before deciding on supports and opposes? --candlewicke 17:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Can't vouch for anyone else, but I don't feel a need to. If the fame of the person is not such that I would imagine any reasonably well informed person knows of them, or their acheivement is not so unique that it deserves higher profile, I for one will oppose posting the mere fact of death at ITN. I suspect I am not alone... Kevin McE (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
But that means someone would have to be famous? No matter how important the achievement? --candlewicke 17:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Read what I said:"or their acheivement is not so unique that it deserves higher profile": but yes, unless the circumstances of the death are extraordinary, the newsworthiness of a person's death is pretty much proportional to their fame. I'm not talking about the importance of the person, but the newsworthiness of their passing. The only real exception to that would be the death of the last person of a notable category (eg last WWI veteran). Kevin McE (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment Lol. This discussion becomes more and more meaningless. I wonder how could you compare the previous shape of the article with the notability of the person. If you see it in bad shape, just fix it. It's clearly stated she was "one of the greatest poets of the 20th century".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment All the opposes here are based on the issue that the subject's article was too short before her death. It's a valid point, but I don't think it should be prohibitive. For heaven's sake, we all know that article length on Wikipedia doesn't equate to notability. Otherwise we would consider Star Wars to be more notable than Chinese Art. If the article can be brought up to an appropriate state now, and if notability can be established (I'm undecided on both counts) it should be considered.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation: the state of the article is being taken as an indicator of the importance that the Wikipedia community (those for whom we maintain ITN) attributes to the person. It borders on the hypocritical to suddenly argue the importance of a person whose article has been in a state of neglect for a long time. Kevin McE (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but we should take into account Wikipedia:Systemic_bias, which likely is having an effect here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
That's just what I meant. Articles on topics that are famous or popular might be in an excellent state because there are many who want to work on them. But there may be, for example, a scientist who has achieved something but who is at the same time not such a celebrity. Just look at the Robert G. Edwards article as he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Using the same logic such a person would not be posted if he died now because his article might not have been long enough before he did. --candlewicke 17:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
But considering the fact that several people who are notable in terms of Wikipedia inclusion die every day, the state of their article at the time of death is a fair indication of how much interest our readers and editors have in any one of them, and the degree of interest is presumably an indicator of whether their death is ITNworthy. I suspect that among yesterdays death, at least him and him are at least equally deserving and impressive in their CVs, and have more substantive articles, and in terms merely of popular interest, this guy probably trumps them all. Kevin McE (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
"All opposes are..."? Not sure about this (see for example my oppose). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Support significant Russion poet. --Kslotte (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I'm afraid I've never heard of the guy - and while Chinese art is probably more important than Star Wars I'm sure its article is more than 19 sentences long. Additionally given the NYT has multiple obituaries a day having one there can't mean its good enough to be posted here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Naked Gun actor dies

Leslie Nielsen dies at age 84. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose A notable person, but at the age of 84, his death is not a significant event. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
News all over the world Australia BBC third top news story, CNN front page in Yahoo. One of the world's most famous comedy actors, we had similar people in ITN Support Secret account 13:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Obviously notable person, but this news isn't that significant in the grand scheme of things. Don't get me wrong, this news hurts. It may not hurt as much as jumping on a bicycle without a saddle, but it hurts. Lugnuts (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Death was not untimely and significance of person is not exceptionally outstanding.--WaltCip (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support One of the most recognizable comedy actors, notable enough. GreyHood Talk 15:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support- per above AND was really notable. Has media coverage. - The Amazzing Race (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Is receiving coverage worldwide, and a notable figure. Grsz 11 17:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support getting lots of coverage. DC TC 17:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Surely you can't be serious?! I am serious and don't call me Shirley Simply south (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The update is too short at the moment.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  Administrator note: (ec) Would anybody care to expand Leslie Nielsen#Death? Some reaction and any more detail (if it's available) would be nice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. The Daily Telegraph - "Nielsen's willingness to clown allowed him to approach heights once inhabited by Buster Keaton and the Marx Brothers". The Guardian - "Canadian actor whose reputation was transformed by his deadpan comic persona in Airplane! and the Naked Gun series". Originally a "stolid actor who specialised in authority figures" so he was a talented comic and serious actor. And "Chilean Newspaper Dedicates Entire Front Page To Leslie Nielsen" sounds important too. --candlewicke 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Support's fine but there needs to be a better update. I've done a bit of searching but I can't find much that's notable enough to add to the article. I would have thought that the death of a prominent Canadian might have gotten a comment from the Canadian PM--that would be a good thing to add. But the reactions of a few relatively insignificant actors isn't really notable enough. The Chilean front page did catch my eye, it sure goes to notability. We might need to give this one time until we have some reactions worth adding.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I also tried to add detail, nothing but twitters from famous people etc, I think there is consensus to add this. Secret account 23:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm neutral on this item, but spent half an hour hunting around for useful quotes or further info to add on his death. There's an absolute ton of coverage, but it's all obituaries, 'best moments', quotes from the man himself, or the banal 'he was funny' type reactions from middling comedians. It's probably as good as it's going to get, and is a GA, so I think this would be fine to post. Modest Genius talk 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The update seems to have got shorter since I last looked! But, if there's an agreement to post now (it is a GA I suppose), then I will as soon as someone can suggest a good blurb. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
How about "Occasionally prominent Canadian actor Leslie Nielsen dies at very old age to little reaction". But in all seriousness, why not the usual "Canadian-American actor Leslie Nielsen dies at the age of 84".--Mkativerata (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your point, but I'm just the humble servant of consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes I'm certainly not going to argue there's not consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, should we switch Julian's picture for Leslie's? My contempt for the former is just so extraordinarily high that I'd feel uncomfortable use the tools to do it myself.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't then ;) We usually try to keep images up for 24 hours at least, because we never know where a new usable image is going to come from: if we swap too early, we're left with images which stay on far too long (like Andry Rajoelina recently) Physchim62 (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I was going to do it at about 10am UTC. That would be about 24 hours. I agree with you (again!) on the former. To post my opinion of him would violate BLP, but we don't want Nielsen getting like ITN's standing joke! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I was about to post that Neilson's hair is a bit longer than usual.... this photo (or a headshot crop) would make a good front-pager when the time is right. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a cropped version of File:Leslie Nielsen.jpg would be good after about 1000 UTC. Apart from the practical aspects of having even fewer usable images than usable stories on ITN, it would be a huge breach of WP:NPOV to take down the image of Assange simply because some editors do not approve of it/him on personal, subjective grounds. Physchim62 (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No-one is proposing that. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 :) then! I've just had several of these conversations in the past! One person complained on WP:ERRORS that it was "always the second entry that had the picture" so why didn't the current second entry have the picture... If I remember correctly, the second entry at the time was the death of J. D. Salinger, so no free image was available even if it would have satisfied the user concerned! ;) Physchim62 (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry we're probably crossing wires. I was clarifying that my objection to the picture was not related to my views on Assange. (Actually, I proposed switching the picture to Wikileaks/Assange in the first place over at T:MP). --Mkativerata (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems like we're crossing wires, yes, that happens from time to time. For the moment, we have a nice image schedule: Assange → Nielson (if someone does the crop) → whoever wins the Ivoirien presidential election (we've got free images of both of them). Assuming nothing comes along to f*ck that up... which will happen, that is one of the joys of ITN ;) Physchim62 (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
(general comment, not directed specifically at Physchim despite cack-handed threading) What's wrong with the main infobox image of Nielsen? That could probably just be {{c-uploaded}} without the need for any cropping. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
(redent) You can see the result at the top of the thread: a cropped version would be better IMHO. Physchim62 (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No, they're different images. I'm on about File:LeslieNielsenOct08-replacement.jpg (added beneath t'other one at the top of the thread). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Posted a crop above -M.Nelson (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Belated support: I grew up watching this guy. And I'm only in my twenties. An amazing actor. So what if he was in his eighties? What? Deaths are less notable if the person is old at the time? Nightw 00:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I think so. If he died in a piano accident in 1990 there'd be a lot more attention.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If he died in a piano accident yesterday there would have been a lot more attention. --PlasmaTwa2 01:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Post post support. Shirley not!  f o x  01:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
More support and thank you for posting this. A very sad loss. Even at 84, he was not in fragile health and his death was unexpected and sudden. Time for a movie night. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned we posted this without the required update, despite the consensus that he was notable enough. All front page sections have standards, and as I think User:Howard the Duck once said, ITN is the least stringent on content. I do think it's nice to have a GA linked but the purpose of ITN is to link to articles that have been "substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." Now that it's been posted I think the best course of action is to try to improve the update, and I'll take that discussion to WP:ERRORS but I think we should bear this in mind.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic: Now I do think OTD/SA is giving ITN a run for its money. It's a battle between those two. At least on ITN people agree upon on something. OTD/SA inclusions can be sneaky. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The more I think about this, the more I think this should not have been posted, for two very significant reasons. a). It does not meet ITN criteria. ITN's criteria are rather vague, but for deaths the Wikipedia:In_the_news#Deaths criteria are reasonably specific, and I don't believe Neilson meets any of them. Given that he didn't' win any acting awards or other significant recognition I can't see him meeting #2, a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such. I agree he is a popular actor, but in the past that hasn't been good enough. HOwever, even if we concede that consensus trumped this issue, there's still b) The article did not meet the required update. I've tried to update the article but there just don't seem to be reactions to his death that are notable enough to include in the article. I think this is not unrelated to the issue of his notability I mentioned in point a). We have always insisted that ITN postings meet a very basic minimum of an update and I don't know why Leslie Neilson's death was really notable enough to make an exception. I am not suggesting we remove it as that is a can of worms but I hope that this precedent isn't followed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

98th Grey Cup

[2]

Comment – we don't normally post the score in sports blurbs. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 04:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's ITN/R and we posted the Australian Football and rugby league finals. The article could use more prose, perhaps about the build-up and aftermath of the final. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - It could be quite good post. The scores are not needed here but some of the information is sufficiently significant. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Move the sport to the front of the blurb: if it happened 13 years ago it is not a particularly historic acheivement, so drop that part. Kevin McE (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
There's only a line and a half about the actual event, so this needs some work. Courcelles 07:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to say Oppose while the article is in its current state. There's very little prose text at all. There should be more than just a minimum update on the game.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Support if the article is improved since the Superbowl and others are usually posted. --candlewicke 19:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In principle it should go up per ITNR, but the article needs some actual prose first. Modest Genius talk 19:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Support upon expansion. Notable sporting event. ~AH1(TCU) 02:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: Article looks ready now. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sort of. There's still no prose about the actual game, just a set of statistics and 'match facts', plus a description of the half-time show. Modest Genius talk 14:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

November 28


Irish bailout

Continuing economic crisis for Europe and the Euro. Front page news on the New York Times and Huffington Post. Not sure where the anchor article is yet, so putting this up for discussion. Jusdafax 00:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose This was on until less than 24 hours ago. No need to repost. Grsz 11 00:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as per Grsz11. Has already been on this week. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 00:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as above. This is just another step along the way. Physchim62 (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - as per all above.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 ATP World Tour Finals

Mostly because of the fifth win, which ties the record of most wins on the such tournament.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Support per nominator. GreyHood Talk 23:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose, as we already feature quite a lot of tennis on ITN. Physchim62 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Conditional oppose On principle, this isn't as significant as the four grand slams and four times a year is enough tennis. On the other hand, the article looks to have potential: if the day-by-day summary could be fully sourced I would consider supporting on the basis of a high quality article.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The majors are enough tennis, and there's nothing particularly significant about this particular event. Modest Genius talk 23:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Not a major, not even a very stably established competition, not a record, but only a share in one, in only 23 years this fifth win has been acheived 3 times. Kevin McE (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Haitian general election, 2010

Haiti is electing its senators, parliament and its president. Pretty significant considering what this country's gone through recently—hurricanes, earthquakes, epidemics... The article could use some work though. Nightw 03:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support only when results come in per WP:ITN/R. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
ITNR, but the article is a mess (plus needs results). Any idea when the results are due to be announced? Modest Genius talk 22:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Apparently ballot stuffing and other types of vote corruption is going on, with 12 candidates wanting to cancel the election. So some are saying that results will only surface within weeks. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BBC - Thousands of people have protested. --candlewicke 19:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ivorian presidential election, 2010

Elections marred by violence and controversy. Nothing unusual for this part of the world, but these are the first elections since the civil war, and are under close scrutiny at the moment, from both the AU and the UNSC. The UN peace-keeping mission UNOCI is overseeing the election. It's amazing that they're even having them, in my opinion. Nightw 03:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support per above. Also note that the election is five years overdue. Outdated tag needs to be dealt with first, though. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
ITNR, so once the results are added and the prose updated it should go up. We also have freely-licensed images of both candidates. Modest Genius talk 22:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Results expected sometime on Monday. Physchim62 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Have the results been announced yet? Nothing in the article atm. Modest Genius talk 14:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Karachi Cargo Plane Crash

  • A Russian Ilyushin IL-76 cargo plane bound for Khartoum, the Sundanese capital, crashed in a residential area of Karachi, Pakistan's biggest city, killing several people.[3] (Tribune) Taqi Haider (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a big plane crash by ITN standards. wackywace 10:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral I thought to nominate this, but got side-tracked since there is no article about the crash yet. I don't think big or small plane crashes could be measured only with its death toll.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Bus or train crashes that have similar tolls are, sadly, neither rare nor widely reported; plane crashes are not that uncommon either, so why would that one mode of transport raise the event to ITN profile? Kevin McE (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose low death toll and nothing special significant about the event. --Kslotte (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

November 27


Mohamed Osman Mohamud

An FBI sting operation prevents terrorist Mohamed Osman Mohamud from setting off a bomb in Portland, Oregon. New York Times Sclt1127 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the bomb apparently was a fake, so the public was never in any real danger. I don't see how the FBI capturing a wannabee terrorist by doing most of the work is notable. --PlasmaTwa2 20:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The bomb was fake only because the FBI got involved and saved hundreds or even thousands of lives. Stopping incidents like these from killing people is notable. People will want to read about this and they will come here and search under his name. Sclt1127 (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Mohamed Osman Mohamud is currently nominated for deletion. Not the kind of article that normally goes up on the main page. --PlasmaTwa2 21:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

oppose Had It been a real bomb and a Chance save maybe... Part of FBI sting with a fake bombs... No The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose We don't post bombings that kill dozens of people, this doesn't stand a snowball's chance. Grsz 11 21:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks of diplomatic communiqués

US diplomacy is working hard to contain the anticipated damage from the release of about 3M confidential diplomatic communiques on Wikileaks, some of which contain embarrassing personal details and assessments about other countries' top officials. [4][5] Crnorizec (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you know when they're going to be released, then I'm sure there are several governments who'd like to hear from you ;) until they're released, no. Physchim62 (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
According to the media, they are going to be released on Sunday (tomorrow), but the US diplomacy is already containing the damage, and the media is full of news about it. Crnorizec (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how we're going to post it on ITN simply on the basis on media rumours. It's been known for a long time that Wikileaks is in possession of this sort of material. Physchim62 (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, until the material is released. Let's not post "rumors". Nakon 06:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for Now Lets wait and see what they unleash. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose The ITN template usually documents such releases by Wikileaks, but this time it doesn't seem to be anything significant, even if unleashed. Remember the last time, when releases of the Iraq War were unleashed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're out now... Physchim62 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What have they released? I mean, top secret intelligence reports might be significant, but if it's just the receipt for a Big Mac and fries, then it would be considerably less so! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a lot of highly sensitive classified cables re:diplomacy. Try the front page of the New York Times or your cable news where discussion is raging. Jusdafax 19:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Big story, highly current, of interest to readers around the world. Jusdafax 18:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Quite significant. So far, among the cables is all sorts of revelations about US diplomatic strategy. The New York Times article is essential reading for anyone who doubts the significance. Also some more tabloid-interest stuff about the Saudi King having a crack at the Iraqi and Pakistani leaders.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  Administrator note:US diplomatic cables release could do with some expansion and proseification. Anybody care to suggest a blurb in the meantime? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • The latest US diplomatic cables release of sensitve and secret documents by Wikileaks gives startling new information on United States diplomacy, sparking widespread international reaction. Jusdafax 19:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • How about something a bit more sober and closer to what we used last time: A collection of more than 250,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables is released by WikiLeaks. Physchim62 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Much better, we can probably do without the commentary (startling). RxS (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Good blurb. I'm still concerned that the article is a little short on prose, but it probably meets our minimum standards, so I'm willing to post if the consensus is that it's satisfactory. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Well it's not full of copyvios and doesn't use too many crap sources so it's fine with me. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
            • It meets the minimum standards, and it will probably get expanded when people have had the time to read and digest the information that's coming out. Physchim62 (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
              • Agree that article meets minimum standards. I note ongoing work, also. Jusdafax 21:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support; many times larger than previous leaks, which were themselves highly influential. C628 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support; documents contain significant revelations. wackywace 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How about this modified blurb then? I left in the international reaction part.

The "widespread international reaction" really goes without saying: we're not going to post a story "lots of secret documets released but nobody really gives a damn" ;) Physchim62 (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it gives perspective but will bow to the consensus (if established) and the overview of the posting admin. Jusdafax 21:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, though the characteristics given to various world leaders in those documents are a joke. As if anybody expected anything else from the U.S. diplomacy. GreyHood Talk 21:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Nergaal (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support since the United States has been "catapulted into a worldwide diplomatic crisis". That does sound important enough. As does "Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran" and "US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN leadership". --candlewicke 21:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

November 26


Scottish football referee strike

  • This is due to affect games this weekend, barring an eleventh hour solution. This is getting in depth and international coverage, it is unprecedented certainly in Scotland, and maybe the world?, and has an international dimension due to UEFA referees being flown in to officiate domestic matches (and in one case, flying straight back out again). MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: Pub quiz fodder. The matches will still be played, the referees will make about the same proportion of correct/erroneous calls as Scottish ones would make, a couple of novel crowd chants might be heard, papers will publish some pathetic puns and casually racist comments, some additional costs will be incurred, Scottish refs will return a week later, managers and fans will continue to abuse them. Kevin McE (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, simply not consequential enough. So a few games got cancelled. There's still a full slate of Scottish Premiership fixtures and I really don't see this as being of a big enough deal to feature on ITN. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 01:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
With Portuguese referees now withdrawing cover from two SPL games, I'm changing to wait. If top-flight games are affected then this would set a precedent in Europe and probably be worthy of posting. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 02:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Support iff it goes ahead. Football is a Very Big Deal in Scotland, the UK and most of Europe and referee strikes are almost (if not completely?) unheard of. This has been big news all week and we have an excellent article on the fiasco. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak support because the article is excellent. Physchim62 (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Suggested blurb: "Fog in channel; continent cut off." Nutmegger (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
More like "Fog in Berwick, England isolated." But the article is rather good... Physchim62 (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The article looks good but I honestly question whether this article violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, etc, and should be deleted, and even it it doesn't, whether there's justification for it to be that long. A strike of Scottish referees, which isn't going to affect top-flight matches significantly, is barely notable. Are we seriously suggesting that the resulting postponing of Annan Athletic vs Brechin is enough impact to make this worth posting?--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
It's more the unprecedented nature of a referee strike than the postponement of games as a result and the effects are only so minimal because I believe they've brought in referees from elsewhere to cover. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I get that it is a novel event but we need to have some evidence of impact. The postponement of completely non-notable matches (with due respect to fans of the affected clubs) isn't enough. And is this really that big a deal outside Scotland? In the BBC Football section the story is a minor headline far down the page. A football-related story for ITN ought to at least be considered important enough to be a lead headline in the football section of a media site in the country where the story is from.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, if a referee's strike is 'unprecedented', we need a source confirming that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
First time in over 100 years that a foreign referee has controlled a Scottish match,[6] and strike action has only been threatened once (never carried out) in the past.[7] I think you should also bear in mind that BBC Football and ITV Football will naturally focus on the English league, which has a far higher profile. Expecting the SPL to be the top story on a UK site would be somewhat similar to expecting the CFL to be the top football story on a North American site. It is the top sports story in The Scotsman, the second story in the news page of The (Glasgow) Herald, top story in the Daily Record.Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
As I type this, the strike is the top story on BBC football, as Stewart Regan (SFA chief executive) is reported to have said that he expects the referees to return to work next weekend. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Jmorrison. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, somehow, I still think this is not sooo big on the grand scale...--Tone 11:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay Trial

The Pirate Bay Appeal verdict is in and found guilty again. Major case in the P2P online file-sharing world. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support Major news in the world of computers and technology. International coverage. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Support if this leads to the Pirate Bay shutting down. --PlasmaTwa2 22:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Wait. Let's hold off until we know the consequences of this. If all we get is yet more delaying tactics then it really isn't all that big news. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 01:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Did we post the result of the original trial? I'm inclined to think that was the major step, and that the appeal was always unlikely to succeed. Modest Genius talk 11:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the basis that the first trial was posted. The verdict doesn't change anything, and TPB have always reiterated that the site won't shut down. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Kim Kwan-jin

Kim Kwan-jin becomes the new Minister for Defense in South Korea replacing Kim Tae-Young who resigned following the Shelling of Yeonpyeong.BabbaQ (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, non-head of state change = not notable. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 15:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, we have enough politics on ITN as it is without posting ministerial level appointments. Physchim62 (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. While there are exceptional circumstances here, those circumstances are already on ITN. Otherwise, changes of cabinet ministers happen all the time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, pretty much per HJ. Modest Genius talk 11:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Russian Duma condemns Katyn massacre

Highly symbolic gesture by the lower house of the Russian legislature, the State Duma, passing a bill officially condemning the Katyn massacre in 1940. According to the BBC, this is an effort made by the Duma to improve Poland–Russia relations ahead of a visit by President Dmitry Medvedev. BBC. Seems highly significant so support as nominator. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 13:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - I wonder if there is any link to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash back in April. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The Duma has declared that the "Katyn crime" in 1940 was ordered by the Soviet dictator and other Soviet officials. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Well done, you've even managed to close paraphrase the BBC in your proposed ITN blurb.</sarcasm> This would be a pretty inappropriate blurb to use, for that reason. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 14:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Ha! Thanks </sarcastic retort>
  • Support - Yes yes, a very significant happening. Perfect for ITN. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
hmm feels more of DYK -- Ashish-g55 14:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd be impressed if you could get a featured article as a DYK... C628 (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
hmm didnt check it was featured. well i'll give it a weak oppose for the fact that its merely a symbolic gesture for something they should have done long ago and relations with Poland statement is crystal balling. if anything the results of the visit itself might be more important. -- Ashish-g55 15:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
How is it crystal balling? It's reported as a fact that it's related to the relations between the countries. Nothing predictive about that. BBC:

The Duma said it hoped for "the beginning of a new stage in relations" with Poland "based on democratic values".

Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 15:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose This is an interesting type of event, where political declaration in no way corresponds to real actions. Despite this statement, Russia is still unwilling to make open all the materials of investigation of the Katyn affair (or at least give Poland an access to them). Russia is also unwilling to pay any compensation demanded by the relatives of Polish officers. Given these facts, the improvement of Russia-Poland relations is too much of a crystal balling. GreyHood Talk 15:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
No one said it would improve relations. All that's being said is that this aims to do so. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 15:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Below I've suggested another news item, where the source said that Russia and China aim to further improve their relations, but it was supported by real actions in that case. In the international news there are tons of good will declarations from many countries towards many other countries, and we can't post all of them. Only when the real actions support the declarations, there is a good reason to take that seriously. Russian declaration is a purely political and tactical step: not only Russia is unwilling to do any real action regarding the Katyn matter, but Russia also has declared recently that it is going to strip Poland of transit of Russian oil and gas, switching to the Nord Stream, South Stream and Baltic Pipeline System II. So basically Russia plays against Poland in economy, does nothing substantial about Katyn, but makes good will declarations. GreyHood Talk 15:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment. This is not a bill, this is just a declaration that has no any legal power to change anything. And this declaration was strongly opposed by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the second largest party in the Russian Parliament. If this rather vain news item is endorsed for ITN, the details on the CPRF should be mentioned in the blurb. GreyHood Talk 15:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - per Anirudh Emani.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Symbolic gestures of this nature matter a lot. It should be said that there has been rapproachment between Russia and Poland on this issue for quite some time, and last year we nearly posted a reconciliatory gesture ahead of a meeting between the Russian and Polish presidents; this was, however, derailed by the Polish president's death. --Johnsemlak (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Besides my support earlier, i have to say this is more like DYK. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Uh, no it doesn't. Doesn't come close to qualifying for DYK, and this is a news item, not a trivia piece. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
      • It is a declaration, more like a realization. How is it not DYK like. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Please check the DYK criteria: the article either had to created within the past 5 days, or expanded 5 times within the past 5 days. Neither of these things have happened: the article on the massacre was created years ago. 90.198.139.143 (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support it is more important that Obama pardoning for CIA experiments in Guatemala in the 60's. Nergaal (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Why more important? The responsibility for Katyn has been already recognized in the early 1990s both by the USSR and then by Russia. Why the recognition of this responsibility by every successive government in Russia is more important than the first ever action by the U.S.? More to say, this is not the first such step by the current Russian government. GreyHood Talk 18:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This seems to be the first step of putting an end of the historical struggle between the two countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There were plenty of such "first steps" (remember the reaction on Polish President's air crash, and the similar reconciliatory steps taken by Russia before that event). So there is no any novelty in this action. GreyHood Talk 18:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the actions taken by Russia, but on the other site, there is always rejection with extraordinary rudeness (note Komorowski's speech after the air crash). However, such explicit and politely bill would take the matter further in the relations.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I have to repeat it: this is not a bill, this is declaration or statement (see the BBC source). It has no legal power, and that's why there is no need to insert the word "officially". These errors should be fixed. GreyHood Talk 20:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the salient point not that the Duma has acknowledged Soviet responsibility for the actions, rather than blaming it on the Nazis, rather than their condemnation of the act. They condemned it before, but with the blame on another nation. Kevin McE (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the blurb to shift the focus to Stalin and the SU's responsibility. This is the main point picked up by the major international news outlets. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Soviet and Russian officials condemned it before and took responsibility before as well, for about 20 years it is not blamed on the Nazis. And now it looks in the ITN box like it has been done for the first time. Can anyone propose a more correct blurb? GreyHood Talk 20:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
My understanding (from the BBC story and a couple others which I read) was that although past statements had acknowledged Soviet (not Nazi) responsibility for the Katyn massacre, this is the first time that the Russian government has specifically blamed it on Stalin and his associates (rather than on local officials who could no longer be identified). Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
In April 2010 Russia officially made public documents relating to the 1940 executions, signed by Stalin and other officials. De facto, those documents were publicly accessible several years before, including on Wikipedia. Russian news and various Russian politicians routinely condemn Stalin regarding Katyn, and in the same April 2010 Russian Prime Minister Putin was speaking in Poland about Stalin's responsibility. The only novelty in the recent move is that it was done by the Lower house of the Parliament now. GreyHood Talk 22:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Bernard Matthews dies

Turkey tycoon Bernard Matthews has died at the age of 80. (BBC) - JuneGloom Schmooze 12:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. If I have to go "who?", it's probably not notable enough. Never heard of him, just as the rest of the world probably hasn't, and I suspect even most Brits would not have heard of him. Notice how even the BBC categorised this as a Norfolk story, rather than as an England or UK story. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 13:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment most Brits will have heard of him, but it's still not universally notable for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I think much of Europe will know of his products, but I can see why it's getting opposition. It was still worth a nom imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment it is now a UK thing on the Beeb, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Wikipedia hasn't given much importance to him. See how small the article is. Too bad for ITN. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose too local to the UK. Physchim62 (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Too late for Thanksgiving, too early for Christmas. Lugnuts (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Bootiful Lugnuts, bootiful... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose:: worth an obit in Poultry World, no doubt, and influential in that industry, but although formerly recognisable to those subjected to his annoying ads, is no more notable of himself than any other entrepreneur who founded a company of similar size. Kevin McE (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
At least it kept Jamie Oliver going for a bit with his anti-twizzler campaign...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
oppose the only reason it made the news is because he died on Thanks Giving, I saw several headlines declaring "turkey tycoon dies on thanksgiving" Irony is not criteria for ITN The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Zimbabwe court action

Morgan Tsvangirai, Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, has taken President Robert Mugabe to court over a failure to adhere to their power-sharing deal regarding appointing regional governors, with South Africa's Jacob Zuma due to mediate later today. BBC. Not sure what the article would be here, and personally, no opinion on whether or not to post, and rather just suggesting a potential story. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 10:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly an interesting and unusual story (so prima facie ITN material in my eyes), but I do wonder where we're going to get an updated article with adequate background. Physchim62 (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom DeLay

  • former United States House of Representatives Majority Leader, convicted of money laundering and conspiracy
  • Support as nominator. This can be taken as a sign the USA is finally getting serious about political corruption; conviction is for felonies. Also, a good strong story in light of no new ITN article in nearly 48 hours. The DeLay article has been updated in lede and a sub-section. Suggest speedy action here. Jusdafax 09:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Who's betting the discussion for this will be longer than the article per se? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm wholly against any sort of "speedy action" just because the ITN timer is red. There are slow news periods and it's not exactly a problem if we don't get to updating ITN if there aren't any notable stories. Support this though, based on apparent past precedent with posting Blagojevich's impeachment for corruption. High-ranking political figure convicted of felony charges is worth posting. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 10:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. High-level political figure convicted of serious criminal offenses related to his political office. In other words, the Blagojevich criterion ;) Note that we posted the resignation of the Michael Martin, Speaker of the UK House of Commons, in similar circumstances (although without the criminal charges), so this is not just a U.S. thing. Physchim62 (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Support, pretty much as per Physchim62. Can we finally get a new pic on the template?--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The article's in very good shape. I wouldn't mind seeing a little more detail on the convictions, but I can see that there's only so much that can be written, so I won't make an issue out of it if the consensus is in favour of posting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
We should be careful to get the blurb right for this one before it goes up. How about: "Tom DeLay, former Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, is convicted of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering."--Mkativerata (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Support Nergaal (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a fine blurb, as I see it. Jusdafax 20:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Is this the best we can get? I would have thought that something like this would attract a lot more discussion. I'm not posting this without a decent consensus because you can bet your bottom dollar it'll be removed otherwise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I confess to astonishment; firstly that I had to come out of semi-retirement here to nominate this one, and secondly that it has been so quiet. I can only surmise that Americans are so caught up in the Thanksgiving holiday weekend here that they are not logging on. Thanks for the poke, HJ, and I agree more !votes are needed. Jusdafax 22:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
There are 5 supports. Why would it get removed if posted? Nergaal (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I had not counted them up, as the supports are confusingly placed. Five with no opposes? Seems sufficent to me, unless standards have changed. Jusdafax 22:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Any administrator reading this? Nergaal (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Support per above. Clearly important. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
A comment: I don't see why anyone would expect massive controversy over this story, it's clearly of importance. Weak support, just for the record. Modest Genius talk 11:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Futile Weak oppose Mainly because he is out of office The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak Oppose The Michael Martin comparison is a bit of a moot point, seeing as we were only really reporting on a high-profile job loss, not the scandal. While this is kind of similar, he hasn't been in office for a long time now. I'd probably move to support this if the actual section about his conviction was much longer than a short paragraph. Very few people outside America know who he is, and what he has done. His article doesn't really go into it much, surprisingly. --Dorsal Axe 10:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

China and Russia quit dollar

Instead of the U.S. dollar, China and Russia start using their national currencies, the Chinese yuan and the Russian ruble, in bilateral trade. China, Russia quit dollar China Daily. GreyHood Talk 02:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Support as nominator. I'm not sure what's the article which is to be highlighted and updated, but the event is very important, and usually there are not enough economy news on the ITN, while we should expect more in this era of change. Perhaps the news should be inserted at least to the Chinese yuan and the Russian ruble articles. GreyHood Talk 02:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Support once the appropriate updates have been made, Big news The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Support I'm not an economist, but two of the world's great powers deciding to trade with their own currencies sounds like important news. --PlasmaTwa2 03:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
This is the kind of thing that certainly sounds like big news, but I perhaps need more convincing that it actually is. It seems to be getting a big run in the Chinese state-controlled media and on Drudge. But I can't see that the serious financial news media doesn't seem to be running with it at all: eg WSJ and Financial Times. And that's where I'd look to for economic significance. Reading the Chinese news (and one has to take the Chinese news with a grain of salt), it's not so much about challenging the dollar but risk mitigation.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm Agree stiicken above, wait and see what tomorrow brings The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd be very careful about using WSJ and Financial Times as the primary source for economic significance. Not only because these "serious" media largely overlooked the early development of the current world crisis, but because they are controlled by big American corporations that are behind the American state, in a very similar way to the control of Chinese media by the Chinese state. Everywhere those who have economical and political power have also the power over the media, and naturally, Chinese news promote agenda that is important and positive for China, while WSJ and Financial Times tend to overlook many developments that are negative for the U. S. GreyHood Talk 14:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how important it is when it's only about trade between China and Russia. A candidate for updating and highlighting is China–Russia relations but it only has three references currently. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, it is an important news. Using their national currencies and kind of quitting the U.S. dollar is a significant event. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources supporting the assertion of significance?--Mkativerata (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The China-Russia trade is around 0.3% of the global trade. I'm not saying it's unimportant but just wondering whether it's ITN worthy. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
After paying more attention, I change my vote to neutral. If this is only trade between the two countries it doesn't seem to be as notable as I thought. --PlasmaTwa2 05:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The headline 'China and Russia quit the dollar' sounds big, but it's in reality more limited than that, as they are not dropping use of the dollar in other areas it would seem. Without evidence of reverberations elsewhere, it's probably not notable enough, though I'm surprised this hasn't made a bigger splash.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support pending some update in a relevant article. While 0.3% is a small amount of the World trade, I think that the name of the parties involved is what is important. If these two decide to quit the use of dollar, I am sure more countries will follow soon. Poor Obama having to pay for previous policies... Nergaal (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    Is there any basis for this prediction in reliable sources, or is it just original research? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose not significant enough, also it's not "in the news" at the moment. DC TC 07:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - but like Nergaal, it's all about which article gets updated. But I find this news quite significant. Jusdafax 08:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    You might find it significant, but do reliable financial news outlets? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a huge nail in the coffin of the US dollar as world reserve currency. __meco (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    Is there any basis in reliable sources for this conclusion, or is it just original research? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose inconsequential in world trade. 0.3%? Come on. US dollar is still the main currency used in world trade and I wouldn't support posting anything on this unless/until it no longer becomes the primary trading currency. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 10:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment There is a growing political tendency against the use of the US Dollar as international trade currency. It was started by the likes of Iran, but if Russia, China and others follow, this would reduce the demand for the US Dollar both for trade and as a reserve currency, which would then have a long-lasting impact on the value of the dollar. Especially if China stops pegging it's currency to the USD. So this event may turn out to be very significant, although not in the short term. Crnorizec (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment The news are not about the dollar alone, and posting such information only when the U.S. $ no longer becomes the primary trading currency would be a bit too late, and too much overlooking the present major developments in the world. As far as I see from here, the total amount of bilateral trade between Russia and China is expected to exceed 50 billion dollars in 2010, and the volume is further expected to grow significantly in the following years. The figure is comparable to the ITN-worthy EU/IMF bailout packages for Greece and Ireland (if taken into account that those loan packages are given over several years).
Furthermore, China's and Russia's action is an invitation and a stimulus for many other neighbour countries to quit dollar in trade with Russia and China, for example for Belarus and Kazakhstan which are members of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, active since July of 2010. What we see now may turn out to be a start of the chain reaction. GreyHood Talk 13:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
And both those arguments are based heavily on WP:CRYSTAL arguments: something which may or may not happen in the future. It's not our place to assume what will happen. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 13:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll agree that the second of my arguments, though quite logical, still is WP:CRYSTAL. But not the first argument, since the figures are already known and sound enough. Anyway, we are discussing the current developments, and their significance is rather obvious. As Crnorizec said, there is a growing political tendency against the use of the US Dollar as international trade currency, and Russia's and China's recent action is a major manifestation of this tendency. GreyHood Talk 14:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Support It is huge because will surely affect the foreign trade, and is a change which possibly replaces the historical worth and importance of the US dollar.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there any basis for this prediction in reliable sources, or is it just original research? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Note The Chinese yuan, the Russian ruble and the China-Russia relations have been updated. The China-Russia relations are now in the last link of the blurb. GreyHood Talk 20:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Opppose I've seen nothing in any reliable financial sources to indicate that this is significant. Posting this on the original gut-feel research of a few ITN contributors would be a grave mistake.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Chinese sources are not unreliable. They are not featured on unreliable sources lists, and I've already explained that the U.S. sources are not the best choice here. GreyHood Talk 21:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
It also seems self-evident to me that real actions, like in this case, are more significant than declarations, like the recently posted Katyn declaration or the declarations made by NATO summit. GreyHood Talk 21:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Our own article on the China Daily says "The paper largely reflects the foreign policy of the Communist Party." Doesn't sound like a reliable source on Chinese-Russian economic relations then. If we want to gauge the international significance of a financial news event, we should look to places like Bloomberg, the WSJ and the FT. None of them seem to give a scrap of coverage to this story. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, how about nasdaq.com http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2010-11/china-russia-open-up-nondollar-trading.aspx?storyid=46466 and Bloomberg covered it when the story first broke: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/china-russia-push-yuan-ruble-trading-to-diminish-dominance-of-u-s-dollar.html Jusdafax 21:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The Bloomberg article is from September - the fact that they haven't covered it now indicates that whatever has happened now isn't newsworthy. The NASDAQ article directly contradicts all the supports in this discussion by saying "This is not really a game changer in terms of the dollar’s role in either country’s foreign currency reserves". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with the Communist Party? Bloomberg, the WSJ and the FT reflect the economic policy and views of Wall Street and the U.S. China Daily reflects the views and policies of The Communist Party of China. The event is very important for China, Russia and sorrounding countries, and they report it. Bloomberg, the WSJ and the FT don't report it because the news obviously may affect the current value of the U.S. dollar negatively. GreyHood Talk 21:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised this question even needs to be answered. The China Daily is not independent of the Chinese government. The WSJ, FT and other sources are completely independent. If you insist on a conspiracy theory that "Bloomberg, the WSJ and the FT don't report it because the news obviously may affect the current value of the U.S. dollar negatively" then there is really nothing more to be said here. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
NASDAQ's POV editorial opinion in the middle of a news article on this story should be disregarded. They are a mainstream source, and they covered the story, period. As for Bloomberg, well, they did also cover this story, so your inital comment on not a "scrap" of coverage from them is now incorrect. With all due respect, I think sourcing is established. Jusdafax 22:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
If it's your view that they're pumping POV into a news article, it's not much of a reliable source is it? There's no way we should be basing ITN postings on the combination of one out of date and not followed-up article in Bloomberg, a vague article by NASDAQ that says the event isn't significant, and a publication by a Chinese government-controlled news outlet. The sourcing is a long long way from establishing that this is in any way significant, let alone in an ITN sense. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • One cannot be "completely independent" from those who hold political and economic power. The only difference between the U.S. and China is that in China much of the power is held by Communist party, while in the U.S. much of the power is held by private business. And everyone promotes its own agenda via the controlled media, this is obvious. For example, WSJ is controlled by Dow Jones & Company, which is a division of News Corporation, which in turn is controlled by Rupert Murdoch. And no conspiracy theories here, since there are no conspirators, everything is far too open. Independent press is a myth. GreyHood Talk 22:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact that these news haven't made a bigger splash in the West may be surprising for those who read Chinese and Russian media, or for those who reside in China or Russia (like John Semlak above). I've suggested the reason how this fact is explained, and it is pretty simple and logical, no any conspiracy. But anyway, lets put the Western attitude aside: we have China and Russia, over 10% of the world economy, over 20% of the world population, 50 billion market of bilateral trade; their sources, including those in English, consider the event important; and Bloomberg and NASDAQ also seem to have covered the story, though naturally presenting it with their own POVs. I think that if the ITN aims into representing the global view of events and not one centered on the United States and the EU, we should pay more attention to the economic developments in other macroregions. And the economic value of the development is comparable to that of the European bailouts. GreyHood Talk 22:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Support: per my comment above, as well as GreyHood and others. Crnorizec (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. Important event in international trade and financial market. Someone pointed out that Russia-China trade represents "only" 0.3% of world trade, but I don't think this is a good metric. Economy of Ireland is only 0.35% of the world economy; yet the current troubles in Ireland are a massive issue for the world financial markets and they are in the headlines everywhere. Offliner (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment - By my count it is now seven supports, three opposes. Jusdafax 23:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
comment - this is not a poll -- Ashish-g55 23:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes the supports are mostly OR. Because it is not a poll, the demonstrated lack of attention given to this story by reliable sources will carry the day over seven random editors who think in their own minds that this is important. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The editors here just express their opinions on the possible consequences of these news, just as it happens with many other news items. This is not a discussion of an article and its sources, and no one goes to put onto the Main Page any OR-ish opinions on further developments regarding the world currencies. Everything is already in the given Chinese source, and more sources can be brought in if needed (the argumentation for supposed unreliability of Chinese sources certainly sounds as OR, if we take such a serious approach to the discussion of candidates). And there are enough established facts to consider the news important. GreyHood Talk 00:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, the text added to the relevant articles is too close a paraphrase of the sources used. In parts it is almost word-for-word copying. I don't know what's worse: the copyright violation or the fact that the entire text - about a Chinese foreign policy matter - is sourced to a publication that "largely reflects the foreign policy of the Communist Party". Hmm. (see: [8], [9] and [10]. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The issue with paraphrasing was pretty minor (no any sentence fully paraphrased) and now has been fixed. You still haven't shown why there is any problem with the Communist Party and its official policy. And please, look again at the source - there is more reporting of solid facts than giving any POVs about them. GreyHood Talk 13:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose--I originally thought this was going to be a shoe-in to be posted as the headline looks very significant. However, the lack of reliable sources attesting to the impact is key here. I agree with Mkativerata's concern about a story that relies on sources like the People's Daily. And this doesn't consider the close paraphrasing.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Greyhood's sources are reliable. I am constrained by WP:ASG from further comment. Jusdafax 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Jusdafax it's not just about reliability, it is about whether the reliable sources indicate that the event is significant and thus worthy of ITN posting. At the moment, the shallow nature of the coverage indicates that it being treated as little more than a routine financial development, if that. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Very well. You've budged from "not a scrap" to "shallow", so thanks for that. I have very strong feelings about this, and rather than belabor the point further, I will try to exit as gracefully as possible, with this final thought: Let's keep an eye on this for further developments. If other countries join in the move to dump the US dollar as a trading or "reserve" currency, the international implications are considerable. Jusdafax 19:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment In fact, when I was suggesting this item, I had in mind primarily the implication of the event for China, Russia and sorrounding countries, not the fate of dollar - this was brought in mostly by other editors here, while myself I was even against the updating of the U.S. dollar article. The implication for China and Russia is too much obvious, it is a major step in bilateral relations, and I don't understand why this news item should be discarded because the event is not expected to significantly influence the U.S. dollar yet. Why so much amerocentrism? (unfortunately, this question is directed both to those who have voted oppose, and to some of the supporters) GreyHood Talk 20:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

November 25


Andromeda

Let's face it, we need a new posting with a nice picture. Apparently, the Andromeda galaxy was formed out of a collision between two other galaxies billions of years ago.[11] This new finding could have implications for the history of our galaxy (I assume all WP users are from the same galaxy). Doesn't seem massively significant but (a) it's encyclopaedic, (b) the article concerned is a GA so worth featuring, and (c) it has nice pictures to replace Mr Rajoelina. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The paper. Modest Genius talk 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment The article looks pretty good, but there is only one sentence about the discovery. It also seems to be only a possibility, but not proven yet. However, I support such kind of discoveries, since its content is encyclopedic as mentioned. Hence, the report could be appropriate for the ITN template, but only if the section in the article would be expanded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes and this is the tricky part! I wrote that one sentence and wasn't confident going further due to the scientific nature of the subject matter. Hopefully some experts will chip in. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
What we need for this sort of discovery is a link to the original paper. The BBC say it was published in Astrophysical Journal, but I can't find it quickly. This is one thing we do better that most mainstream media, actually providing links back. We need a new story urgently, and the Tonga election won't get Mr Rajeolina off the template! Physchim62 (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
If Tonga goes up, I'll probably use the country's coat of arms. It's colourful and I'm sick of that horrible, grainy photo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment this isn't new news, is it? I could have sworn I read about this a couple months ago as if it had been known for years. --PlasmaTwa2 21:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • What is the discovery? I don't understand, but I just scraped a C in GCSE physics and that was a long time ago so I might not understand anyway! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    The discovery - and bear in mind this is from a lawyer who barely understands the difference between astronomy and astrology - is that the galaxy was formed as a result of the collision of two galaxies some 9 million years ago.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems interesting, but I'll reserve judgement. I don't feel qualified to judge the significance. Where's Modest Genius when you need him? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Here. This news is, um, hardly surprising. But I'll have a read of the paper before judging. Modest Genius talk 23:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
billion -- Ashish-g55 22:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

well here's my 2 cents. all they really did was run a software simulation with eight million particles and collided 2 galaxies. what they got out of it was something that resembles andromeda. in reality this does not actually prove that the galaxy was formed due to collision of two galaxies. however, its a very good guess and probably as good as it will get. So is it a great find? not really. Is it ITN worty? yes but only because we dont have anything better -- Ashish-g55 22:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to weak oppose. The authors have conducted a good simulation of a major-merger, with parameters chosen to reproduce the large-scale properties of M31. What's new is that they have shown that a single major merger is capable of producing most of the features, rather than a series of minor mergers as previously supposed. However, this isn't really that surprising, and MOST large spiral galaxies are thought to have been formed through similar means. Furthermore, to quote the conclusion of the paper: 'we cannot claim to have determined the best major merger model of M31, although it is likely within the limits discussed below. We did not either try to investigate the whole parameter space to which the above results hold, although examination of Table 1 led us to suspect that it is likely large.' In other words, their model works, but does not exclude other models, and they expect that a wide variety of other models would also work. I'm only weak opposing, because the article is indeed rather good, there's a nice picture, and we need an update soonish (though I'm comfortable with 48 hours from time to time). Modest Genius talk 00:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is more DYK or AOD than ITN topic. Crnorizec (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
What's AOD? Modest Genius talk 09:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Article of the day (provided the article is in good shape, and may be shown with a nice picture on the Main Page), but after checking regarding your question, I prefer Art Of Dreaming. Crnorizec (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Uuups! I meant: Today's featured article :S Crnorizec (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Police actions in Rio

