Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2011

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

[Posted] Yani Tseng

 * I fixed the nomination. Not sure if this is a recurring topic, but it certainly isn't minority. This was nominated by User:SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow?.  Jim Sukwutput  19:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * support Significant event, even on its own; more significant even given the winner's dominance of the sport. -- Jayron  32  02:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as one of the Women's major golf championships. Mt  king  (edits)  04:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose . There is no update. Actually, there is an update, but it's two sentences.  Jim Sukwutput  04:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you want? Just tell me what I need to do.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * More prose. Right now the article contains very little recent information beside what is said in the blurb. It would also be great if you can expand the personal life section. Right now the article is almost completely career record, which makes it pretty much only interesting to golf fans.  Jim Sukwutput  04:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think now?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's better. Changing to neutral.  Jim Sukwutput  05:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support She's the hottest female golfer this year. (Removed redundancy and overlinking in blurb) -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Hottest golfer of any sex really...all sorts of reasons to post this. I didn't look but I assume this is ITNR. RxS (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not ITNR at the present moment, which is because they are only looking at the men's majors, and I believe that it is quite sexist on ITNR's behalf and should be changed. I have done a tremendous amount of work to bring women's articles up to the level of men's, so it can be included in ITNR.  I think we need to open a discussion on ITNR golf to include women's stuff.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be so quick to accuse ITNR of sexism. The significance of a competition is largely measured by its viewership, and it is a fact that men's sports (with some exceptions) tend to have a larger audience. Blame the audience.  JimSukwutput  18:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong to do so, but I just see way to many inequalities on Wikipedia, when it comes to women in sports has a men's in the exact same sport. I am trying to rectify this one step at a time.  I hope you join me in making wikipedia a equal place for all, not just select areas or scopes.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that all men's sports with a comparable amount of coverage to the Weetabix Open get included? That seems equal to me. Kevin McE (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted We also really need some new content. --  tariq abjotu  18:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Ramadan Massacre

 * Support but change name to 2011 Hama crackdown --93.137.112.209 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, but article needs a good expansion. And yes, I support a change to "2011 Hama crackdown" or similar name. See WP:POVTITLE - we do not use a title that is potentially biased unless the event is most commonly referred to by that name. Right now I see references to crackdown in the media, but not "massacre".  Jim Sukwutput  16:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Syrian atrocities are far too common to be newsy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - major news.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - not only is is major news BabbaQ. It documents a horrid development in the Arab Spring that has become a drawn out fight for the soul of the Islamic world.  This has to be one of the worst attacks in Syria, since the rebellion began, which means it merits ITN.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Per BabbaQ -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per BabbaQ and The Egyptian Liberal --Sherif9282 (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Front page news. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unmarked. The blurb has a redlink in it. Fix that and I'm able to support. Striker  force Talk  Review me! 07:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is ready and the kosovo serba clashes is not???Lihaas (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Lihaas here. I previously opposed the article that he had updated because it was, IMO, poorly written. But that was still in a MUCH better state than this one. I would not support this being posted at this stage. It needs at least double the size; the history section needs to be rewritten or eliminated; and the result needs to be clarified and sourced.  Jim Sukwutput  13:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ideally, this should have a little more content. It's just a lead, and some reactions that aren't central to the story. Removing [Ready]. --  tariq abjotu  07:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Historic event. --bender235 (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is clearly consensus that the topic is notable, but the article is in poor shape and has a POV tag on it. I'm not going to post if it's in that condition. NW ( Talk ) 13:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, eventually. But the article has a really long way to go. And it has a POV tag. Last time I checked there wasn't any discussion on the talk page so it can probably be removed. RxS (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Conditional support when POV is removed. Major event. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 17:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Issues have been fixed Article is ready now -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not ready I'd really like to see this go up, but the article is still in poor shape, despite not having any tags. The article is now extremely confusing, for the infobox suggests this siege began on July 31, while the article suggests it began in June. When we get down to the part about what happened in the past couple days, we have a thin-on-details Ramadan Massacre section. Perhaps the article could be improved by moving the last paragraph in the lead down to the appropriate section, but at this point, the article is very difficult to follow. --  tariq abjotu  19:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted Still not an award-winning article, but it's certainly much better now. I changed up the blurb quite a bit; specifically, I omitted the mention of Ramadan, particularly because the "siege" is still ongoing. --  tariq abjotu  19:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sticky debt crisis
Can we get a sticky on the 2011 U.S. debt ceiling crisis? There hasn't been any one single event worthy of posting but it has been one of the top stories this week. Marcus Qwertyus   10:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * conditional support for a pre-determined short-term basis (a week? till aug 5 or resolution) as its globally notable despie being domestic and the talk of the town at the moment. Although id prefer a regular article than the timeline synopsis...though then gain as a stickhy timeline could work.Lihaas (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. This would be a minority topic, by the way.  Jim Sukwutput  13:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How? We post more politics than almost anything else. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is more of an economic issue, IMO.
 * By the way, I agree with Lihaas that the sticky should be on a short-term basis. Preferably until August 3.  Jim Sukwutput  14:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I think of it again, this probably doesn't warrant a sticky. The article only has a few lines for recent events and the whole thing will be over by tomorrow or the day after. I agree with what Crispmuncher said below. Oppose.  Jim Sukwutput  16:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as there is no single event, we can wait until some sort of agreement is reached or we can wait until August 3, when no agreement would be an event on its own... --Tone 15:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support unusual globally watched drama about the worlds sole superpower possibly headed towards default on its debt ( which for the longest time has been regarded as one of the safest investments known to mankind)--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stickies are best used for those stories where there are multiple ongoing developments, and ITN risks becoming saturated with separate threads of the same story. So far we have had no posts on this matter, nor indeed even any nominations. A sticky therefore strikes me as far too premature. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Crisp pretty much has it correct. One way or another, in three days, we can simply post a blurb about how the crisis was resolved or about the collapse of civilization. Swarm u 19:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same main reasons as Crispmuncher, the only ITN worthy post I foresee out of this is if the US actually defaults on its obligation to it bond holders. Mt  king  (edits)  