Not sure about this one, but armoured vehicles on the streets of Rio de Janeiro (BBC News) seems sufficiently unusual to see what other people think! Physchim62 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. It's basically strategic police deployment, with a few pretty big pieces of weaponry.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with Johnsemlak. Troops gathering on the streets, what kind of news is this?? --Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
"Troops gathering on the streets" is a pretty rare event in urban areas. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Rio is a dangerous place. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Neutral. It's a remarkable deployment, and the Brazilian authorities seem to be intensifying their war on the crime gangs, which they may be winning from what I gleaned from the news earlier today. But do we have a relevant article to feature for this? __meco (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this event is notable in itself. However, if we had an article (or a section within a wider article) on the recent violence with relevant background rather than on this one operation, I would consider supporting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep, with a good background article, this could be a good ITN story. --Tone 16:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Flash flooding in Madurai

Heavy rains in Madurai triggered a flash flooding that killed at-least 97 people and injured 8 more. According to the report, over 20 houses were also damaged by the flooding.[12] --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose deadly floods in this region are fairly common. Less than 100 deaths doesn't make this unusual. I think an article would be AfDed quickly. Nergaal (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You mean it is also useless for the current events. --203.217.145.174 (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister resigns

The chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, Konijeti Rosaiah submitted his resignation for the post to the governor of Andhra Pradesh, ESL Narasimhan on 24th Nov 2010. Later, Nallari Kiran Kumar Reddy was sworn in as the 18th chief minister of Andhra Pradesh. (The Hindu) --Anirudh Emani (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

5th largest Indian state with 75 million people, India is also undercovered on WP:ITN, so Support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose current proposal. The Konijeti Rosaiah section has copyvio.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
More here [13]--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Several sections of the article have copyvios. Whatever the significance of the event (and I'm trying to get my head around that) there's no way article can be posted. I needs to be completely rewritten.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, i agree. The article cant be posted now. But it should be posted as soon as possible. I removed some text while rewrote some more. However, more work is needed as the article should be improved in many ways. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Question: The resigned chief minister lasted for just over a year. What does that mean? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Answer. Dont know where you found it. It means he was the chief minister of Andhra pradesh for just over an year. He was sworn in las year when YSR Reddy passed away in a plane crash. Then he was opposed continuously by YSJ Reddy(son of YSR Reddy). He resigned yesterday for personal reasons. So Nallari Kiran Kumar Reddy was sworn in last night. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Is it not a bit local though?? I don't think resignation of state-level officials are that notable. --Saqib Qayyum (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
A resignation might be more significant that the routine change of politician at the sub-national level (I'd hardly use the word 'local' here). We posted Blagojevich's impeachment removal, a Governor in the US. The sources I've checked on this are unclear why he resigned so it's hard to say how notable it is.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
We also covered Paterson becoming governor, see Wikipedia:ITN_archives/2008. --Soman (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The question is here is how often does a chief minister resign? A governor being impeached and removed from office doesn't happen well too often. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)).
I think the reason he resigned could be considered. Politicians about to be impeached or whatever the equivalent in other countries often resign before it happens. However, in this article it says it is unknown why he resigned.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Some sources like the television coverage say he resigned because of personal reasons. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose sub-national politics story not of international (or even national in this case) significance. Opposing on both principle and on merit. StrPby (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Even though, it is quite an important event right?? Things have passed so quickly. After the elections in 2009, two ministers have been replaced(YSR died in a plane crash, Rosaiah resigned). Most probably, it is the first time that two ministers have been replaced with the third one active in a period of five years(elections are held every five years). --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
That's certainly not normal, for today's events what we have is the Chief Minister resigning due to family reasons. Which is unusual, for sure, though I'm not convinced is ITN material. However, the much larger concern is the copyvios in the article. There are still some there. While there have been some positive steps to remove the violations, IMO an article that had as many problems as this article has had should not be posted quickly. Earlier I found that nearly the whole article was copyvio, and btw one of the comments I posted above regarding this got deleted by another editor (see the page history).--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, it was myself deleting and rewriting the copyvios. I belive there are more. I agree it shouldn't be posted right now. Other users have also expressed their own views on why this article shouldn't be posted. I agree, sub-national politics is not a great news. But see if this event is of any use to ITN. If it is not, then another DYK like event, two ministers have been replaced with the third one active in a period of five years could be a significant post for the DYK. According to my knowledge, such an event never happened in Andhra Pradesh history. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Fifth largest? Oppose Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Even so if it was an independent nation it would be the 17th largest country in the world - between Egypt and Iran. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
And if it were, it could set its own defence and foreign policies and its leader would attend international conferences etc. As it is, he only has limited autonomy over his area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose subnational entity. DC TC 22:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Tongan general election, 2010

An historic election for Tonga, in which the parliament will no longer be majority appointed by the King—instead to be divided between noblemen and popular representatives, both directly elected by their peers. It's the state's effective transition from mixed government to democracy.

Article is in decent shape (to my eyes), so it should be ready to post once the results are posted. Sources are at the link. Nightw 17:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. Yes, a very important event. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Voters in Tonga go to the polls for the nation's first elections in which a majority of parliament is popularly elected. Nightw 10:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If a commoner, rather than a noble, is selected as Prime Minister, this might also be worth posting (or adding to the blurb), but we won't know who that is for at least a week. The election itself is what's most significant. Ready to post. Nightw 11:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support Seems significant. wackywace 14:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

  Administrator note: The article is fairly thin on prose, but, more importantly, precedent is to post the results, not just the elections themselves. As far as I can see, we don't have results yet, but I'm willing to post when we do and they're added to the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

ABC has a correspondent in Tonga who is suggesting that interim results should be available later today (UTC day). Physchim62 (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Then it's watch and wait, I suppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Results are in, but there needs to be some formatting at the article... Physchim62 (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Precedent is one thing, but it shouldn't be the rule. In this particular case, the results aren't important. Rather, it's the fact that this was the country's effective transition to representative democracy. Especially given the lack of party politics in Tonga, with the majority of candidates being independents, there's not really much one could mention in terms of results anyway. Nightw 15:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose on its current status. I agree that the prose is pretty thin. It meets the minimum standard, but there's a lot of mundane stuff, and a long quote from the king. Plus at the end of the day it's a state of 100,000 people. The political reform is a bit notable though.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Notability doesn't need to be discussed. National elections are on WP:ITN/R. Nightw 15:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
That's true but there's been some debate, and a weakening of consensus, lately about states this small being posted automatically as per ITNR. In any case my primary concern is the state of the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record, ITN/R is descriptive, not prescriptive, so it's not a guarantee that an item will be posted. Notability debates aside, the article needs more prose before I can consider posting it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose If we aren't going to post the resignation of the chief minister of an Indian state with a population of 75 million, I don't really see how we can seriously consider posting the election of a country with a population nearly 1000x smaller. Especially when India doesn't exactly get its fair share of postings on WP:ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not being posted because it's sub-national politics. How many times smaller than the Indian state are any of the G8? It's not about population size, it's about sovereignty—sub-national entities can't set foreign or defence policy, for example, whereas Tonga can, though it's not exactly a major player on the world stage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'm happy to accept that Andhra Pradesh is fairly clearly less important on the world state than a sovereign nation of equivalent size - such as the UK or Iran, but they surely must have as much weight on the world stage as a sovereign nature approximately 1/10th their size (Economically or in population terms), neither of which Tonga gets anywhere close to.

Additionally given there are fairly large differences between the Indian states they fairly clearly have a fair amount of power. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say not, because any international politics would be dealt with at a national level. The chief minister couldn't declare war any more than the governor of California could and that's a pretty big distinction. Big enough to post one over the other? I don't know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Tonga can't declare war on anyone either. I doubt it even has an army.
I've certainly heard of cases where Californian legislation on environmental protection has resulted in companies changing their products worldwide - so its not as if large sub-national states are powerless. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
English county councils aren't powerless. We have to draw the line somewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Lemme put this way: If Tonga wins the Rugby World Cup it'll be on the Main Page. If they had an election, we'd compare them to Andhra Pradesh, which can't participate on the Cricket World Cup on their own, and to California which can't participate on the Olympics on their own. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Support, per ITNR. The results tables in the article are something of a data dump, and could do with a summary table (national percentage for each party, national turnout) and/or being split off to a subarticle. Modest Genius talk 00:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Support: ITN should have a different agenda, based on the widest possible world view, and not belittling nations on the grounds of population. National level elections in all sovreign states is a part of this proud reputation. The strength of ITN is its ability to bring to our attention the stories that are not widely featured in the mass media, and its willingness to give every corner of the world its share of the limelight. Kevin McE (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I very much doubt the mass media will be covering Indian state chief resignations either, and I'm sure the citizens of California regularly win Olympic gold medals. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
??? What on earth has that got to do with my support of an instance of a category of event that ITN has traditionally included. Keep to the merits of the matter under discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Its a reply to all of the above comments. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
While it's occasionally fun to read Eraserhead1 regurgitating the same phrases of ignorance in every nomination with nations that he considers "unimportant" (how's that list coming, buddy?), discussions regarding the consensus to post items on WP:ITN/R should be kept at the talk page there—deliberately disrupting the nomination process is not a huge waste of other editors' time. Nightw 11:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
More prose added. It's pretty substantial now, in my opinion. Nightw 12:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this is more or less ready to post, I just don't have an idea of a blurb with all that info... Any suggestions? --Tone 15:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I apologise if my discussion here was inappropriate, I was attempting to compare it with the above entry as I felt people weren't being consistent in their views on both. In future if I want to raise this or similar issues I will do so in a more appropriate location. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ashes

The latest series has gotten underway. I've nominated this to have some good news compared to all the deaths from the current ITN stories. I've added the blurb above about Peter Siddle taking a hat-trick on his birthday. Lugnuts (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Opposewait for final result. We never post sports series when they start (less multi-sport events); for example World Series Game 1 wasn't posted. I have no issues with waiting for the final result to be posted as per WP:ITNR though. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 10:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Even if it doesn't finish for nearly 2 months? What about the Olympics or Commonwealth Games for example? Lugnuts (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. We post the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympics and the opening ceremony of the other Games, but this isn't on that level. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 12:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right - this is much more important! Oh well. Lugnuts (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
ROFL! Nergaal (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

November 24


Pike River Mine disaster

Police announce their conclusion that all 29 miners trapped after a mine explosion last week have died, following a second explosion today. The article needs a little bit more work but it doesn't seem far off the mark. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I had been wondering if it would be difficult to decide when to post this, with the possibility that a hope for survivors would drag on for an in-determinant amount of time. No problem here though. Full support--plenty of coverage, significant in the use of robots (to try) to rescue the survivors.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - worst mining disaster in New Zealand for many, many years. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment - New Zealand is not known for the large scale of its mining industry. But I take your point. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - worst New Zealand loss of life since Erebus, 1979. Significant coverage in international media. Gwinva (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Worst mining disaster in NZ in 96 years! Calistemon (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I find the fact that something of this magnitude happened in a first world nation to be rather surprising. When the miners simply became trapped, I thought this should have been posted regardless of whether or not it was bigger than what happened in Chile, but now that all the miners are presumed dead I believe this disaster is big enough for itn. --PlasmaTwa2 08:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
comment- agree. The April Upper Big Branch Mine disaster in the US was also featured ITN (29 also lost there so comparable). Gwinva (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Per above, but also the miners were not all from NZ, there was two Australians, a South African and two Scots to boot. --Worm 09:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support significant death tool and different (toxic) compared to Chile. --Kslotte (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Kiwi miners died, the Chileans did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - mining disaster of that type reminds me of the story of the impact of the 1912 North Mount Lyell Disaster story - not good - and a heavy impact on small isolated mining communities and important to have in SatuSuro 10:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support getting a lot of media attention outside NZ, article seems adequately updated. Physchim62 (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

All 29 miners trapped in the Pike River Mine disaster are believed to be dead after a second explosion in the mine.

Oracle vs. SAP verdict

US District Court jury ordered SAP to pay $1.3 Bn to Oracle Corp. for copyright infringement, the largest-ever for such case, and one of the 10 or 20 largest jury verdicts in U.S. legal history.[14] Crnorizec (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

oppose sounds big to most of us, But when SAP AG has a Revenue of 11 Billion a year and another 13 Billion in assets is not that big a deal. Not to mention its going to be appealed and oracle will not get the money until that route has been exhausted The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
it doesn't just sound big, it actually is the biggest case of copyright infringement. and 1.3 bn out of 13bn is 10% of the company value, too much cash for any company, they can easily go broke for this. Crnorizec (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Being one of the '10 to 20' top verdicts isn't that significant, especially as liability was admitted so it was just a barney over damages. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per Mkativerata. --PlasmaTwa2 08:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose It's the biggest, but what? The copyright infringement is not somethnig special, which should be documented in the ITN template, since there are plenty of the "biggest" or the "largest" things omitted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

November 23


The Gambia – Iran relations

The Republic of The Gambia severs relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose countries sever diplomatic relations all the time. The real news here is that there is a country in Africa known as The Gambia. --PlasmaTwa2 01:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Err, that's a joke right? If so, it's not a very good one. Massive ignorance isn't cool. On the actual nom, what's more relevant is why they severed relations. Modest Genius talk 01:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, it was a joke. I guess you just have a shitty sense of himour. --PlasmaTwa2 08:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't take a "shitty sense of humour" to realise that the joke is real poor taste. Also oppose on the basis that Gambian—Iranian relations are not exactly notable to begin with, but not strongly, as the reasoning behind it is well worth a look. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The Gambian foreign ministry has not provided a reason yet, but most sources suggest that the Iranian arms shipment prompted the decision. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Countries suspend diplomatic relations on occasion (not "all the time", however), but they very rarely sever diplomatic and economic relations. The severing of relations is a rare (maybe a few times every year) and internationally significant event signifying either a extremely heightened state of tensions or a serious escalation in tensions between two states. As for the Republic of The Gambia ... well, it has been in existence for 40 years, so that's not really news anymore. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I think there are two issue working against this item: that The Gambia is so small and insignificant, and that Iran doesn't have much in the form of foreign relations anymore anyways. Grsz 11 01:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not voting in favour of inclusion in ITN, but don't assume that Iran is passive in foreign relations. Being ostracised by the West, Iran invests a lot of time and money in building relations with countries outside the main spheres of power. --Soman (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The second paragraph of Foreign relations of The Gambia (if it is true) suggests that The Gambia is not "insignificant" at all, while Foreign relations of Iran states that Iran has "full diplomatic relations" with 99 countries. --candlewicke 02:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The Gambia is small, but I wouldn't say it is insignificant. It is quite active in international issues affecting West Africa and the Muslim world in general (source). Iran's foreign relations have suffered, but mainly with the West—they are very much actively engaged with African and Asian states. For what it's worth, I'll mention also that The Gambia was one of the countries which had expressed support for Iran's nuclear program (the main cause of its recent ostracism by many states). -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Based on the article The Gambia – Iran relations, there doesn't seem to be anything significant about the countries' relationship prior to the severing, the only significant mentioning is that Gambia supported Iran's nuclear program. In general the article has very very little on any substance of the relationship (a mention of $2bil to supply lorries to Gambia--hardly notable). On that basis I'd say oppose. If the relationship is more notable than that, more info needs to be in the article. --Johnsemlak (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree on your last point. My understanding, based on a quick overview of online news sources, is that there is quite a bit more to the relationship than is currently stated. However, the article is new, so it is still missing a lot of information. I'll see if I can expand it some more. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Relationship between the nations was too small before the split. SpencerT♦C 03:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Pope losing strength

Pope Benedict XVI says he would resign if he could no longer carry on as leader of the Catholic church.1

Oppose: I think that's what Mugabe said at one point. I'm not comparing the two, but this isn't anything of substance unless he actually resigns. Nightw 07:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Renominate when resigniation has been done. --Kslotte (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose this is not an event, it is an opinion of the Pope, that should he ever feel misfit, he would resign. Crnorizec (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. So what? I'm pretty sure most major leaders (including religious leaders) would, if questioned, say they would step down if they became unable to fulfil their roles. Modest Genius talk 01:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
No definite indication that he intends to, "would", "could", etc. --candlewicke 02:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

North Korean shelling

North Korea shells Yeonpyeong Island, prompting a military response by South Korea.1   — C M B J   07:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - Another attack by the North on South Korea, following the ROKS Cheonan sinking in March this year. Obvious implications for the region. Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Suport - There has not been a serious incident of shelling since the 80's at least, its made the markets go haywire and so has world wide effects.XavierGreen (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Support per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. It does look serious, and both the international community and the news media seem to treat it as a major incident. __meco (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 08:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Late Support unambiguous acts of war are a definite. This isnt even the normal saber rattling The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Late pile on support. Worst incident in the region in decades.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

November 22


Irish call for elections

Opposition parties have called for a general election. Perhaps this bit could be added to the blurb on the ROI bailout? I think it could stand to be reworded anyway (concerns over the wording were raised at WP:ERRORS.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Calling for an election is quite a standard practice of opposition parties in parliamentary democracies without fixed terms, as a tactic to put pressure on the government. As I recall David Cameron was calling for an election all the way through Gordon Brown's Prime Ministership. So I don't think it's significant enough to post, even as an appendage to the already unwieldy Ireland blurb. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. There is slight precedent for posting the fall of a government in such circumstances (if my memory serves me), but not a simple call for elections. Cowen has given a statement saying that the Dáil will be dissolved in January (assuming he lasts that long as Taoiseach). Physchim62 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The Irish PM has now called for a general election in January. That's a bit more significant.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
But he's still pretending to be in control of the situation... If he were forced out before passing the budget (due for 7 December), I would support. Physchim62 (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Wait, tending towards support. The government has essentially collapsed (Greens pulling out of the coalition), except that they've agreed to hold together just long enough to pass the new budget. We will of course post the election in January, but I'm not sure if/when we should post the collapse (now? when a vote of no confidence is held? when parliament is actually dissolved?). Might be best to wait a day and see what happens, given how quickly events moved today. Modest Genius talk 22:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Support the financial bailout blurb should be updated with the intention of the government to resign. Crnorizec (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cambodia stampede

180 killed in a stampede in Cambodia. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I start 2010 Phnom Penh stampede - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I was just coming to nominate this. El País Physchim62 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Support when expanded. Significant tragedy with a large death toll, and a bit different from the disasters that normally get featured on ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Update: horrible death toll +340 deaths - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
wow, switching to strong support--that's a terrible and highly notable tragedy. --Johnsemlak (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Support significant death toll. --Kslotte (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Support a notable tragedy, especially during an event that is normally a celebration. CoolMike (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
that article will not make it to ITN in current state. either this should be updated in some existing article or it needs to grow quite a bit. -- Ashish-g55 20:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Obviously this is going to be posted but I don't think it will be feasible until sufficient news reports have come out of Cambodia allowing for a more detailed article to be built.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
For me, the big problem is the lack of background information. We have no article about the festival – it is obviously not the Water Festival described in that article – no description of the location, nothing apart from the news agency reports that everyone else is reading. For me, that's a big sign we should pass on this one. Physchim62 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
support article has improved enough to unleash IMHO The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, let's go for it, it's hardly WP's best article but it's as good as we can do, for the moment, until more info becomes available. Physchim62 (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Support; have expanded, and 345 dead is significant enough. C628 (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The festval article Bon Om Thook need still some clean-up and expansion. --Kslotte (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Burkinabé presidential election, 2010

Presidential election took place in Burkina Faso. The article needs updates, though. --Tone 14:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Results expected "within five days" according to Bloomberg. Physchim62 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Like Tone said the article needs a bit of work.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Five days should be enough time to get a decent article together. Modest Genius talk 22:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimmie Johnson

In auto racing, Jimmie Johnson wins his fifth consecutive NASCAR Sprint Cup Series championship. [15] Truthsort (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Though I don't think this will get much support, I'm inclined to do so. It is the second most-watched sport in the United States and races are broadcast in over 150 countries. Grsz 11 01:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Ha, nevermind me, it's on Recurring events. Grsz 11 01:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Support it's not only on the ITNR, but more people pay attention to NASCAR than most sports we've put on ITN lately (including the World Series I believe). DC TC 01:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The article on the 2010 series is nothing more than a big table, whilst Jimmie Johnson is very poorly referenced. There's a paragraph on 2010 in Jimmie Johnson, but it just lists 'he won x races with y poles' etc, and is unreferenced. Go ahead and post per ITNR once there's a decent update, but the articles are not good enough at present. Modest Genius talk 02:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
JJ's article is indeed not in a good shape. I've tagged with {{BLPsources}} due to the chunks of unref'd text. The series article could work if someone wanted to spend a bit of time adding prose (and a few more refs wouldn't go amiss, either). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
More people surely pay attention to Major League Baseball than NASCAR, but yeah, Nascar is a big deal, though I can't understand why. In general I think there are too many motor sports on ITNR (eight events), but deciding what to cut is tricky. I'm sure many people would object to NASCAR because it only takes place in the US, but I agree with Grsz's reasoning above. Oppose for now until there's an update; Neutral otherwise. Frankly given NASCAR's supposed popularity I'm surprised a decent update doesn't come quicker.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Auto racing is the most over-represented sport on ITN, and NASCAR is one of the 8 that is of purely domestic interest. Courcelles 03:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Well if you want to go down that road, sport in general is over-represented on ITN! Playing Devil's advocate (I've no opinion here), one could argue that there's a much bigger difference between NASCAR and, say, F1, than there is between the various golf tournaments or horse races we post. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Auto-racing is slightly unusual in that people tend to place a number of quite different sports under one umbrella. I'm not sure that anyone would lump, Association, American, Gaelic, Aussie rules football, as well as both codes of Rugby, together in an argument that we over-represent 'football' for example. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point. As a slight attempt to work against this, I'm going to split the ITNR entry into subsections for each type form of racing (that we post). Modest Genius talk 18:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose despite ITN/R. I'd oppose this on the merits as well, but the articles are in shocking state. Johnson's article is just statistics from nascar's official site vomited on to the page as prose. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree the article is a horrible read. The prose simply lists his wins and other results. In general the article is over-reliant on the NASCAR website for its sourcing and needs more diverse sources, such as articles from mainstream media or general sports media. This is a common problem with sports stories.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. NASCAR is second only to football in terms of specators numbers in America, that's a persuasive enough fact for me to not be concerned with bias issues. I also agree with ReadingOldBoy on his grouping comment. MickMacNee (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source on this "second most watched" factoid? In the NASCAR article, the link given to support this is the article Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada which doesn't mention NASCAR at all. I believe it, actually, but I'm pretty sure it's based on a very narrow definition of 'most watched'. I can't believe that more people watch NASCAR than major league baseball if we use raw attendance figures, and certainly overall tv viewership of NBA basketball would be higher than NASCAR.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues does not include motor sport events. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose unless a reference to "Poor and Stupid" is made :) Nergaal (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Uh, I like the reference though, but is that a serious oppose?--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Support I hate NASCAR (even more than other motor sports) but it is a big deal to a decent number of Americans - and they make up half the audience. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still neutral overall but I'd like to repeat Mkativerata's point that the article, particularly where the update is, is very poorly written, as it just repeats results that would be better listed on a table. The article should have more diverse information and context, drawn from a larger variety of sources rather than stat-pages. NASCAR's status as an ITNR event should confirm that its notability has consensus, but that shouldn't prevent objections due to article quality.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. Support as a record breaking event from a NASCAR fan, the Johnson article sucks though, but it could be improved by being on the main page. Secret account 21:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality concerns. That article is not in shape to be linked from the Main Page. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

November 21


Ireland requests bailout

The Irish government have accepted a £77bn (roughly US$123bn) bailout from the EU and the IMF. (Telegraph). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. But make sure to connect it to European Financial Stability Facility, because that's where Ireland is getting the money from. —bender235 (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
That article is tagged with {{original research}} and {{unreferenced-section}}. That would need serious work if it's to be the bolded article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. HJ Mitchell, feel free to "take the glory" for this nomination, but it is also available on this page here and here... Crnorizec (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
"Glory" is all yours if you want it. I've got a few of these already! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Obvious strong support. Where's the update going / what's the blurb? Modest Genius talk 22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Support, major development for the Irish financial system. "The Irish government accepts a major bailout from the European Financial Stability Facility in response to the global financial crisis," perhaps? I don't want to include an exact figure, because I've seen a bunch of different numbers; the £77bn one isn't exact ("up to £77 billion," according to the Telegraph). C628 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

According to most sources, the exact terms of the package are not defined yet, with Irish PM saying that they will be negotiated within "the next few weeks". They have not signed a memorandum with EU and IMF either. So:

"The Irish government requests a major bailout from the European Financial Stability Facility in response to the global financial crisis," would be more correct. Crnorizec (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd remove "major" for NPOV, but, other than that, that seems a decent suggestion. 2008–2010_Irish_financial_crisis#Bailout was in good shape when I got to it, but I've added just a little bit of info to it. I believe it's ready to post, but, since I technically nominated it, I'd prefer it if another admin were to do so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Meh. Not a fan of either "requests" or "accepts," come to think of it, since "requests" is out of date if it's been agreed to, and no money has changed hands, so they haven't accepted anything...perhaps just saying "The Irish government agrees to a major..." would be better? C628 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
That works. I'd still advise the exclusion of the word "major", though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't care less about that particular word. C628 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, but please keep HRH the Prince on the pic. Crnorizec (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Support per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
'Government of Ireland', NOT 'Irish government' please, lets keep well clear of the whole Northern Ireland thing. Modest Genius talk 23:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, blast, I'm a stupid American who's got not the slightest clue about that particular mess, so I really don't know what's best there. Someone smarter should use their discretion for that. C628 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment While you're at it, you should be linking to Republic of Ireland, which is an article about the state, and not Ireland, which is an article about the island itself. 87.114.101.69 (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Support sinificant impact on economy. --Kslotte (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, can we agree on

{{*mp|November 21}} The Republic of Ireland government agrees to a bailout from the European Financial Stability Facility in response to the global financial crisis.

?? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
And if we want to use the image, we can just slip in (Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, pictured). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
"The government of Ireland" would read better than "The Republic of Ireland government". The important thing is to link to the correct article, not to write out "Republic of Ireland". There is an unsurprisingly lengthy article about the whole can of worms over at Names of the Irish state. 87.114.101.69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
Indeed, but those unaware that it's a politically sensitive term might query why would write out "govt of Ireland" instead fo "Irish govt". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm wary of saying "global financial crisis"; I'd prefer to say "its banking crisis", except that the linked article is in a pretty poor state. Thoughts anyone? Physchim62 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Posted with a slightly tweaked blurb. Ireland "agreeing" to the bailout misrepresents their true status as the begging party to the arrangement. I'll keep the GFC link in for now until any better suggestions can get consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
on second thoughts i've gone with the suggestion to avoid the gfc link. Ireland is clearly fucked for more reasons than the gfc. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Bailout is a biased form not because it's entirely true but because it's obvious mainly outsiders use it. i.e. if the US or UK had to ever be bailed out by someone they would never, ever use this form to say it. (but they're the ones that mainly do now) --Leladax (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between (understandable) Irish pride and bias. This, I think, is the former, not the latter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
If people prefer, we could use (financial) "aid" or "rescue package", with the authority of the Irish Times behind us. I'm neutral on the matter. Physchim62 (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
'Rescue package' sounds good, but lacks the implication of finance (it could be a box with food and a tent in it). 'financial rescue package'? Modest Genius talk 01:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
So changed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Also causes problems, but can we discuss them on WP:ERRORS instead? This discussion is starting to get quite long. Physchim62 (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The Eurozone countries HAVE NOT agreed to the package, as a matter of fact. Ireland has applied for one, the details and agreement remain to be seen in the forthcoming weeks, after which an approval by the IMF, EU Commission, EU Council, and each member state are due. The blurb should be corrected. Crnorizec (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

TSA Threatens passengers

TSA officers have threatened passengers who protest the new pat-downs. The agency can fine passengers up to $10,000 for behaving in a manner that is so uncooperative and disruptive that it physically interferes with the screening process, according to the agency.1 --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Uh... this is notable news how exactly? Not to mention that that's a horribly biased and leading heading. Seriously, what one government agency decides on laws within their own country is nowhere near of enough interest for ITN. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 10:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose So you get in trouble if you misbehave while going through airport security? Not really news. And that heading needs changing. wackywace 11:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. More lunacy in airport "security", yet another government agency deliberately throwing its weight around to prove that it can, nothing new here. Physchim62 (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Question: What's TSA? The article linked to is a dab page. Nightw 12:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess it's Transportation Security Administration. Oppose. Not notable. Nightw 12:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite like to imagine that it was the scouts, or a bunch of Polish rockers, and the Taiwanese airport would fit the blurb well. Might be a misunderstanding of what the Tourettes sufferers were saying, and not a threat at all, or maybe the expatriate Thai (or technological) students have an axe to grind. It would be intriguingly out of character for the theosophists to get involved in such a thing. Maybe the Sally Army are simply being more insistent on people taking copies of the War Cry. Kevin McE (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment, The Transportation Security Administration's pat down is horrible. A retired special education teacher on his way to a wedding in Orlando, Fla., said he was left humiliated, crying and covered with his own urine after an enhanced pat-down by TSA officers recently at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. As reported by MSN on this article. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
That's gross. He should count himself pretty lucky, though. In the country I'm in at the moment, if you protest random additional screening you get 40 strikes of the cane across the behind. How's that for additional screening? Nightw 12:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I don't doubt that it's specifically designed to be humiliating, to show the average citizen that the government has this much power over them. Unfortunately, it's not particularly unusual in that respect, especially in the field of airport "security". That's why I'm opposing – that it's not unusual enough. Physchim62 (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
But is TSA not very violent. Even when that man was having troubles regarding his health. The TSA people didnot listen to him (as the news article said) and so did the man suffer. Now, if this is not suitable for ITN. Okay, i agree. But kindly see if any part of the article is or can be suitable to ITN. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Meh. The Yanks are paranoid about security and ordinary folk are the ones who suffer for it. That's nothing new. Perhaps if it discourages or prevents a potential attack, it's worth it, but there's no way to measure that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Okay!! i will withdraw. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Malagasy constitutional referendum, 2010

Madagascar held a referendum on a new constitution on the 17th, but result ("yes") has just come in yesterday. It "legitimises" the military junta (in power since 2009) as the government, and its leader Rajoelina as president, until elections take place next year.

Madagascar's three main opposition parties boycotted the referendum. And an attempted coup to overthrow the current coup took place over three days during the referendum. Guardian, People Daily, Global Voices, Economist, SMH.

It's on WP:ITN/R, but the article needs work. Nightw 05:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Support when ready. Important referendum. --candlewicke 06:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment, without prejudice to support or oppose: Technically, it's not on WP:ITNR. Referenda are not the same as elections. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 06:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment, the article is not very well written. According to the article, the referendum must have been held on November 17. When it is already on the past, the article still says it will be held on November 17. If im not very wrong. Some readers might get confused and assume it to be on November 17, 2011. Based on all this, i will Oppose for now. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Article looking much better now. Nightw 11:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The second part is valid, as referendum also dictated whether the incumbent president was to remain in power. Nightw 12:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. Decent article with all the background (dispite it's "controversy" section – can't people find another heading to put these election disputes under?) Physchim62 (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Support per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. I still dont understand why Anirudh Emani feels the article is not well written. All he can do is just run around Wikipedia sermonizing. He is a big trouble for ITN. --117.198.154.102 (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Please comment on content, not the contributor and attmept to resolve any dispute with an editor on their talk page, not here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Seconded, noting that the article underwent some fairly major changes between Anirudh's comments and it being posted. Physchim62 (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This article is sourced very substantially to a Chinese Communist Party publication. That concerns me. I've posted to WP:RS/N. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm pulling this article. On further research, China and Madagascar have, over time, had close diplomatic relations. It is also well-known that China takes active diplomatic interest in the internal political affairs of its allies, especially in Africa. It is intolerable therefore that the bulk of an article about Madagascar's contentious constitutional future should be sourced to a Chinese Communist Party publication. To avoid embarrassment to the project, I'm removing it. It should only be restored if the sourcing is fixed or if there is consensus that the sourcing is not the problem I think it is.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with this action. I think it should have been discussed first at WP:ERRORS, but that's beside the point for the minute. I don't think the sourcing is a big enough deal to merit removal. There are 3 inline citation to Chinese publications, but The Guardian, Reuters, the BBC, Al Jazeera, the Sydney Morning Herald and The Economist. Even if the Chinese source were not considered to be of the utmost reliability, I hardly think they would lie. This is the 21st century, I don't think that's escaped the notice of even the Chinese government! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It's more than three inline citations - each is used multiple times to the point that the article is substantially based on the Chinese sources. And it's not a matter of "lying" - bias is frequently presented in the choice of facts presented and the manner of their presentation. That's what makes articles that use the sources problematic - articles that rely substantially on the sources can be affected by the same bias even if the facts are correct. At the end of the day, it's just embarrassing to the project to have an article based substantially on a Chinese Communist Party source linked from the main page. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
FFS, it's a horrendous NPOV breach to pull the article on the basis of that! It has sources to the Peopole's Daily yes, but also multiple statements sourced to Al-Jazeera and The Economist. Back up NOW, straight away, less of this silliness. Physchim62 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Tone down the rhetoric. It's about reliability and ensuring that the article is not POV because of the use of unreliable POV sourcing. I can understand the embarrassment of a number of experienced editors who supported putting this on the main page without checking the sources, but the answer is to fix the article not exacerbate the embarrassment. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Xinhua isn't generally that bad a source - so it hardly seems like a big deal that they are used here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
"isn't generally that bad a source" is nowhere near good enough for the main page. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of other sources too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The POV is in saying that the source is POV without providing any further arguments; the abuse of admin powers is in taking down the story without any discussion. The article itself has many different sources, not just the "Chinese Communist Party" as you pretend. I will not tone down until the story goes back up, because until then it will be impossible to have a reasonable discussion without one side having pre-emppted the debate. Physchim62 (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Unilateral action to remove links to inappropriate or even questionable articles from the main page is entirely appropriate. The degree to which the article is sourced to the People's Daily (yes it has other sources but the PD is the most used source) is unacceptabole. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
So 9 sourced points from People's Daily, vs. 11 from Al Jazeera, 6 for the Guardian and 5 for the Economist. The People's Daily isn't even the most used source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As far as I can see, the key facts, like the ones the blurb is/was based on are backed up by other sources. @Physchim, "admin abuse" is a strong term and not appropriate here. Discussion should have taken place before it was pulled, not after, but to call it an "abuse of admin powers" isn't helpful in gaining a consensus for its restoration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
We can gain consensus once it's back up on the template. Until then, we have a single admin pushing their PoV about the reliability of a source used almost entirely for factual statements. Physchim62 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Especially as three editors have made a case that the People's Daily sourced stuff is acceptable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The tone of the People's Daily article is very similar to the tone of the journalist blog post in The Economist covering the same story, and give identical or near-identical details on all the major points. So, I suppose that the communist conspiracy has reached The Economist now? Physchim62 (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Well the Economist's logo has got a red background... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
As consensus seems to be firmly in support of restoring the posting, I'm going to restore it (as I said I would), very reluctantly. Sadly this is a depressing continuance of the theme of the last few months - articles getting onto the main page in an inappropriate state. We've seen a long-time ITN contributor found out for rampant copyvios, many of which made the main page. We've then seen rampant plagiarism on DYK and even TFA. Now we have high-school level ignorance of the tenets of reliable sourcing. Oh well, rant over. I'll put it back.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
With respect (and sorry for continuing to beat a slightly dead horse) but Xinhua certainly meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria (per WP:USEBYOTHERS) because it is regularly used as a source by the BBC and the New York Times - both of which are clearly reliable sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That google search shows nothing - most of the articles don't rely on X at all. In any event the use of "according to Xinhua" is an indication of a very guarded reliance on it as a source. Its reports are reported as Xinhua's reports, the content is not re-reported as fact.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
So attributation is a bad thing? If they thought Xinhua was a bad source they'd say "according to Xinhua - the Chinese state news agency" or something. Most people otherwise wouldn't know who Xinhua is. Alternatively they'd go and do their own reporting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Pope's condom comments

Not sure about this one, but it seems to be being taken seriously by European media at least. Catholic Church and AIDS seems to be the article that needs updating. Physchim62 (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak support. It's not as notable as when the Church accepted evolution, but seeing that some are blaming Catholicism for the AIDS epidemic in Africa (i.e., due to the Church saying that contraception is a sin), I think this is worth a blurb. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The New York Times: "Pope Says Condoms to Stop AIDS May Be Acceptable". "The pope’s statement on condoms was extremely limited: he did not approve their use or suggest that the Roman Catholic Church was beginning to back away from its prohibition of birth control". TIME - "Benedict's so-called condom concession was not a huge one". --candlewicke 06:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. it is not a big matter. Just comments wouldn't be considered as top stories. Such news is not suitable for ITN. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a pretty big matter. To a large portion of the Catholic church's 1.1 billion poeple, what the Pope says is not merely a 'comment'. I agree that the concession was very limited, but any concession on this issue is fairly significant IMO.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Pointless Support after thinking about it I think this is pretty important and a definite step forward. Outside of southern and eastern Africa prostitutes, gay men and intravenous drug users are by far the main spreaders of HIV, I don't believe the pope has an issue with clean needles so prostitutes are the next obvious group to suggest condom use is appropriate for. It would have been nice for him to include gay men as well (though if you read between the lines he kinda does by saying male prostitutes), but that would have been more difficult. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
What would the blurb be, and what article would be linked?--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The article would be Catholic Church and AIDS and the blurb would be something like: Pope Benedict XVI reverses the Catholic churches total ban on condoms by saying that they may be acceptable in some cases. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Or Pope Benedict XVI says that condoms may be acceptable in some cases in the fight against AIDS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment Regarding Pointless Support Gay men can no longer be called the major spreaders of HIV inside or outside of Africa. This is a misconception that started with a grain of truth and has since been actively cultivated by those who desire to continue blaming homosexuals. Currently AIDs is very roughly equivalently distributed accross the population; that is men and women contract aids at roughly equal rates. CoolMike (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Support per Every Sperm Is Sacred. Jehochman Talk 20:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose becuase of the questions regarding the real content of the interview. In addition, I oppose becuase the fact that a religious leader saying that a religious doctrine kind-of, sort-of, sometimes, may be wrong is not notable. If the Pope had issued an official doctrine changing the Churches stance on condoms I would strongly support the including in ITN. As it stands, the statement from the Pope that the use of condoms may sometimes be a moral dicision is not really very notable. CoolMike (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. The Vatican has broadened it's support "saying their use by men and women to prevent HIV could be an act of 'responsibility'."--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Irish Financial Bailout

I am re-nominating this, because now there is a formal request[16] for financial assistance from the Government of Ireland to EU and IMF. We can continue with the discussion here. Crnorizec (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a short update at 2008–2010 Irish financial crisis, but not enough to post yet. Physchim62 (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

November 20


Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2010

  • Vladimir Arzumanyan from Armenia wins the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2010 held in Minsk, Belarus with the song "Mama". BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Strongest oppose How are we even suppose to take this seriously? Grsz 11 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That is not up to me.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but you've suggested (and had rejected) enough items to know what isn't accepted. Grsz 11 21:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
        • JESC has millions of viewers and many of the winners has gone on to have successful careers in their countries. So its definitly up to personal taste how important this contest is. But to dismiss it completly like you do I find a bit bizzare.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
        • For example its one of the most viewed shows in Belarus each year. And more than one country apply to host it each year.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Minor music contest, little significance, tiny media coverage. However, Grsz please assume good faith in the nomination. Modest Genius talk 21:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. A children's talent show doesn't really cut it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

United States compensation payments

BBC. "A 15 year-old suit by Native Americans" and "Many of the claims date back to the 19th century". Involving "at least 300,000 Native Americans", it has been going on "for 15 years and encompassed 3,600 court filings and 80 judicial rulings". It all sounds very important but I don't know which article could be used. --candlewicke 04:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cobell v. Salazar, which is in pretty rough shape. Grsz 11 05:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
oppose mostly because Its a farce of legislation and does very little to allocating money to where its needed. This is good publicity but very little substance.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
comment -- The bill is not law yet; it still needs to pass the House and be signed by the President.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
oppose because the title is both speculative and sensational, and NOT that the legislation is a farce. Far from it, An inordinate amount of both legal, legslative and political work has been going on, and the work is continuing. ( and the article here needs work ).--69.232.223.35 (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The title comes from what the BBC article says. --candlewicke 06:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

November 19


Nissan Leaf

Meh. I thought it had actually gone on sale when I first saw this, but the public launching for test drives in several markets is getting a good deal of press anyway, as you would expect, so why wait I say. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutral. I'd rather wait for the first day it goes on sale, but if we reach consensus to post it I wouldn't protest. I think given the fact it is the first all-electric car to go on sale is fairly important. --PlasmaTwa2 19:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for Now Revisit when they go on sale like Plasma said The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for now This is just test driving, wait until sale date. SpencerT♦C 21:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Wait, it goes on sale in December, wait until then.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Wait. If it's expected to go on sale next month, post it then, but there doesn't seem much point in posting it twice in a maximum of 6 weeks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Support, but wait until launch. The first mass-produced vehicle from a large automotive company to switch from gasoline to electric is definitely a notable move. I'm anxious to see how they sell. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Support when launched Crnorizec (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Temporary Oppose. Okay, lets not go so fast. Even if a hundred people say support, our administrators will not post it. One more thing, if it is posted now, then it cannot be posted after the car is launched. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Um, there is no rule against articles appearing more than once on ITN, although yes generally they don't appear for the same reason. Also, if "a hundred people say support", barring opposes in similar quantity and in good opinion, consensus would indeed be to post it. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 08:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to claim that if it is posted now. Then posting it again for the same reason would be blatant violation of the rules(if im correct). --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The point is, there are no hard and fast "rules", only guidelines. Our guidelines even say only elections are posted, and generally not inaugurations, but Barack Obama's inauguration was posted. "Blatant" violation of non-existent rules? Hmm... Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 10:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
There are no guidelines that say inaugurations are not to be posted, though that's general practice. WP:ITNR, one of the few written guidelines on what is posted on ITN, lists things, including national elections, that are have consensus for posting. ITNR does not specify events that are not to be posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Lisbon summit

Member states and observers of NATO will meet over the next two days. The council is expected to adopt a new strategic concept. Grsz 11 02:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support this is one of the most important meetings in NATO history (BBC)--Wikireader41 (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Wait until something happens. Although it is announced as "new strategic concept" there are no conclusions at this time. The concept is "almost there". Plus, I kinda like the Prince engagement there on top, let's keep him for another week or so... Crnorizec (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment According to Obama via the BBC, members have agreed to a missile defense shield to cover all member-state. Grsz 11 20:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be a fairly big announcement, particularly given the fact that Dmitry Medvedev is in attendance. The fact that over 30 heads of state are all in one place seems pretty notable to me in and of itself.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps upon closing, we could use a blurb like The heads of government of the NATO member states agree to develop a mutual missile defense system (and withdraw from Afghanistan by 2014). The Afghanistan part is tentative, and may not be worth including - mostly political talk. Grsz 11 04:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Support I would like to see both new strategy concept and missile defence in the blurb. --Kslotte (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
In that case, At a summit in Lisbon, the heads of government of the NATO member states adopt a new Strategic Concept and agree to develop a mutual missile defense system. Grsz 11 19:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Support Nergaal (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Pike River mine accident

At least 27 miners are still trapped inside. --Kslotte (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Wait to see what happens. To be frank, mine accidents happen all the time, but unless this grows into a Chile San José-type deal, then probably oppose. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 10:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless it is determined that there is a significant number of fatalities or if it turns into a Chilean miners-type rescue spectacular. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per SP and Fetchcomms. Can always be renominated if there are significant developments, but it's not ITN material at the moment. Physchim62 (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak support. We posted the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster back in April and that had similar casualty figures to the number of missing in this incident. Also, mining accidents in major economically developed countries are quite rare. Still, it's worth waiting to see what the fate of those 27 is of course, hoping that they're found alive and well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Congo jail mass break-out

Nearly 200 prisoners in the Democratic Republic of the Congo escape from a jail in the northwest of the country. (BBC) This is huge compared to earlier escapes. We need an article. --Kslotte (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we really don't, and I'd AFD it if it was created. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 10:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
FWiW, we've posted jail breaks before. I believe we posted one in the Philippines a few months ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. This really depends on the security level of the prison and in what sort of condition said prison type is in Congo (in comparison to other countries). I think a maximum-security prison break would be much more notable (and perhaps worthy of a blurb) than a minimum- or medium-security prison break. In this case, "Mutinies are frequent in Congolese prisons where conditions are harsh." Hence my !vote. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cook Islands general election, 2010

Support. It's an election, a change of prime minister and the article has lots of references. --candlewicke 06:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, election in a non-sovereign entity which is not a UN member. As this is a fairly inconsequential election in the grand scheme of things (for example, if a pro-sovereignty party was elected, I might consider), there is no way I can support. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 06:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

November 18


Irish Banking Bailout

Ok, this may be premature but it's been the top headline on the BBC for a day, and as I understand a decision is fairly imminent. The BBC seems to think that Ireland are about to accept a bank bailout from either the EU or the IMF. I assume that this would be notable enough for ITN. The most relevant existing article would probably be 2008–2010 Irish banking crisis. I'm not that well informed on this subject, but as I understand officials are meeting right now and a decision on this could happen any day now. Comments?--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a look earlier on: there's also 2008–2010 Irish financial crisis, which is slightly more up to date. Sunday seems like a likely announcement date from the comments I've read, or even later. Physchim62 (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
ug two forks? We need to get this sorted out The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Both articles were DYKs, and appeared within a week. I smell WP:WIKICUP point-padding. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Pretty sure this will be ITN-fodder once something is actually agreed, but that could be days or weeks. Let's wait to see what happens. Modest Genius talk 01:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Wait once something definite is announced though I agree Its heading that way. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It's an interesting question as to exactly when we should post it. Judgning by past bailouts, there could be several weeks between the political agreement and the formal signing of papers. Physchim62 (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
What exactly needs to happen for the bailout to go ahead? Will it require approval by the Irish legislature, or can it be signed by the PM?--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Wait There has to be at least informal agreement between the banks, the government (PM), EU and IMF, about the format of the bailout, which is still not in place, as you can see here. Crnorizec (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The story is developing [17] However, we should probably wait until it's official. --Tone 17:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Irish Times is reporting several European finance ministers saying that a formal request has been made and has been accepted. Apparently no formal announcement from Dublin yet. Physchim62 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Press conference. RTÉ. --candlewicke 21:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
BBC confirming confirmation from the Irish Taoiseach (PM). Physchim62 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Support as per my comment above. Crnorizec (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

China Telecom reroutes Internet traffic

A congressional panel concluded that massive volumes of Internet traffic had been redirected unnecessarily through servers in China. During an 18-minute stretch on April 8, China Telecom rerouted traffic sent to about 15% of the Internet's destinations, including branches of the U.S. armed services, the U.S. Senate and companies like Microsoft Corp. The sophistication, size and targets of the attacks suggest some level of state support. [18] Crnorizec (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

very speculative. apparently this happens occasionally but usually networks can not handle that kind of traffic. China Telecom somehow pulled it off and thats pretty much all they have. it could just mean they simply have kickass routers. -- Ashish-g55 04:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
you are right, and, due to the nature of Internet routing it is very hard prove intention, however, the congressmen are talking about targeting. Crnorizec (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Sadly only the "Flashy" National security stories get posted here. Its interesting though The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I posted one that may be more to majority's taste, but someone erased it. Crnorizec (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose unless there is some real evidence of foul play. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: this was an 18 minute glitch seven months ago and there is no evidence it was anything more than a technical error, indeed the Congressional committee explicitly refused to attribute it to malice. These kind of technical snafus occur regularly and usually pass without widespread attention.
The source cited also does not make any direct allegation of state involvement, it merely raises it as a possibility. Even if that was the case it does not necessarily indicate e.g. intelligence services involvement, which is what that style of phrasing seems intended to imply. It could equally well be simply the glitch occurred on a network under government control, or indeed (if it was malicious) it was the work of a lone network engineer with a desire to cause disruption or "load test" their network.
When you strip away the surrounding hyperbole this boils down to nothing more than a technical glitch. I wonder if the same attitude be adopted if the problem occurred in the UK, Germany, or some other "friendly" (to the US) government. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, not enough globel impact. meshach (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

HIP 13044 b

  • A planet, HIP 13044 b, which was formed in another galaxy has been discovered in the Helmi Stream. (BBC). No article on it has been created yet but i feel this is very significant as it is apparently the first planet that has been discovered outside of the Milky Way. Simply south (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. This planet is very definitely inside the Milky Way. The star system probably formed in a satellite galaxy that later fell into the MW, but it's still there now. The planet was in fact found a couple of years ago, the new bit is that the host star has been identified as part of the stream. This is an unexceptional planet discovery (they're running at dozens per year), that just happens to be around a stream star. Modest Genius talk 00:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry my mistake, i did not read the article properly. It is significant as it is is the first planet within our galaxy originating from outside ours. Simply south (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
THey actually get almost 100 a year nowadays. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak support. Seems that users have been eager in creating the article HIP 13044 b. May be of intrest. --Kslotte (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe/maybe not: I DYK-ed it anyway, so both DYK and News may make it too hot a topic. And in this day and age of dancing with the stars most of the public will think this is a "hip star" on that show anyway. History2007 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK sounds reasonable. --Kslotte (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Colombia floods

Major disaster, much damage, high toll. Simply south (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. From the article 2010 Colombia floods: "Weeks of heavy rains in Colombia have left at least 136 people dead and disrupted the lives of more than 1.2 million as the country faces its worst rainy season in three decades. Severe flooding and landslides triggered by torrential rains have damaged or destroyed more than 200,000 homes in all but five of Colombia's 32 provinces". If this is the case it sounds like a big enough disaster. --candlewicke 22:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. Apparently a state of emergency in 28 of the 32 departments of Colombia, up to 138 dead, about 200 injured at 1. million affected. Physchim62 (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. 100+ dead. --Kslotte (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest: A series of flash floods kills 136 people and disrupts more than 1.2 million others in 27 Colombian provinces. --candlewicke 03:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

November 17


Antimatter atom trapped

BBC. CERN has managed to trap Antihydrogen atoms for the first time. I may not be expert at theoretical physics but im pretty sure this is a very big achievement. Till now they were always destroyed almost instantly. -- Ashish-g55 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support something of a scientific breakthrough. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Certainly seems notable and interesting. It would be ideal to gain consensus as soon as possible; the lead item on the template was added several days ago. wackywace 19:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. It's not the first time they've been trapped, but it is the first time they've been trapped for a human-relevant timescale. Antihydrogen is a bit of a mess though. Modest Genius talk 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's the paper Modest Genius talk 20:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
well to my understanding till now they couldn't really slow the particles down enough to do anything with them. so im assuming by trapping they mean they've successfully slowed them enough to get readings within fraction of a second. cant open the paper :( -- Ashish-g55 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Does this means CERN will try to blow up the Vatican soon?The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Not unless they plan to do it 38 atoms at a time Modest Genius talk 01:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Support this seems like a big deal, it'd be nice to get something new up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose. This doesn't seem like a major breakthrough to me. When I read in the article that antihydrogen atoms were first created in 1995, the news leaves me feeling a bit underwhealmed. And they haven't managed to get a spectrum yet, which is really the point of the efforts. Physchim62 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That's... kinda true, I guess. Still, the media seem to think this is a big deal too. Modest Genius talk 01:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
SPEEDY POST NOW Obvious huge break through. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Not yet, article Antihydrogen needs to be updated accordingly. --Kslotte (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Support as per above. Crnorizec (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
any science major willing to update Antihydrogen properly? -- Ashish-g55 22:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Physics is not my strong suit or i would. I learn astronomy, Physics and Quantum Mechanics from good science fiction. lol 23:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I just got to thinking... this is a Trinity Test type moment... This will change war forever. get the same annihilation of the enemy you would get from a Atom bomb without the Nuclear Fallout... disturbing The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I remember reading about this having been achieved once (reading the Wikipedia article, I'll correct that to twice) already, but I don't think they had the chance to see them for as long as they did today. So I support this. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Nergaal (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Query: we usually insist on publication in peer evaluated journal fo rscience stories: has this happened? Kevin McE (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's been published in Nature, one of the top journals. What we need is a bit more than one sentence update to Antihydrogen and we could get rid of those tags... Then it will be ready to post. --Tone 08:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Not a soapbox, ladies/gents.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Support. we need some sensible stuff up instead of tabloid trash about some wedding announcement.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Off-topic: I don't know if you realise this, but this "tabloid trash" confirms who will become head of state in EVERY commonwealth country following Prince Charles' death (and he's in his 60's). I know Americans of your type don't seem to care about this "unsensible" matter, but it's a big deal for the two billion people affected. I don't personally care about it extremely, but I do hate people talking BS like that. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Before you take editors to task, be confident in your facts. The UK monarch is not head of state in every Commonwealth member state, as many are republics: the realm is nowhere even close to 2 billion people (134 million according to the relevant article). William's status as second in line is in no way linked to his marital status, yet alone engagement, so this confirms absolutely nothing. Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
lets not get off track from the topic please. take this on talk pages for prince william discussion -- Ashish-g55 02:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Should be speedily posted.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I would very much like to post this but as long as we have the tag on the top of the article and one sentence update it is not enough for ITN. Please expand first (don't have time myself...) --Tone 07:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The tag was put there because there was no mention of the capture. (See [19] and [20]). The article has now been updated and I've removed the tag.--146.121.21.2 (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Why isn't this up yet? There have been over 10 supports and only 1 weak oppose. Nergaal (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The Antihydrogen article has only one sentence about the discovery. I espect that a little bit more to be written. --Kslotte (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Now it has two para. It's been two days since the last update! Nergaal (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Splendid. Posted. Feel free to modify the blurb. --Tone 22:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cook Islands

Election and a referendum are taking place today. Links in the CE box. --Tone 13:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose I'm usually an advocate of posting the small nations... except this one isn't a nation, rather a non-Sovereign associated state. Courcelles 19:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support if its a referendum on independence, Oppose otherwise as its not a Sovereign state. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It's a referendum on decreasing the size of the local legislature. Courcelles 22:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. This is run-of-the mill politics in a subnational entity. As with Eraserhead, I think the only referenda in such entities that we should post are ones governing independence, and elections should be left off. Modest Genius talk 01:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose; not a sovereign entity and not of anywhere close to even regional, Oceanian, interest. StrPby (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Those opposing on the assumption that the Cook Islands is not a sovereign state should be aware that there is an ongoing discussion about whether this is indeed the case. As it is not on the list at the moment, however, it's hard for one to invoke WP:ITN/R in this case. Nightw 08:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow that's a long, complicated discussion. If the contributors there can't work out how to handle the situation, we've got no chance. Modest Genius talk 22:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

November 16


Mexican Cuisine UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity

After 10 years of failed attempts, Mexican cuisine has finally attained status as one of UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. The formal announcement was made today (Nov. 16) in Nairobi, Kenya. Here's the links: http://noticias.prodigy.msn.com/nacional/articulo.aspx?cp-documentid=26372027 http://cuisinexplorersnews.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/unesco-declares-mexican-cuisine-intangible-cultural-heritage-of-humanity/ http://casadecolores.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/traditional-mexican-cuisine-granted-unesco-status/

To me it seems much more relevant in a global scale than trivial solely anglophone events such as "The Beatles are now on iTunes". It also seems more fit to appear on the "In the news" column than the sport events constantly being placed in it and to which you appear to be biased. I believe sports have no more importance than cultural events and you are in fact biased towards sports and Europe and the United States. The only times Latin America or Asia appear on the news is because of some natural disaster or political struggle. Stop being biased and allow a non-European or American country appear for something other than sport achievements or natural disasters and allow a cultural event (those who you seem to self-righteously exclude from the column) appear in said column. Thank you.

Posting would require us to be biased to the other items that were added that you don't mention, such as flamenco dancing, Kashan rugs, and the 44 other items listed at the same time. Grsz11 02:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose the list was started only 2 years ago and there's like 100s of items in there. To be honest it doesn't look like its exceptionally hard to make it to the list nor does it sound like a big achievement. so oppose for the fact that list is growing way too fast and we cant pick and choose properly. On the same note oppose for french cuisine below too -- Ashish-g55 03:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles on iTunes

The Beatles are now on iTunes. I think that would be significant enough for ITN. Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? Physchim62 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
On the Fence Neutral From a Legal, Tech, and Music standpoint this seems significant as the lengthy litigation history between Apple Records and Apple computers has its own aritcle. Apple has 25% share of the (Legal) Online music industry and more than a quarter of all music sold in the US. So its a big section of Music market that Beatles have not been in. But I can see our putting it on ITN as almost seem like a press release for Apple. so On the fence The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. A court case has been settled, and both companies now stand to make more money. Whoop-dee-doo. Modest Genius talk 00:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Um, no. Definitely not that major. And it would seem almost like free Apple advertising. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
You do have a point there. Endofskull (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. It is astonishing that this made the top news at CNN, but their poor judgment on a slow news day shouldn't push us toward running this advert. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It's an interesting story, but there's no way we could phrase a blurb that wouldn't make it seem like we're giving Apple a bit of free publicity. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 eruptions of Mount Merapi

Mount Merapi in Indonesia erupts, causing 259 deaths and the general evacuation over 350,000 people. 350,000 evacuations, 194 deaths, very well developed article, more then ready IMO: we discussed this a while back but it's been archived. ResMar 22:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit: 259 now. ResMar 22:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support 259 deaths is significant. This one is a big deal. It was in the Economist last week. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support We had this suggestion some time ago, but someone blocked it for no apparent reason. Now, with 259 deaths and 350k evacuations, it is a very significant event. Crnorizec (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
As well as being in the Economist, it was on ITN last week: not blocked, but featured from 00:04 November 7 to 03:11 November 10. Kevin McE (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
SupportAgree with Eraserhead 259 deaths is significant.Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Erm, the eruption was on 25 October, wasn't it? The last news I saw was that people were starting to return to the affected areas. Has there been a new eruption that has killed all these people? Because, if not, it is no longer "in the news". Physchim62 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Nothing has changed since it was on ITN last week except the death toll. If it was still on ITN it'd only warrant an update of the toll. No reason to post the same story twice. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 00:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. We've already posted this (though the article talk page seems to be missing this fact). I don't think there's enough new developments to justify a second posting. Modest Genius talk 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
2010 eruptions of Mount Merapi was the focus article last time, and would/should still be for any new posting. The ITN is correctly reflected at that talk page. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 00:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, good point, I was just hunting in the archives to try to work that out :p Modest Genius talk 00:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Retract Ah, I did not see that it was already posted, thought it had been put on back-burner and left =) Apologies. ResMar 02:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Wait wait, I can't find it in the archives. Can someone direct me to where this is supposed to be? Thanks, ResMar 02:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I've already given you the dates and times: look at the history on ITN if you don't believe me. Kevin McE (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, found it. It's confusing because it was not properly attributed, either on the talk page or in the archives. ResMar 00:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

French cuisine

UNESCO adds the gastronomic meal of the French to the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity - [21] [22]

  • Very rare opportunity to put cuisine on front page.195.169.141.54 (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support if we don't post the item below. Ks0stm (TCG) 19:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Oppose. We can't just support everything just because people think there should be less violence on ITN. The Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity added over 50 76 cultural traditions to their list last year; what makes the addition of French cuisine any more important? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I would support a nomination about the updating of the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, but not one that confined itself to "French cuisine" (actually only the cuisine of one region of France, however good it tastes!) Physchim62 (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Support if the addition of the "traditional Mexican food" is also included. Why has that not been noticed and why hasn't it been included in the headline or opening sentence by the BBC? Apparently the first time cuisine has been included as well. --candlewicke 22:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - normally I would support this, but then, how many other items are on that list that haven't made it ITN? Crnorizec (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per my comments under the Mexican section above. Forty-six new items were added and though I'm a fan of UNESCO and culture (I've written UNESCO FLs), who decides which particular items to mention and not. Grsz11 02:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal engagement

Top story on the BBC and CNN is the announcement by Clarence House of Prince William of Wales' engagement to Kate Middleton. Personally, I wouldn't mind this being posted as a change from sports and disasters, but I also wouldn't mind not posting it until the wedding next year support. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 13:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Let's wait for the wedding. --Kslotte (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support Preumably, this engagement is going to be quite a big news story around the world. It would look a bit odd if it's missed out here. Rob (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support Its a year away for the wedding, I see no reason not to have the announcement and the actual wedding. If it was Henry i would not be so supportive but William is most likely the next Monarch. Its also UK oriented which is of interest to a sizeable portion of our english readership The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone tolkd his father that? Kevin McE (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Announcement is not notable enough to feature. No doubt the wedding will be, when it happens. Mjroots (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The wedding —the actual formal act of marriage— will be notable. An engagement is not. Support, per Physchim62. It's obviously getting serious coverage, and it is a bit of change from the usual "MILLIONS DEAD" stuff we constantly post. Nightw 13:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support on the "why not?" principle. The engagement is making big news in places like France and Spain. SP says it's the top story on CNN, and it makes it onto the front of the New York Times. Oh, and it's at least as significant as a boxing fight (if not more so). Physchim62 (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this really entitled two ITNs? one for the engagments and one for the wedding. Wedding is the most importantant if we only make decision for one ITN. --Kslotte (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Why not? I don't think there's any rule limiting articles to only one ITN. This isn't like DYK. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 14:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
No, there's no rule about limiting articles on ITN – although any future story about Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir (three ITNs) will have to be pretty good to get past the cynical old hacks around here, and the photo of Fernando Lugo (about two weeks on the template) is a standing joke ;) I don't see that this is any different from posting both the election and the inauguration of Barrack Obama (another ITN regular). Even if there were, we now have an article on the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton, which will no doubt be longer when the day arrives. Physchim62 (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Barack Obama's inauguration was historically significant--first black US president. If William or the bride were black or maybe Muslim, I might see a comparison. But not here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Obama's election was historically significant in the context of the United States, but his inauguration was something we put up because it was all over the news and marked a significant change in situation. Same here, sorry. Physchim62 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
We are not bound by loosely comparable precedent. Kevin McE (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support on the basis of the role of future head of state of more than a dozen of sovereign countries, of the fact that it is a much anticipated event. Also a bit of glamour in the middle of all this doom and gloom is quite pleasant. Hektor (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Let's wait for the wedding. --Tone 14:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
As if we're like overwhealmed with stuff to post... Physchim62 (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support maybe rewrite/rephrase that a bit. It's perfectly notable. This woman is now on course to one day become a Queen, and the whole thing is attracting significant media attention around the world. --Dorsal Axe 14:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. wait till wedding ( if it happens)--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose in favor of waiting. Grsz11 14:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant, it's not even linked from the proposed blurb! Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, whether or not that survives AFD (which it almost certainly will, from the looks of things) has, or should have, no impact on the candidate story here as it's not the focus of the blurb. The wedding article will certainly be the focus when it comes to the actual wedding. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 15:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support if only to take a break from sports/disaster month. We shouldn't wait for the wedding since that's months away. For a comparison, when the President of Poland died in a plane crash earlier this year, we posted his death and funeral within a week of eachother. So posting the engagement and the wedding isn't that bad. DC TC 16:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: Engagement has no legal, canonical or moral status, it is no more than an indication of a future plan. They got engaged in October, today's events are no more than an overhyped form of press release. Kevin McE (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
So what? If they broke it off next month that doesn't mean this is still not newsworthy. If the US said that they "intend to drop the atomic bomb on North Korea next week" would you also oppose, based on the fact that it is simply an indication of a future plan ? Pedro :  Chat  17:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
News media make a call as to what is newsworthy: we make a call as to what current stories are of encyclopaedic interest. They will report widely on speculation as to the custody of the children of a deceased actress: thankfully, we do not. As to your example, most readers will consider a threat of war to be of a different category of notability than a threat to marry, regards of who one's garndmama may be. Kevin McE (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support per Physchim62 and DC. Ks0stm (TCG) 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support - Massive news item; the BBC themselves have just done something on how this is being globally reported as front page. Pedro :  Chat  17:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Noting the opposes below, at the time of posting Google requests regarding this bit of news represent 3 of the top twenty search terms globally in the US, including positions 1 & 2 [23] (not permanent link). The category is "IN THE NEWS". I'm struggling to see how this is anything but global news, that can be supported by the encyclopedia for background information for our readership. Pedro :  Chat  18:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. After scanning various websites, I'm not impressed with the 'massive news' argument here. While widely reported, there's no mention at Xinhua or Al Jazeera (EDIT: there's a mention there now). As far as I can see it's not a top headline outside the UK generally. Considering that this will be posted when the marriage actually happens, I'd say lets wait. Plus, the engagement actually happened last month.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Most of what we post is not "top headline" material in most countries, that's why we continually insist that we are not a news ticker! Considering that the marriage is 6–99 months down the line, why should we be denying ourselves the chance of a decent story, supported by decent articles, that makes a change from our usual fare and which is very much "in the news"? Physchim62 (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The news ticker argument works both ways here. As for the 'change from usual fare' argument, I'd be more convinced if this were of any real significance, not just some 'William get's engaged, Queen delighted, Kate's parents delighted, Kate very happy about the ring", etc. We're gonna have to post this once--that's enough IMHO.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec from below) Not at all. What was the significance of Obama's inauguration, apart from his election by the American people? We have a story, that's in the news worldwide, supported by two decent articles that give thorough background to the story... why not? The story has far more significance than much of the stuff we post! Physchim62 (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
What's the significance here? The Queen's really happy? Kate likes the ring? The ring's really big? That's the type of subject matter that dominates most of the articles on this. Tabloid fodder. I won't even comment on the Obama comparison.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Why won't you comment on the Obama comparison? Because we make an exception for U.S. presidents in posting their inaugurations as well as their elections, even though the inaugurations are simply the logical consequence of their elections? As for the significance, what's the significance of a boxing fight, or a volleyball championship, or an election in Guinea for that matter? Physchim62 (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Having had a quick check around the web using the above criteria - front page news not only South Africa and India, for example, but even papers in the likes of Uruguay and Argentina ( http://www.elpais.com.uy/ / http://www.buenosairesherald.com/ / http://www.losandes.com.ar/ ), even if not every single online newspaper at present. Harami2000 (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - even the wedding would be irrelevant for the main page. Prince William is not even a Crown prince.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
There is one (pretty much same) line of update in both articles. This doesnt yet qualify for ITN with or without notability. And just for future reference this is in the news so post all the top google news argument doesnt not ever work. -- Ashish-g55 18:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The wedding itself may be significant enough, possibly (only because she will presumably one day be Queen Consort). But the engagement really isn't. This is just royal gossip-mongering. Modest Genius talk 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support - as above: very much more "in the news"/"newsworthy" on a world-wide scale than a volleyball world championship. Harami2000 (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment There appear to be two articles: The first has less substance and is at AfD; the second has more substance and is not. One needs redirecting to another; I do not think we can post this while there are two articles on it. wackywace 19:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support: The engagement of a direct heir to the throne of so many countries is notable in and of itself. If they are engaged and do not subsequently marry for whatever reason that would itself make the engagement in such a closely studied family notable - in this case I don't see that you can argue that the wedding itself is the only notable event. Remember also that this is in the news: the announcement of the engagement is intrinsically newsworthy, moreso in some respects than the wedding itself which will be widely anticipated by the time it takes place. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support clearly notable event for the future king of the UK and other commonwealth countries including Canada and Australia. Thus it is of interest to at least 25% of the readership and should be posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose This is a soap opera event, albeit royal soap opera. The marriage will be ITN anyways, and that is officially THE event. Crnorizec (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Support per Physchim62. The engagement of heir to sixteen thrones is notable and newsworthy. --PlasmaTwa2 23:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support per above support arguments. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment. While we have spent twelve hours arguing, 164.9k hits have been registered on Prince William of Wales, and a massive 433.6k hits on Kate Middleton (if you'll excuse the phrase). Physchim62 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Still the #1 viewed and emailed news item on the New York Times, top page on CNN with three out of five of the "Most Popular" slots, front page (twice) on Pravda + now front page on Al Jazeera and Xinhua whereas above it was stated there was "no mention at all... not a top headline outside the UK", etc. Harami2000 (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - widespread news coverage be damned, I'm not convinced that an announcement of engagement can ever be sufficiently encyclopaedic or important to be featured on the main page. I'd be prepared to extend that to marriages as well, actually. These are routine 'events' that only directly affect the couple themselves, and have no relevance to anyone else; and unlike a death, there's no certainty or finality about them. Wikipedia is not a celebrity news website, but an encyclopaedia. Robofish (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. Coverage of this announcement is everywhere. Even the depth/geographic scope of the coverage the announcement got became a news item in of itself on todays lunchtime bulletins in the UK. Compared to some of the other non-entity crap that gets listed on ITN, this is a no brainer whichever way you look at it. The wedding won't happen for (at least 5, and more likely 9) months, that's usually long enough to get not one but two ITN entries for an election in nowheristan. MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Support - World wide coverage [24], [25], [26], [27] and big news interest in the UK, USA and commonwealth countries. --Wintonian (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Belated Strong Oppose. You cannot be serious!!! I have never seen a story so opposed yet still make it to the ITN. Colipon+(Talk) 16:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
As much as I don't like removing the items once they are posted, this one was far from consensus and there was significant opposition to it. Removed. --Tone 17:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, great, now what are you going to replace it with? Eh? We were at 38 hours without an update, and you go and take off a perfectly acceptable story which happens to be making headlines across the world! Pathetic. At this rate we deserve to be the laughing stock of the Main Page. Physchim62 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I must protest. Tone, you opposed the nomination, therefore I don't think you can claim to be WP:UNINVOLVED and would suggest you revert yourself to avoid any appearance of impropriety. I've no opinion on the nomination. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, an involved editor probably shouldn't be intervening in that manner.
However, as a neutral party, I have to agree that there clearly is no consensus for the item's inclusion. —David Levy 17:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. I judged the supports to be much stronger than the opposes, which is the job of the posting administrator. While the latter were numerious, many were based in opinion, and this isn't RfA. On the other hand, the supports were based on the main function of ITN – to "direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." I also took into account the substantial amount of time since the last update. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Misrepresentation: the opposes have centred on the long established principle that we do not post celebrity gossip. Announcement of an engagement (not the fact of it, which was weeks ago), probably equivalent to announcement of an election. When that happened in the UK in April it was all over the news, and probably internationally featured, but it was, quite proper;y, not even proposed for ITN. Kevin McE (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Put it back up. This is stupid. This is in the news and this is important. It effects the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and plenty of other countries. I don't see a better item with half the amount of support this has. --PlasmaTwa2 18:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Seconded, Ed. As an uninvolved party, it is evident that the supports outweigh the opposes, and there had not been an update to the template in quite a while. Now the lead item is one that was added two days ago. Can we either add this back in, or something else as soon as possible. It's embarrassing. wackywace 18:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec)If I count correctly, it is seventeen supports to twelve opposes. That's more than plenty of items have. This kind of shit is exactly why itn doesn't work. --PlasmaTwa2 18:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I see valid arguments from both sides. I'm inclined to lean slightly toward supporting the item's inclusion, but there isn't what I would call "consensus."
I'll note that I don't regard a lack of recent section updates as an appropriate rationale (for any item's inclusion). Past discussions have shown that this, too, is a contentious matter. —David Levy 18:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
as a neutral party im looking at all the arguments above and i dont think there is consensus to post yet. however once it has been posted by someone it might as well stay on since i dont see consensus for the other side (opposition) either. This is 2nd item that got removed, shanghai fire is the other one (removal of that item was very poor judgement). at this rate we are removing items faster than adding lol. -- Ashish-g55 19:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The two possible outcomes are "consensus to include" (item appears) and "no consensus to include" (item does not appear). Formal recognition of "no consensus to remove" would serve as an invitation to post every item for which no consensus emerges (and probably would fuel wheel warring).
Of course, there is disagreement regarding the consensus (or lack thereof) in this instance. And if the item was to be removed, this should have been done by an uninvolved editor. —David Levy 19:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What a mess. I would have called this consensus to post, agreeing with Ed, and think removing it without any further discussion other than an ex post facto oppose was a very poor move. Those type of opposes come in anytime something controversial goes up... but almost never an ex post facto support; because, after all, what's the point wasting time supporting something that is already up? This should go back up. Courcelles 19:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your point regarding retroactive opposition. In fairness, this does not appear to have been the basis of the item's removal. It is, however, unfortunate that an involved editor performed this action. —David Levy 19:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
With 17 supports, 12 opposes, plus a couple supports directly above, I think there is reason enough to put this back up. ITN/C isn't RfA; we don't need a supermajority to post, especially when the opposers are based on opinion or "not twice" (no rule barring the latter), and most of the supporters cite what the basic purpose of ITN is. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
You are the admin, Ed. There is the support for this item and it is pretty clear that there was no consensus to take the item down. You can put it back up if you want and let Tone come on here and argue to take it down, not the other way around. --PlasmaTwa2 19:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
If the item is to be reposted, it would be greatly preferable for any other uninvolved administrator to do it. Otherwise, we'll essentially have two sysops wheel warring. —David Levy 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly why I am not going to be the one to repost. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I commend your decision to respond via discussion instead of reversion. —David Levy 21:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The "not twice" argument is based upon a belief that the wedding itself is the primary topic (and the current buzz can be interpreted as anticipation of that event). We post items for announcements of some events but not others, so which column this should fall under is debatable (and I see no consensus stemming from said debate). —David Levy 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
We post items for announcements of some events but not others, but we post something! We are now at 44 hours without an update, and we have a story backed up by two updated articles in good condition which happens to all over the news all over the world and generating hundreds of thousands of hits on the articles concerned. Physchim62 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I'm inclined to lean slightly toward supporting the item's inclusion, but I reject the premise that the duration between section updates should be a factor. An item either meets our inclusion criteria or doesn't, and I don't believe that we should relax our standards out of desperation. —David Levy 21:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The section is called In The News. The royal engagement has been the top news story around the world since it's announcement, so is clearly in the news. What is the problem? William will some day be king of a large chunk of the English speaking world - perhaps if this included the US there wouldn't be an issue? Forgive my cynicism... 194.205.143.129 (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. The support arguments were, IMO, stronger than the opposition arguments, and the removal by an involved party was rather suboptimal. As such, I posted it again. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully, that will be the end of it. I expect that all of us can agree that switching back and forth makes us appear rather silly. —David Levy 21:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I decline to forgive you for trying to blame this disagreement on American arrogance. FYI, it's a big story in the U.S. too. —David Levy 21:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
@194.205.143.129, if he was Prince of the US too it'd probably be less likely to go up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Soap Opera Guys, the guy is SECOND in line to the throne, the event has no political or other significance, it is an engagement TO BE married, ... A mere soap opera. The media is also full of news about Eva Longoria divorcing Parker, so what? It certainly doesn't have encyclopedic significance, and hence the strong opposition. I think it shouldn't have been posted. Crnorizec (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Given he's Charles' first son its not really plausible that he won't become King. And his father is hardly young these days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
My point exactly: he is likely to marry + he is likely to become king + after Charles likely becomes king ≠ Significant news. But then, it's only IMO. Crnorizec (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Belated switch from oppose to Neutral. Wow a lot of fireworks on this one. I still don't like the substance of this one but there clearly is interest and global coverage (it stepped up a great deal since I commented on it above). I do agree that once it was posted it should have stayed up.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone send this drama over to the Signpost. I think they would appreciate. Colipon+(Talk) 05:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
i must say this was very clean drama. normally something this big leaves atleast few people with some long lasting emotional scars lol -- Ashish-g55 05:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Huh, what a reaction. At least it seems that we have a clearer consensus now, so it's fine with me. I'll try my best not to interfere if I am involved in the discussion in future, otherwise ;-) --Tone 08:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
In defense I think Tone believed that there was clearly and uncontroversially a lack of consensus, and felt that it was ok to go against WP:UNINVOLVED. At least two editors later agreed with that. This turned out to be wrong; however sometimes things can seem clear to one person and not so to another person.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Belated support, for some reason a massive massive story across a considerable area (i.e. the Commonwealth). But holy shit guys.  f o x  01:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
This has to be the longest and most drama-filled ITN/C discussion in years. I opposed, but bow to consensus and the bizarre worldwide fascination with our head toffs. <shrug> Modest Genius talk 01:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Viktor Bout extradited

This story's of quite international interest (BBC; SMH; CNN USA; NYT; Straits Times) and involves authorities in numerous jurisdictions (including the US and Russia). Also, this has dragged out over months, making the case even more in the public eye, so I think this would be quite a change from the usual ITN stuff. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 09:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Suspected arms dealer Viktor Bout is extradited to the United States from Thailand after months of court battles between the U.S. and Russia.
  • Oppose The extradication is a minor thing per WP:NOT#NEWS. Propose posting once (and if) he is convicted. --Kslotte (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support One of the major news right now. Also a conflict between the US and Russia that is making it even more notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with strange passerby that this news would be a good change from the usual ITN news.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

November 15


Building collapse in New Delhi

This seems to be appearing on more news sites by the day and there might be something to this; according to the NYT at least 64 are dead after a building collapsed in New Delhi, India. I'm on the fence about this one: it's a significant death toll and the accident is said to have happened in New Delhi, the modernised area of the capital rather than elsewhere in Delhi; and we don't post collapses all that often. On the other hand, it's an unfortunate accident in an area with building codes that aren't well-enforced, and there isn't even an existing article on it. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 10:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly very similar in notablilty to the 2010 Shanghai fire currently on ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support, once we have an article. Significant death toll and collapses of this magnitude are very rare. Let's start with an entry at List of structural failures and collapses. --Kslotte (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
actually this has killed more people than shanghai fire... but there arent a whole lot of updates that can be made here -- Ashish-g55 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. A lot dead. --candlewicke 22:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support seems notable, India is under-mentioned on ITN too. Maybe the corruption scandal could be mentioned as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting point that. We don't have a lot of India-related items on ITN, but it seems (to me at least) that its neighbour Pakistan gets a lot more coverage on ITN. I could be wrong, I don't have any statistics to hand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I started an article: Lalita Park building collapse. --Kslotte (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant death toll in a very notable city. I'm just worried about the news coverage. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Support pending expansion. Significant incident, but the article is short. ~AH1(TCU) 22:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Guinean presidential election, 2010

Remember this one? Well, according to the BBC and AFP, the winner is Alpha Condé. Physchim62 (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Note to Gamova fans: we have no images of Condé, so you can still have your favorite Russian volleyball player on the Main Page for a bit longer! Physchim62 (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, they took their time. Sounds good to me, but the article needs updating (both with prose and a results table). Modest Genius talk 22:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I've only just finished cleaning it up [28]! There's a bit more in the news media now, so I should be able to do a prose update. Suggestions for a blurb would be welcome, as I'm having a bit of an inspiration failure on this one. Physchim62 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Modest Genius talk 22:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Support and a good blurb. First democratic president election in Guinea. --Kslotte (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Posted --Stephen 23:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
with 1 support are you serious? noteworthy enough already that toerh sovereign state elections werent posted?Lihaas (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This was also discussed on the day of the election, where there was consensus that it should go up once we knew the results. Physchim62 (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Prior strong consensus (one oppose on the grounds of too many elections at one time, who switched to support this one), plus ITNR consensus, plus nominator, plus blurb suggestion, plus my agreement. --Stephen 03:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
An election is ITNR, which means it has consensus by default.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. The whole point of ITNR is to bypass the need for support/oppose !votes here. All that is required is a sufficient update. Modest Genius talk 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Important: The main significance of this event is arguably not the outcome, but rather that these were the country's first democratic elections (BBC). Nightw 09:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support agree with kslotte.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

NASA announces black hole discovered in earth's vicinity

Press conferance topic just announced. __meco (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose. This is nowhere near the Earth, it's not even in the Local Group. The only 'new' thing about it is that the supernova went off recently enough for it to have been observed. Also, as far as I can find no journal paper has been published, which is a minimum standard for science stories. Modest Genius talk 19:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Having now read the paper, I'm reiterating my strong opposition. This a run-of-the-mill piece of astronomy research, of the type I read almost every day (I'm a professional astronomer). This has been hyped up by NASA for very little reason, and makes it seem like they couldn't find anything better for their PR. Modest Genius talk 19:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
So it is a black hole after all! Let's just put a black square as the image ;-) Support when the article is expanded and when we have a journal reference (seems interesting enough to me...). --Tone 19:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
OMG, black hole, shall we all die? %) Strong support for the Black Square! But please, keep Gamova for some time, while we are still enjoying life... Well, weak support leaning to oppose. The article is too small, the notability of the event is not reflected in the current revision. GreyHood Talk 19:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment according to my sources, the black holes ARE in fact square... So, full support for the Black Square! Regarding the news, it's just NASA looking for more attention (=budget). Crnorizec (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
i dont know if a published paper is required for this story. NASA's announcement should be good enough. what is interesting about this story is that this black hole could be 30 years old. what sucks is that its pretty far away and it may be a neutron star instead of black hole. but im leaning towards support if article gets any better -- Ashish-g55 19:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
We have a published paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newast.2010.09.004 Physchim62 (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Reading now, but since it's in New Astronomy (a minor, low-prestige astronomy journal, not even in the top 10, which we don't even have an article about) doesn't exactly fill me with anticipation. Modest Genius talk 19:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support since a paper has been published, and there are multiple stories on Google News. wackywace 19:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Grossly exaggerated event in my perception. __meco (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No 50 million light years is not in the vicinity of earth. This black hole is in another galaxy. We have very large black hole in the center of our own galaxy, among others. The closest I've heard of is a mere 1,600 light years away.[29] Jehochman Talk 21:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
i think the heading to this nomination is misleading. This is not about the closest but rather the youngest black hole. NASA is not saying its close they are saying its the closest black hole this young. -- Ashish-g55 22:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This is correct, but so what? There's nothing special about a young black hole. The only use that can be is that we saw the supernova that formed it. Whilst this might tell us something about supernovae, it tells us nothing about black holes. Modest Genius talk 22:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Meh. Several or more gamma ray bursts are observed every day. Each signifies the formation of a new black hole somewhere. Jehochman Talk 22:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Quoting NASA's page above However, SN 1979C is different because it is much closer and belongs to a class of supernovas unlikely to be associated with a GRB. Theory predicts most black holes in the universe should form when the core of a star collapses and a GRB is not produced. "This may be the first time the common way of making a black hole has been observed," i can understand this still may not be ITN material but please reject it after finding out what the discovery is -- Ashish-g55 22:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
"Discovery" is too strong a word for it: as I see it, it is useful additional data to refine models of this type of supernova. Worthy research, but not ITN. It doesn't seem as if the major news media have fallen for the NASA spin either. Physchim62 (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the heading is misleading (although I added it), but I based it solely on NASA's announcement of the press conference and then the topic screen for the press conference once that became available a couple of minutes before the conference began. So blame NASA for hyperbolizing this event. __meco (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Modest Genius. I'll take it from him that the discovery is not very notable, and I see his reasoning. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Very cool, but not notable enough for main page. Derild4921 03:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Shanghai fire

Shanghai fire leaves at least 42 dead. Article required. Death toll is pretty big. 2010 Shanghai fire - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I just started 2010 Shanghai high-rise fire. We'll need some time to expand the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Oops, there's two articles on it now. Which one should we develop?--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
A redirect required. :P. So I think the name of the article is simple 2010 Shanghai fire, not high-rise fire. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm easy, but I would say that there are surely many fires in Shanghai every year, so perhaps a slightly more precise title is useful, or maybe not.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
2010 Shanghai apartment fire maybe. But wait. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Dozens killed, more injured; title should be 2010 Shanghai fire (as it is now) because there's no reason to be more specific if we have no other articles on other fires (per MOS). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support seems to be rare with these type of extent fires. Only a few per year. --Kslotte (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Posted --Stephen 22:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Support, belatedly, but shouldn't admins be waiting for firmer agreement or consensus before posting something that's not on WP:ITNR? I can understand the Guinean election but this should have waited for a wider consensus imo. StrPby (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Two or three comments is fine for an ITNR event (whose significance is already established), but there needs to be more than two support !votes before non-ITNR events go up. Btw, I'm neutral on this particular item. Modest Genius talk 00:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Update: 49 people killed. ~AH1(TCU) 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The nominator, plus article creator, plus two supports, plus my agreement makes five in (albeit partially assumed) agreement over five hours. --Stephen 01:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't buy that. Very rarely do we just jump to posting new entries after just, as you said, "five hours". Even with a massive consensus in support, it can take time. I don't believe there was enough time for any opposition to be made known at all, given these can often take up to two days. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 09:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You can't count the nominator and yourself as votes. The posting administrator is supposed to wait for consensus, not form the consensus themself by casting a !vote (and then not even recording it here). Traditionally the nominator has not been counted either. Modest Genius talk 19:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Deatholl at 53 Xinhua The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record I was not supporting or opposing. I created an article, which at the time I felt might become notable enough to support as the story developed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The posting seems to be reverted, because of an AfD. Let's wait until the AfD resolves. --Kslotte (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It was pulled from the template by the same admin who started the AfD. That seems like something of a conflict of interest to me. Modest Genius talk 00:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. Per WP:SK#Procedural closure, articles on the Main Page cannot be AFD'd unless unlinked (and since this isn't possible for ITN, removed). If the admin – as an editor – wants to AFD the thing, it seems perfectly fine to me that he as an admin would do the admin thing necessary. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 00:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The intention of that rule is that articles should not be taken to AfD until they've cycled off the Main Page. This idea is that people wait until it wouldn't be a problem before starting the AfD. If there's a problem that's so bad it merits immediate removal, it should be brought up at WP:ERRORS, where a quick discussion can be held - if the problem is really that bad it won't take long. Directly removing an item in order that an AfD could be started seems like gaming the system (especially since it was done with no discussion, or even notification). Modest Genius talk 01:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree, that seems a particularly despicable form of "drive-by adminning" to me. We've seen it before with people tagging articles with orange cleanup tags just to push their own PoV. If it wasn't so late in Europe at the moment, I'd kick up a fuss about it. Physchim62 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Not only did this have full support here but there seems to be almost unanimous keep support at AfD too (for fairly obvious reasons). Its fairly annoying when an admin decides they can edit the main page however they like just because they have been given the power to do so. If they felt like it needed an AfD then it should have been on talk page first. or atleast bother to come down here to see that it went up there for a reason. -- Ashish-g55 01:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

─────────────── I'm not assuming bad WP:FAITH of User:Shirik but, if the criteria of WP:SK#Applicability cannot be applied to such a case, or applied as "If an article will be AfD'ed, the related news must be removed from ITN", we find a new, simple and effective way to pull anything out of the WP:ITN without a deep discussion at WP:ERRORS. If someone wants to pull a news out there, just have the article AfD'd (the AfD may be very WP:SNOW) and request admins to remove the news due to the AfD. If he is an admin, it would be easier, he can directly remove the news, and his reason for removing is his AfD. So WP:SK#Applicability should be more clear to indicate that a procedure of discussion at WP:ERRORS is obligatory. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Now death toll at 79 and 36 missing. Someone close the AfD and re-add it to the ITN? Obviously a consensus for keep or a SK. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • AfD is closed. It is time to post. --Kslotte (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree, let's get this back up. I was never a great fan of the story, but it's passed and so should be up on the Main Page. Physchim62 (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It's on WP:ERRORS - far too much WP:BUREAUCRACY for my liking on this one :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Update, Still 53 deaths claimed by xinhua (See discussion Talk:2010 Shanghai fire#Still 53 deaths), 36 missing, more than 100 injured. Posted to WP:ERRORS#2010 Shanghai fire. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mexico resort explosion

Six people including one minor were killed in a natural gas explosion at a resort in Playa del Carmen, Mexico. CNN --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Unfortunate incident, but NOTNEWS applies here. I doubt any article on it would survive AfD. StrPby (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Im sorry for all this mess, but im a fresher here. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries, We Believe you are acting in Good Faith. You're learning the ropes we are deal with more boneheaded noms with much more experienced editors. ;-) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure WP:NOTNEWS is a valid objection for Wikipedia in the news. AfD isn't necessarily an issue; ITN entries are often linked to sections of larger articles. But this probably isn't big enough news.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, minor disaster, there were probably many car crashes just in Mexico on the same day which killed more people than this. Modest Genius talk 19:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Four Canadians killed in the blast, so it hits hard for me, but it's not notable enough for ITN. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Qantas grounds another Boeing 747

Another Qantas Airways flight carrying 199 passengers was forced to turn back to Sydney, Australia because of an electrical problem. CNN --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, not every single story on CNN is ITN-able, let's not waste time. StrPby (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose How long until this has its own article? Grsz11 15:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Mre to the point, how long would the article survive before an AfD nomination? Minutes? Hours, maybe? Physchim62 (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
For your very kind information and with no disrespect intended, I haven't created any article like Qantas grounds another Boeing 747 and you guys are talking about deleting it!!!. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Woah Nelly!! No disrespect was intended I'm sure. But in order for an item to be posted to ITN, either a new article (which is suitably notable) has to be created, or an existing article has to have content added. Plenty of ITN entries are linked to sections of pre-existing articles. However, it does appear unlikely that either of those criteria will be met here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose, non-event with no article. Modest Genius talk 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

2011 Southern Sudanese independence referendum

Voter registration begins in Sudan for a referendum on 9 January 2011 to decide whether or not Southern Sudan should remain as a part of Sudan or secede.[1] --Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Come on, voter registration?! Not something we should be wasting ITN inches on. StrPby (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Why not!!?? the Sudan Independence referendum will soon be a pressing issue. Who cover it right from now??? --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the fact it would violate WP:NOTNEWS? The referendum and elections, when they happen, will be notable and easily pass. Simple voter registration, definitely not. StrPby (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay! --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. May be ITN-worty if and when Southern Sudan gets independence. --Kslotte (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright, lets see what will happen in the future. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Try again when the referendum actually happens. Registering voters is not a story. Modest Genius talk 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, extremely minor event. The election might warrant a blurb, but voter registration is multiple orders of magnitude away from that level of importance. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The referendum itself will obviously be notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Haiti cholera outbreak

The death toll has soared to 917: "international organisations appeal for funds to fight epidemic". --candlewicke 04:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not on topic: where did the previous donations go? Nergaal (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
We've already had this on ITN. [30]. --Stephen 05:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose This cholera outbreak thing must have been covered by the Hurricane Tomas blurb. So we dont actually need an extra blurb. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. When we last had it on ITN, just a few days ago, our readers simply weren't interested in reading an article on the outbreak (stats). Physchim62 (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The stats is inaccurate because of article name changes. Anyway, oppose because the article have already been on ITN. --Kslotte (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
My bad, I didn't notice the name change as the names are so similar. However, stats on the previous name are hardly glorious either. Physchim62 (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I dunno, an average of just over 5k per day isn't bad. DYK consider 5k such an achievement that they keep a record of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Though saying that.... [31] HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Woah. Apparently people actually like boxing! This surprises me. Modest Genius talk 22:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course. The laughingly ITN rejected and almost deleted Pacquiao-Dela Hoya match got a ton of more hits despite not being on the Main Page than the UEFA Euro 2008! Of course European sport made it that year. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, UFC 122 done on the same day, also had massive view stats. This, of course did not beat UFC 121 when Brock Lesnar lost the heavyweight championship. If we add infinitesimal events such as hurling and snooker (heck even darts was suggested before), why are we ignoring these boxing and MMA? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
5k hits/day is in the lowest 10% of ITN stories in terms of click-through rate. We put it up with the best of intentions, but the readers didn't go for it. Maybe they're bored of Haiti stories, or maybe they just thought there wasn't anything else they wanted to learn about this particular cholera outbreak. Either way, it's pretty pointless giving them more of the same! let's leave that to DYK and their series of cookie-cutter articles on Croatian road tunnels and the like! Physchim62 (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Conditional support once the toll reaches 1,000+. ~AH1(TCU) 01:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as its already been on WP:ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Iraq election#Government_formation

apparently wasnt posted at the time of the official results (even though most election get posted on result date). But a govt. is formed now after over 6 months (a global record (but i forget the source thereof)). certainly has more than some global signifiance, amd was previously cited as a reason for so much instability for which weve posted seeral bombings since. (We know now that the next big bombing since the govt will also have importance enough to post) Lihaas (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. It seems a bit premature for the moment, judging from this BBC article. Physchim62 (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
understand your concern, but the walkout seems to have happened after agreement Lihaas (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
But before formal nomination or parliamentary approval. Physchim62 (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Not yet. I agree with Physchim62, it is not widely covered in the news. And it is too soon to post something like that. Let's wait. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

November 14


NASA's Chandra News Conference

Yes, I know that this is crystal balling, but they say that the conference is to discuss the Chandra X-ray Observatory's discovery of an exceptional object in our cosmic neighborhood; so unless this is a PR stunt, this has a slight chance to be really big news. Nergaal (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-157_Chandra_Update.html
  • Support if and only if this gets wide coverage in the media, and it is perceived by the media to be a big discovery. For all I know, NASA may hype things up like this all the time; but the press release does seem to imply this will be a newsworthy discovery. wackywace 19:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
If it is a brown dwarf satellite of the Sun, or a nearby black hole, news agencies will pick it up. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose until any discovery is published in a peer-reviewed journal. NASA has a long track record of "hyping things up like this" (and they're not the only ones!). Physchim62 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to insufficient information Seeing how vague the press release is, I can't comment until we know something concrete. This could be something big or something a that will only matter to a few astrophysicists. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify: I meant this nom, only iff something interesting is announced. I did not mean to nominate the announcement for the conference to go up ITN before it happens, but only what is announced iff is interesting enough. Nergaal (talk)
  • Support if and only if. I agree with the nominator. Let's build up some enthusiasm for this one :-) __meco (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support pending results following conference. Seems interesting. ~AH1(TCU) 03:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, renominate once there's actually something to look at. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This is presumably the black hole nominated above? As a procedural point, it would be best to wait until there's some idea of what the announcement actually is before nominating here. There's no way anyone can tell if it's significant or not based on hype and no actual information. Modest Genius talk 19:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Physchim62. NASA is notorious for overhyping things like this. Offliner (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Robin Söderling

Swedens Robin Söderling wins his first Masters 1000 event title, at the 2010 Paris Masters by beating French player Gael Monfils.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I fail to see why this is any more important than any other tour event. We post the tennis majors, none of the other tour events. Modest Genius talk 19:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Women's Volleyball World Championship

Russia defends its champion title at the 2010 Women's Volleyball World Championship in Japan, with Yekaterina Gamova becoming the tournament MVP. FIBV GreyHood Talk 14:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Support though I fear this item will be crowded out by a number of other sports items, with two currently on the template and a 3rd probably on the way. As I have noted elsewhere this is a quadrennial competition and we rarely if ever post volleyball news, and it is a fairly notable team sport.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not overly enthusiastic about this. We've already got the Asian Games on ITN, plus F1 and boxing that went up today. That's a lot of sport fir a section not dedicated to sport. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, if a number of ITN-worthy sporting events coincide in time, does this really mean that some of them should not be included? Not so long ago almost the whole of the ITN box consisted of the reports on Nobel Prizes, for example, and sometimes there are too many deaths. That happens. GreyHood Talk
Strong oppose at the moment. The reason for strong is that there is no prose in the article, apart from the two-sentence introduction. And yes, there are three sport items on ITN at the moment and I believe all of them drew wider attention than this event. Tone 15:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I am happy with the prose update. Let's say neutral now. --Tone 18:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Wider attention varies regionally in this case. 2010 Women's Volleyball World Championship is among the top news in Russia, Brazil and Japan at the moment, while the Asian Games are virtually unnoticed in Russia and Brazil, for example. As for the prose in the article, I may look to that a bit later. GreyHood Talk 15:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Greyhood, volleyball gets a fair bit of attention in many countries. The article can easily be improved.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Note. The article's prose has been expanded by Johnsemlak and me, the blurb has been modified, and a picture proposed. GreyHood Talk 17:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose the FIBA Women's championship wasn't posted last month (discussion), no indication of why this is more important. DC TC 17:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
But the woman's MVP is much hotter than the MVP from the men's tournament. :-D--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's a towering argument ;) GreyHood Talk 18:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as I see, the FIBA Women's nomination received equal support and oppose last time, and one of the strongest arguments was that the event is not on the WP:ITNR and that there are more important basketball events. In the present case, I have to confirm that strangely there is no Volleyball on the WP:ITNR at all, despite the fact that even such things as the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship were given some place there %). In such a context, I can just concur with Johnsemlak and propose that volleyball also has to be reported sometimes, at least in order to keep some relevant balance between the international sports on the ITN (see Modest Genius on the old FIBA discussion). And I can't say that women's voleyball is so much less popular compared to men's, as in the case of basketball with its obvious gender gap in attention. GreyHood Talk 18:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In order to avoid overloading the template with sports news, I suggest adding this and removing the Asian Games, which is the lowest sports item currently on the template.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong support female sports are typically underrepresented in the ITN. Volleyball of all sports is probably by far more popular for females than males. Even though one might argue that the pro might not attract as many viewers worldwide, the amateur sport is the most practiced sport worldwide (more people play volleyball than soccer at amateur level). Nergaal (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Support per Nergaal, people are always keen to put stuff up which hasn't seen extensive coverage in the western media, this seems similar. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Posted and Asian Games removed per the suggestion above. I'll add the MVP a little later. She's much easier on the eyes than Vettel, but he hasn't been up long and we don;t know when we'll next have a usable image. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I just hope there will be no picture of a nearby black hole from NASA tomorrow ;) GreyHood Talk 20:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Technically, there can be no picture of the black hole... ;-) --Tone 20:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Hopes come true! %) GreyHood Talk 20:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Technically I think you can see the glow from a black hole by X-rays and Gamma-rays. Nergaal (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Oh no.. I remember the picture of myself in X-rays, and it wasn't pleasant. And X-rayed black hole definitely sounds fearsome. %) GreyHood Talk 21:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes, or the accretion disc or things like that but that's not the black hole itself... Anyway, this does not have much to do with the volleyball :D --Tone 21:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Post-post oppose. Minor sport, with little media coverage. An even bigger problem is the article, which consists of just 2 paragraphs of prose, plus a load of tables. This went up when the !vote was 3.5 to 2, hardly consensus (now of course 3.5 to 3). Modest Genius talk 19:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Formula One season ends

Is on WP:ITN/R, but just for formalities' sake, the F1 season ends with the final race in Abu Dhabi today. The 2010 champion will also be decided in the next three hours; we'll know whether Sebastian Vettel or Mark Webber have won their first title or Fernando Alonso or Lewis Hamilton have regained the crown. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 12:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and per WP:ITN/R, a mention should also probably be made in the final blurb that Red Bull Racing won the constructors' title. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 12:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The article's in reasonable shape, so it just needs to be updated with the winner when the race ends. Meanwhile, I'm open to blurb suggestions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
"Sebastian Vettel becomes the youngest ever Formula One world champion, winning the 2010 Formula One season..." The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Rambling Man, posted (ITNR). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Could I suggest we put back the picture of Suu Kyi? I'm normally in favor of having the photo match the nearest item on the template, but frankly, the F1 winner's significance pales in comparison to her release.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Death of Luis García Berlanga

  • "One of the giants of Spanish cinema" who was "considered a 'classic' of Spanish cinema and won several prestigious awards during his career" (AFP).
  • El País - "With Luis Garcia Berlanga dies a style, a voice, the vision of a country, a culture and a philosophy on the human race".
  • Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero - "one of the great film-makers of Spanish culture".
  • Culture Minister Ángeles González-Sinde - "The work of Luis Garcia Berlanga remains the same as that of any other past master of literature, painting or music of this country".
  • Canadian Press - "Critical of the military dictatorship under Gen. Francisco Franco [...] credited with helping to revive the country's movie industry after its civil war".
  • The Latin American Herald Tribune says he made a public appearance as recently as May and that his awards include the National Cinema Prize (1981), Fine Arts Gold Medal (1983), Prince of Asturias Prize for the Arts (1986). The Wikipedia article says also mentions awards at Cannes Film Festival, International Film Festival of Valencia, Montreal World Film Festival and Berlin Film Festival, as well as the Goya for best director ("the Spanish equivalent to the Academy Awards"). --candlewicke 04:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. What is all this?? Something this huge cannot be posted at once, make everything clear. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not seem to have considered him very important: his article at the time of his death consisted of 14 lines of prose, plus a list of films. And even the es.wiki equivalent consisted of rather less. If he was not of high enough profile 2 days ago for there to have been demand for a more comprehensive article, he is not of high enough profile today for ITN, so oppose. Kevin McE (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as per Kevin McE. Even now the article has only one reference.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

November 13


Manny Pacquiao vs. Antonio Margarito

Boxing match for the WBC Super Welterweight Championship: if Pacquiao wins, he'd be the first Octuple champion (the article doesn't even exist yet); if Margarito wins he beat the only universally-recognized Septuple champion in history. In either case, what ever happens there'll be a world record broken. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Manny Pacquiao became the first boxer to become a octuple champion by defeating Antonio Margarito.
Pacquiao beats Margarito in dominating performance (CBS Sports)
Our ITN friends are slightly allergic for U.S.-centric news sources. Here are European links: BBC and Le Monde. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Russian source, though I should point out that the Russian media is also reporting the David Haye heavyweight victory, as is the BBC. Perhaps we could report both fights in one blurb? The Haye fight isn't such a unique achievement but it was a heavyweight title fight.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I Guess it is better for DYK. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Support obviously a notable achievement and the match seems notable too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. Boxing is still a very popular sport worldwide and Pacquiao is one its more popular stars. The only thing that could be bigger than this would be the Pacquiao-Mayweather fight, whenever that happens.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Resignation of the French Prime Minister

François Fillon has resigned today. If he is not reappointed, I think that a new Prime Minister of France should make ITN. Hektor (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes for the new Prime Minister, no for the resignation on its own. France has a presidential system, so the Prime Minister is under the orders of the President. Fillon won't be reappointed, this has been trailed for months. Physchim62 (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, the most likely outcome is that he is reappointed. That's why I wrote "If he is not reappointed..." Hektor (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, standard Cabinet reshuffle by Nicolas Sarkozy and not notable unless (even if?) a new Prime Minister is chosen. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 01:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Fillon has been reappointed, so this is just a standard cabnet reshuffle. Not the sort of thing we usually post. Physchim62 (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Aung San Suu Kyi

Aung San Suu Kyi is released from house arrest in Burma. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong support Extremely notable event in Burma and around the world. wackywace 11:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Pending some more update and a reference, then ready to post. --Tone 11:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Note: Consensus to post already reached below under November 12. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 11:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Release referenced. Mjroots (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe there should be more of an update. Multiple references and a full paragraph at least is the general requirement as per the criteria.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support Yes and it is kind of a revolution. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Posted. The update meets minimal requirements and the article will be expanded further, no doubt. --Tone 12:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Post-post support. This is quite a great moment for Myanmar, and I'm glad it finally took place. Let's hope she's not ousted back into house arrest, for goodness' sake. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Thai floods

A series of flash floods that hit various areas in Thailand killing 215 people causing a damage of at least US$1.676 billion. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

As the Colombo article below, this is essentially covered by the Jal article already. Maybe that blurb could be expanded to take in these local effects. Kevin McE (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The entry below is not related to Cyclone Jal in any way. Rehman 11:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The Jal article only gives a breif of both colombo and this. The main article coveres everything about the flooding in thailand. Just as the colombo article, this article too is not related to Cyclone Jal in any way. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite a bold claim when the article itself notes the floods were caused by a tropical depression (which eventually became Jal). How is that "not related"?! Oppose on its own; support as part of an enhanced Jal blurb. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 12:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The southern Thailand floods were caused by Jal's precursors, not the northern. I was quite foolish to say "This article too is not related to Cyclone Jal in any way". --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could combined all the floods into a single blurb unrelated to Jal: "Floods across Asia in Malaysia, Thailand and Sri Lanka kill at least 200 people and cause billions of dollars worth of damage." Personally, still unsure (and still opposed to the Sri Lanka one) at the moment. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 12:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So, lets forget about Sri Lanka floods and try to post the Malay and Thai flood article on the ITN. Agree? --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Support merge with Cyclone Jal blurb and 2010 north Malaysian floods. ~AH1(TCU) 15:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so do it please. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Colombo floods

Massive floods took place from about 19:00 on the 10th, to 11:00 on the 11th in Colombo. I just found the above article, and is quite a significant event; highest rainfall in 18 years, according to the Sri Lanka Meteorological Department. Rehman 02:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the article is a mess, I think it is a significant entry. Perhaps we could fix the article now (I can do it)? The floods has nothing to do with Cyclone Jal, which dissipated way back on the 8th over western India, far from Sri Lanka. Google up "Sri Lanka floods" and see what I mean. Rehman 02:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Update: Working on the article now. All help is welcomed. Rehman 03:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Update: Cleaned the article. It should probably be alright to put up now. Rehman 04:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is too short for ITN --Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Where does it say that article size matters for ITN? Rehman 11:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
We don't put stubs on the Main Page, I thought that was an unwritten rule. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 11:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the old stub tag. I have added it when I first saw that page (and forgot to remove after performing updates). The article is now no longer a stub. Rehman 11:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Stubs aren't judged by the existence of a stub tag on the article. For example, WP:DYK considers anything less than 1,500 characters (minus headings, infoboxes, references etc) as a stub. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 12:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I removed the stub tag per Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Grades. It may also qualify as a C-Class given the info with sources. Rehman 12:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Uh... I think, looking at WP:METEO (which I suspect this would fall under), it's nowhere close. But we're digressing. It's not long or detailed enough for ITN yet imo. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 12:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I'll give a shot in expanding further tomorrow, and probably try adding images too. All help is welcomed. Rehman 14:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support merge with Jal blurb. ~AH1(TCU) 15:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
But the thing is Jal has nothing to do with this... Rehman 15:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Update: Expanded article; now has sufficient information with many reliable local and foreign sources. I think its now good to go. Rehman 08:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose alone; conditional support if posted as a wider Asia-wide floods blurb (as suggested above under Thailand). Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 09:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess that would be fine. My main point which I think it qualifies ITN is because it dropped 490 mm (19.3 in) in less than 24hrs, the highest in 18yrs; I personally think thats a significant event. But as a side note, this has nothing to do with any of the other flood incidents or Cyclone Jal, so I don't know how far it would fit as one entry. Rehman 09:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Have any casualties occurred in Sri Lanka? Recent flooding in the past few months in Vietnam have killed close to 200 people, and that was not posted on ITN. ~AH1(TCU) 17:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Just one. But if you ITNers think its not a good entry, then I'd withdraw. ;) I thought it would be a nice entry per the record rainfall. Can't find any more stuff to put in the article... Kind regards. Rehman 02:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry if you felt sad about not being approved after a long discussion. But i still feel that it shouldnt be posted. It is a less than one day flooding and with only one fatality, it is not very much important as such flash floodings are very common and when it comes to record rainfall, it is very closely related to Cyclone Jal. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Uh well, thanks. But I did not exactly felt "sad" as such. Its just that I felt it might be a good entry at ITN. Community consensus is community consensus. I have no problem with, as with any part of Wikipedia. Rehman 11:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
A question to administrators: So have we come up with a decision yet? --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

November 12


Death of Henryk Górecki

One of the most significant modern composers, is attracting media attention and the article seems pretty good. BBC. Modest Genius talk 14:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Support – I was just coming over to nominate this! From the article lead: "his Third Symphony, Symphony of Sorrowful Songs […] became a worldwide commercial and critical success, selling more than a million copies and vastly exceeding the typical lifetime sales of a recording of symphonic music by a 20th-century composer." Symphony of Sorrowful Songs is a featured article. Physchim62 (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  Administrator note: The article itself seems well-maintained. It lacks information on his death, though. Ideally, we'd have a "Death" section or subsection with the how where when etc and some reaction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The article gives useful background to the event, so I support regardless. We're not here to hand out Smarties when we think someone's worked hard enough, but to publicize decent encyclopedic articles about events that are "in the news". Obviously any addition of relevant reaction to his death would be welcome, but shouldn't be a precondition of posting. Physchim62 (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Well that's kind of the purpose of ITN. What's the point of having a blurb on the Main Page about an event that isn't covered in the article. I don't even see a line that says he died, just a date of death in the lead. While normally I wouldn't disagree with you on such things, if a death is significant, the material will not be difficult to find. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, I know we disagree (subtly, not seriously) on that point: in any case, it could do with another support or two before posting. I've added what I could get from the BBC, and done some tense-changing. Physchim62 (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. I was just going to nominate this after reading the detailed and informative article. --candlewicke 18:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support (this is Diego Grez, not logged in due to security concerns.) Good story. 200.111.98.60 (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Diego Grez (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support and I agree with Physchim62. He's in the news now because he died, but what he accomplished during his lifetime is actually more important. — Kpalion(talk) 19:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
He's in the news because he died, so it's usually helpful for the relevant article to say more than "he died". There is currently no update sufficient for ITN criteria and, while I'm not going to be such a policy wonk as to require reams of eloquent prose, something more than a repetition of the blurb is necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
His death is in the news because he was an extremely popular classical composer, and the article discusses that point admirably. Physchim62 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you there. ;) Rightly or wrongly, though, a sentence that imparts little more than "he died" is not considered a sufficient update for ITN. Indeed, WP:ITN explicitly says "Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient." HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I know that's what WP:ITN says ;) and the sentence is poorly worded. We both agree that the article covers a whole host of background information about the news story: I would say that it barely has to be updated, because the information was already there. It is not the same situation as, say, a bomb blast in Baghdad where we have to assemble the information and write an article from scratch; in those cases, we rightly insist that the article contains sufficent background information (apart from that in in the blurb) to make it worth readers' while clicking on the link (and so not to disappoint them when they do). Physchim62 (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Support Nergaal (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTAVOTE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I have expanded the Death section. Sorry I didn't do so earlier, I was at the pub... Modest Genius talk 00:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Glad too see you've got your priorities right! Beer first, dead Polish composers somewhat later ;) Physchim62 (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
... listening to his third symphony at high volume to finish (once this has been posted). Modest Genius talk 00:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Burmese govt to release ASSK

BBC News: "Reports are coming out of Burma saying the military authorities have signed an order authorising the release of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi."

Now, her detention term expires tomorrow, so we may want to hold off until tomorrow when it's up and she's released (or detained afresh), but it's definitely ITN-worthy imo. Strange Passerby (talk • [[Special:Contributions/--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Strange Passerby|contribs]]) 10:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait and See Lets wait and see if they actually follow through. I am personally rather skeptical. Also note the article says "Suu Kyi is not expected to accept a conditional release if it excludes her from political activity." Lets see how it shakes out The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, her detention expires tomorrow, so even if they don't release her, it would still be ITN worthy imo (except that in that case we'd be putting up a blurb about a fresh detention). Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 14:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I am unsure about merely reporting a Political Prisoner continuation of the last ten years of Status quo. If she is realeased I'll give a strong support if she merely has her imprisonment extended I cannot really support that. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support if released. Neutral otherwise. DC TC 14:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
obvious support if released. it'll be big news even if shes not released. so support either way. -- Ashish-g55 15:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Well it could be a while before we know for certain, but apparently her release papers have been signed by The Powers That Be. I'm not sure it would be ITN-worthy if she simply isn't released. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Support if released. --candlewicke 18:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support even if not released its still major news. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Support, if and when she is released. Modest Genius talk 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
And she's out! Support. Now we just need an updated article... Physchim62 (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support when article is expanded further.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Asian Games

Starts today. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:ITN/R. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 11:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Suggested blurb: The 2010 Asian Games, the first held in China for 20 years, open in Guangzhou. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 11:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Change 20 years to two decades. In any case, it should be 'twenty' instead of 20. Also, consider mentioning that the Asian Games is the world's second largest sports event (Reuters) after the Olympics. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE 02:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support But it s hardly worth noting that a competition that only happens every four years with 45 nations participating has held the last four editions somewhere other than the PRC. Courcelles 12:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  Administrator note: Can someone determine whether that {{cleanup}} tag is justified and either fix the article or burn that uselessly vague tag with fire? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Could do with some cleanup, yeah. Lots of bits of ungrammatical English and typographical errors, perhaps from editors who don't have English as their first language. I'd fix it, but it's more than a quarter past one in the morning here and I'd like to be up early tomorrow... Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 17:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I did a copyedit of the whole thing, and I think it was enough to get rid of the tag; if anyone disagrees, feel free to re-add it and direct a long rant, and perhaps a fish, in my general direction. C628 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. Large enough event. --candlewicke 18:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment can some mention of the additional infrastructure be made? Guangzhou has opened several extra metro lines in the last couple of months and I don't believe Asia's rapidly improving infrastructure has received enough attention. Otherwise Support -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Support as above. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE 02:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 G-20 Seoul summit

The summit has been held, but article still lacks the results. --Kslotte (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The article would need some work—there's not a lot of prose in there and there's quite a bit of trivia, lists, pretty graphics and other stuff that makes it look more substantial than it really is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed that noone har updated the article about what actually did get decided. Article would probably be ITN worty, but with an outdated article is a bit pointless. I assume the actual decisions (abstract economic politics) is a bit hard to interprete and understand. --Kslotte (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

November 11


"Massive Bomb" Blast in Karachi

[32]] Bomb levels the Pakistans Criminal Investigation Department base of operations in Karachi and breaks windows two Kilometers away! Information is just coming in over the wires. its asttounding 2 KMs.. We need an article as well.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

BBC News That's a big blast on a significant target (amazing there are any "wires" left to get the news out!) Let's see what sort of article can be made of it. Physchim62 (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
cant keep Pakistan out of the news unfortunately--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
started article: Pakistani Criminal Investigation Department bombing. Give me ten minutes and I will have it at least a good stub The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Done creating stub. Needs more work and sources and updates obsviously The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The Beeb are now reporting 20 deaths, including 5 police officers, though they're also saying the blast was felt 2 miles, not 2km away. That was just before 9pm UTC. It'll probably be morning before we get much more detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
It was within two hours, of the blast. 2 miles if memory serves that means it was felt even farther than initial reports of 2km The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support when started article.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support once a more stable death toll and number of injured people are confirmed, and when the article is expanded (naturally). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Low death toll compared to other major terrorist incidents. --Kslotte (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Death toll isn't the sole criterion on which we decide items for ITN. In this case, this could turn out to be ITN-worthy (we don't really have enough information to decide yet) because there is something unusual about it (the demolition of the HQ of a notable law enforcement agency) other than just the death toll. Like I say, we need to wait for the dust to settle (literally and metaphorically). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, This is the like either the FBI or NSA building being blown up. I really dont have time to contribute all i would like to it right now but its there if some one want to take the initiative. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with HJM and RA on notability: it's one thing to set off a big bomb, and quite another to set off a big bomb that destroys the HQ of the anti-terrorist police in a city of 12 million people! I can't really do much on the article at the moment; we can't post yet, because we only have the initial news reports to go on, but let's see in a few hours time. Physchim62 (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for enlighting the circumstances, I Support it being ITN-worthy. --Kslotte (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. Al Jazeera calls this "a rare attack on government security forces in Karachi [...] far removed from Taliban strongholds in the northwest". --candlewicke 01:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support when article ready. the venue, number of dead and injured are unusual even for Pakistan and make this ITNworthy.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support when ready. Although I wouldn't say the number of dead are 'unusual' (per Wikireader above)....Mar4d (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The article was recently expanded. Ready for posting in my opinion. Blurb suggestions? --Kslotte (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Posted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed article title to CID building attack. Please edit blurb. --Saqib Qayyum (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Done and move-protected because page moves on a whim while the article's on the MP are very annoying. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Draw for 2011 Copa America

Was today ! [33] --Jor70 (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose. When it happens, we'll post the winner. But certainly not the draw, which after all just determines which teams will play each other. Modest Genius talk 00:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose. I can't even imagine this would get much support to post to final. Grsz11 00:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. We don't post draws, otherwise we'd be even more inundated with sport than we currently are. Nominate the final (and preferably tell us what sport it is, I assume it is a sports event?) and it will be considered on its merits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Not newsworthy. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Call of Duty: Black Ops

The game has recently been released and has set quite a impressive 24 hours sales and reception. --Kslotte (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Impressive means what? Anymore details? Grsz11 21:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
"sold an excess of 5.6 million copies in 24 hours in the UK and the US combined" --Kslotte (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
How does that compare to previous video games? This would have to break some records to be considered I think. Grsz11 21:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, best 24 hours ever. Grsz11 21:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. We don't often run gaming stories, which is a good reason to run one when a good story comes along. 5.6M copies in 24 hours is pretty impressive, and is significantly higher than the previous record (4.7M). The article looks in good shape as well. Physchim62 (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support those are some impressive sales totals. DC TC 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per DC and Physchim62. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
What's the record that's been broken? Another support or 2 and I'm willing to post (assuming, of course, that the article has been adequately updated). Blurb suggestions are welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per DC and Physchim. Call of Duty: Black Ops sells 5.6 million copies in its first 24 hours, the most of any video game in that time. It's kinda rough though, not sure how to word it better. Grsz11 22:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
It worked until we got to "in that time"! Any more suggestions while I check the article out? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
'surpassing the record held by <whatever it was>'? And probably 'within 24 hours of going on sale' rather than 'its first 24 hours', which means the first 24 hours of gameplay... Modest Genius talk 22:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Normally, sales for the United States include those in Canada if I am not mistaken. I think naming countries at the end of the blurb is useless; as far as I have read this is the largest opening-day of a game anywhere in the world, period, so why not just say so? --PlasmaTwa2 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There's not much of an update, just one sentence appended on to the lead. At the very least, we'd need a few sentences somewhere n the body. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • What sort of an update do you want with this sort of a story FFS. The article provides excellent background to the blurb: that should be the criterion for posting. Physchim62 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There should at least be something in the body of the article (probably in the 'reception' section). The lead is supposed to be a summary. Modest Genius talk 00:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Two sentences with a reference in the body stating what the record is, when it was broken, which game held it previously and other pertinent details would be satisfactory for me. Then I can go to bed! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Support per DC and Physchim. Crnorizec (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Posted --Stephen 01:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Latin Grammy Awards of 2010"

What exactly is the story here? Modest Genius talk 23:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The Latin Grammy Awards is currently showing right now. I saw how the Grammy Awards of 2010 was posted here, so I thought it would be appropriate to do the same here. If you need another news source, here's another I've got. Magiciandude (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't tell me Latin music has no rights here :P Support. As important as the Anglo-Saxon Grammy Awards. Diego Grez (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose not as significant as the regular Grammies. We don't post the daytime Emmies. DC TC 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
How is it not as significant as the regular Grammies? For the films section, we have French films awards, Italin films awards, and German films awards list under Recurring items. It has the same features as the regular Grammies (Song of the Year, Record of the Year, and Album of the Year). It's presented by Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences. So how is it not "as significant"? Also the Daytime Emmies are awards about TV shows in the morning right? How does that compare to the diverse music of Latin America? Magiciandude (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Support per Diego Grez. The oppose above gives no reason for the suggested insignificance so I don't know how to work out the importance of the Latin Grammy Awards of 2010 from that. But it is reported in other parts of the world, for example Canada and India. The winner Cerati being "a fixture in Latin music for decades" also sounds important as does "several elder statesman of Latin music picked up key awards". Many countries are involved in this type of music so it is not a national award. --candlewicke 01:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Support as per above and the fact i just saw news about it here in Canada ...Looks like a Canadian might win something and i can only presume that people from all around the world will win awards. I think this is very interesting, main stream and something our readers will find interesting.Moxy (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that the awards are over, how is this for a headline?

Okay, so there no one else seems to object this being list on the main page. Is this a go? Magiciandude (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The article needs more prose update. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone went ahead and updated the article already. In addition, I've posted some highlights similarly to 52nd Grammy Awards article. Magiciandude (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Can someone just approve or reject this headline already? I don't mean to be impatient, but the consensus has been supportive and I think I've fixed the above problem. Magiciandude (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
ITN doesn't work on summary rejection or approval like other processes, such as DYK. Instead, it relies on a consensus being formed that a) the event is significant enough and b) the article is of sufficient quality and has been updated. This can take time, but, as one of the most active admins around ITN, I can assure you it isn't being overlooked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Looking further at this, the article is certainly no worse than 52nd Grammy Awards which, even now, has roughly the same, of not less, prose. However, I'm far from convinced that we should consider the posting of a similar article nearly 10 months ago to be ratio decidendi, nor that we yet have a consensus to post this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Well look at this way. The headlines for the 52nd Grammy Awards were Taylor Swift (album of the Year), Kings of Leon, and Beyonce. They were Americans but each of them performed different genres. With the Latin Grammy Awards, the album of the year went to a Dominican Republic singer, song of the year and record of the year went to a Mexican pop band, and the person of the year went to a Spanish tenor. So it wouldn't really be the same thing as posting the 52nd Grammy Awards. Magiciandude (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. We can't start posting the awards ceremonies for each specific genre of music; we'd never stop. These awards also appear to be limited to the US (please correct me if I'm wrong). Modest Genius talk 02:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
As Candlewickle pointed "Many countries are involved in this type of music so it is not a national award." Latin music isn't a just one genre. Both Candlewick and Moxy also pointed out, there are headlines around the world for this ceremony. I also want to point out that the Latin Grammy Awards is the only other Grammy Award ceremony. There isn't any other seperate "Grammy Awards" that are presented. Magiciandude (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Latin American music, often called Latin music, is the music of all countries in Latin America".
  • "Latin America has an area of approximately 21,069,500 km² (7,880,000 sq mi), almost 3.9% of the Earth's surface or 14.1% of its land surface area. As of 2010, its population was estimated at more than 580 million". That sounds like more people than there are in the United States. The first few paragraphs of the article Latin Grammy Awards of 2010 mention winners from Spain, Mexico, Cuba, Canada, Dominican Republic... --candlewicke 03:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So is this still a no-go or what? Is there something else that needs to be addressed? Magiciandude (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

November 10


2010 student protest in London

- Major demonstration in central London, with most reports indicating that 50,000 people took to the streets in protest. The headquarters of the ruling political party has been attacked and occupied by protestors. Pretty big news in the United Kingdom and Europe. Occurred in the centre of a major world city.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

Weak oppose. Not a large protest by global standards; even in Europe cf. the recent protests in France, Greece etc. Modest Genius talk 20:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Additional: the protests did not 'descend into a riot' as some have said below. One building had it's windows smashed and lobby vandalised. That's not a riot. Modest Genius talk 03:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak support interesting story, has been getting some int'l attention. And it's been a pretty slow month. DC TC 20:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose 50k is pretty small really. 4x smaller than the Rally to restore sanity and/or fear in the US which wasn't posted (and yes the UK has a smaller population than the US, but the US is much more spread out). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Did the rally descend into a riot? Because that's really why this particular demonstration in London has been put foward. I'd say numbers doesn't really matter, provided something unusual happened. --86.23.33.79 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Reading the news reports now. Though Riot police our out the most dangerous things I am reading is the Peaceful sit in, some fruit being thrown and maybe a beer bottle. My Campus calls that a damn good party not a quite a riot The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Then try watching it. This isn't peaceful. --86.23.33.79 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak Oppose The only reason I am not outright opposing is due to its interest to substantial Portion of English readers. That being said to put it in perspective its still half the size of the Restoring Honor Rally (even by the most skeptical estimates) and a fraction of the Size of recent french Riots or Rally to Restore Sanity. It appears the only novel thing in this case is the occupation of ruling party's building. I am not sure if thats an "official building" or an office building. So no I dont think we should post it. As always I am open to being persuaded. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, its the building that their headquarters are found within. Whether the protestors actually broke into the HQ or not still doesn't seem clear. They certainly amde it into both the reception and the roof.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
Thank you for that clarification. Since it's not a Government building combined with the article being a wreck. I am staying with Weak oppose unless something really dramatic happens The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Support - Todays biggest news story. Good article, expande I guess.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose per modest genius. 50k is rather small for a mostly non-violent protest (I mean, no deaths). SpencerT♦C 22:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak support not the largest of protests by volumes, but infiltrating the Tory HQ is quite a notable aspect of it, although this is a very domestic affair. It's quite rare to get deaths from protests in democracies such as the UK anyway. The article is looking good, too. Jolly Ω Janner 23:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Hold on, 50k demonstrators? About a subject (the details of funding of university courses) which isn't much interest outside England & Wales (not even the entire UK)? Add a bit of violence against the building holding the source of their frustrations and were supposed to post this? See Poll Tax Riots for notable demonstrations in London. Physchim62 (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Support, fairly major event. I think that 50k is lots for a protest. meshach (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak support since the political HQ was occupied in this case. The rest sounds very very familiar and very last Wednesday... right down to the "largest student protest in a generation" line which is in the article... and when taking the populations of the two countries into account this protest does seem rather small. --candlewicke 02:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Suggest: British students Protesters occupy the headquarters of the ruling Conservative Party in protest against planned spending cuts to further education and an increase in tuition fees by the United Kingdom coalition government. --candlewicke 02:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
If this is to be posted, which currently looks unlikely, the I'd suggest replacing "British students" with just "protesters". Certainly not all of them were students (there were university lecturers on the march and other people who joined just to cause trouble or for the thrill) and "British" would imply it affects the whole of the UK, but the issue is just about tuition fees in England and Wales. Sometimes, I almost wish I were Scottish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right, that's probably better. --candlewicke 02:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose. As strongly as I feel on the subject (strongly enough that I would have been there if I could have afforded to get to London), this isn't big enough for ITN. It's just one demonstration in one city and there was a bit of trouble at the building where the ruling party is based. The French riots (in typical French style!) were much bigger and were spread across various cities. Even the G20 protests 18 months aren't really comparable despite the similarity in numbers. The repercussions of that protest are still being felt today. Indeed, they were evidenced by the way the police handled this event. It's unlikely (though not impossible) that this protest will have such repercussions. Sadly, the windows will be repaired, the protesters will go home, this'll drop out of the headlines in a day or two and student debt will skyrocket. :( HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable. Protests by interest groups like this happen all the time, with thousands of people, eg public servants, schoolteachers, etc. Even with violence, students inciting scuffles is nothing new. My local senator :( did it when they were at uni. I think it was in April 2002 when the IP conflict was peaking, about 10,000 Hamas supporters tried to demonstrate and break into the Israeli consulate in Sydney. It's nothing special. Rallies with tens of thousands of people waving Tamil Tiger or Hezbollah flags in the western world are not uncommon YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose yet another protest in a Europe that is going bankrupt. What is the news here. another place similar protest.--Wikireader41 (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose my understanding of ITN is that it is supposed to allow readers to read an article related to the news, not simply report the news. If there was an article detailing the proposed cuts in education, then it might be suitable to include that in ITN, but at the moment this shouldn't be included. SmartSE (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cyclone Jal

- Causes a total of 117 fatalities in India, Thailand and Malaysia. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Support and Speedy post High death toll, international effects, Article in excellent condition. Its ITN material the Time is red lets post The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Willing to post when the working tag goes down (wouldn't want to disturb anything). Also, please provide a good blurb. --Tone 14:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Tag is off now. Physchim62 (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Its been removed - but after last weeks furore, i would wait until a few more people have commented on it. As for a blurb how about Cyclone Jal kills at least 117 people as it affects the Malay Peninsular, Sri Lanka and India.Jason Rees (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Last week was hardly a "furore" by the standards we can get down to! Support as a significant number of casualties over a wide geographic area. Physchim62 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. We've seen much greater controversies over much more trivial things. Posted because [insert RA's rationale here] and we're 40 hours without an update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess I would have suggested waiting for a bit more mainstream news coverage but it's posted now, and i won't suggest taking it down.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I think part of the beauty of ITN is our ability to provide information on events that aren't getting much coverage from the big Western news organisations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually I was thinking of that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It's impossible to prove a causal link, and it doesn't work every time (obviously!) but let's just see if this story doesn't get a bit more coverage in the "mainstream media" now that it's on ITN... If it does, it wouldn't be the first time I've seen the phenomenon! Physchim62 (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Bubbles of Energy found at the centre of the Milky Way

Bubbles of energy that contain close to the same amount of energy as 100 000 supernova explosions have been found in the centre of the Milky Way galaxy. It is on the front page of the NYTimes and it definitely looks to be a huge news story. Vancyon 00:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: I would not use the term bubble, but I don't know what else to call it, just forwarding it to you guys. Vancyon 00:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Neutral If some one can explain its significance to me i'll support. Cause like most Astrophysicist stuff I have no clue what it means... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, if we ever figure out a way to travel at the speed of light, we could send a ship there, and then just 60,000 years later they could be back here with some sweet, sweet energy. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 01:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I, well, wow. I really don't know what to make of this (and I'm a professional astronomer). I'll have a detailed read of the paper tomorrow and try to work it out. However, if it IS true, it's almost certainly a relic from previous feeding by of the supermassive black hole. We'll also need to work out where on Earth to put the update. Modest Genius talk 01:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes that was my thought as well, but thats nearly as bad as the dilemma of writing a short blurb for it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Milky Way discovered to be giant dz2 orbital? Sorry, I'll get back to chemistry... Physchim62 (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
So too late, I'm guessing? Vancyon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancyon (talkcontribs) 05:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

November 9


Large Hadron Collider

The LHC has switched to smashing lead ions (from protons) [34] [35]. This should generate much higher energies [36]. The press seems to be full of "mini-big Bang" articles: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. Nergaal (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I was considering nominating this but then decided not to. Smashing heavy nuclei is not something new and while this is the first time they did this at CERN, it is just a step towards real goals they want to achieve. So, I'd support posting some significant discoveries we expect within months but not at this stage. --Tone 11:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose (as a trained physicist myself). Heavy ion colliding is nothing new or exciting. Although this is the first time the LHC has done it, that's really only of interest to particle physicists. CERN have done a good PR job, and the media have taken things way too far. This is nothing like a 'mini Big Bang', whatever one of those is supposed to be, and I sincerely hope CERN didn't use the term themselves. Just because the media don't understand science doesn't make it news. Modest Genius talk 12:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I was also pretty underwhelmed by the announcement, glad to see I was missing something. Physchim62 (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Unless it causes a black hole. </physicist trolling> --Stephen 12:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
take a look Modest Genius talk 23:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
OMG. Must Post NOW!!!! Stephen 00:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment Maybe, if it DOES cause a black hole, and if this black hole eats up the entire Earth, then no-one will be able to update the ITN!? So why not publish this one, before it's too late? Crnorizec (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
We don't want to cause too much panic ;-) Though we posted the Solar flare that was to hit the Earth back in August... --Tone 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

November 8


Emilio Eduardo Massera

Emilio Eduardo Massera, one of the leaders of the 1976 Argentine coup d'état and subsequent military government dies at age 85.[44]. --Jayron32 06:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki does not seem to hold him to be of great importance: he is not mentioned by name in National Reorganization Process or History of Argentina: three mentions in Dirty War, two of which are in relation to an attempted assassination rather than anything that he did; one screen article. Kevin McE (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I made some casual fixes, but the article is barely beyond the stub level and would hardly get anywhere to be in good shape before the news of his death simply die out. Besides, he's notable but his death isn't, there hasn't been a single reaction to it beyond the newspaper mentions and a pair of low-profile politician comments (just compare it with all the things generated by the deaths of Kirchner or Alfonsín). And I'm not sure if, outside of Argentina, someone has even noticed this or knew who was Massera without checking the wikipedia article MBelgrano (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. It got reported here in Spain [45], but less so than the disturbances in Western Sahara (just to give a benchmark – if you didn't know there were disturbance in Western Sahara, you get some idea of how the Spanish press viewed Massera's death!) Physchim62 (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, even in Argentina itself, the press gave more room to the resignation of Ángel Cappa as coach of the River Plate soccer team MBelgrano (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

United States backs India's bid for UNSC permanent seat

This piece of news has grabbed headlines across globe because there are several implications, such as reform of the United Nations Security Council, India – United States relations, Sino-American relations, Pakistan – United States relations and Indo-Pakistani relations. Surprised that no one nominated this news item yet. --King Zebu (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose unless something actually happens. Obama simply saying he supports it doesn't actually make it happen. Modest Genius talk 18:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
On second thoughts, you are right. I withdraw the nomination. Anyways, the point was the implication of such a gesture by the U.S. President on bilateral relations involving U.S., China, India and Pakistan. But, I understand that are no immediate implications of this development. --King Zebu (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Didn't we just have a UNSC election a few weeks ago? Wouldn't that make the next one in two years? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Nope: half the non-permanant seats are up every year, tenure is two years. Kevin McE (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the chances of getting the other members to all agree on any candidates is pretty low. The US knows someone else will veto the change. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I know the nomination's been withdrawn, so I won't formally oppose, but I will say that this is generating a lot of light but next to no heat. Much as the press might jump up and down, there's nothing particularly significant here and there won't be until the ball starts rolling towards UNSC membership and, even then, I don't think we should post anything until (if) it happens. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
But, an actual expansion of the P5 would be a no brainer to post if and when it happens. Courcelles 09:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course. But it doesn't look like it's happening soon. Modest Genius talk 12:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
We have been telling Japan the same thing for years. The only way is to expand the council to permanently include Brazil, Germany, Japan and India. We'll wait... We'll watch... We'll see The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
And what about Indonesia and South Africa? Its impossible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Russia village attack

12 killed after a attack in Krasnodar, Russia - [46] - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thus far does not appear to be an international incident, just a harsh episode of crime. No article even proposed, let alone exists. 20 people were killed this weekend in Ciudad Juarez, but no one would think to nominate that. Strong oppose. --Golbez (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
oppose nasty? yes... Sad? yes..... ITN worthy? No. Run of the mill crime. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The loss of life is tragic, but the incident will not have any continued coverage in the media and so is not notable, much less ITN-worthy, so it's probably just as well we don't have an article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose It's a sad story, but it's not ITN-worthy, per comments above. Diego Grez (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Michel Houellebecq

Michel Houellebecq (pictured) wins the 2010 Prix Goncourt for his novel La Carte et le Territoire. Hektor (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose This sounds like a notable award, my only nit pick is we have no article for the work. That would strike me as a key Wikilink for ITN. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
English sources are slim to none, french sources are pretty easy to find. Which means My attempt to create an article for it is not going to work becuase I cant read french. If some one here can read french we could throw an article together pretty easily The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Update I started something... so now we have an entry Hektor (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Full support Notable award. Notable book, Notable Author. havent Check ITN/R but it ought to be on there The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it on ITN/R, no, but this year's Goncourt seems like a good ITN story. Next year we might have a better story from some other language, or we might have another good Goncourt story: let's wait and see! Physchim62 (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. The Prix Goncourt is "France's top literary award" (according to the BBC) and Houellebecq is a well-known and controversial author. The story also has a little bit of WP interest, as Houellebecq was accused of plagiarizing French Wikipedia (and other sites) for some of the passages (Irish Times)! Physchim62 (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Could someone add a a few sentences on the award and maybe a little reaction, then I'm willing to post. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hektor (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Posted --Stephen 23:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Latest in HIV treatment

Clue to how some 'control' their HIV without medication. BBC Crnorizec (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I like this, but its does not strike me as really ITN worthy. Its a possible road to a cure but I see nothing in the article to indicate its any sort of big break through. I am open to being pursaded but right now I dont see the importance The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose you left the word "may" out of your nomination. That's really the deal breaker. DC TC 18:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

November 7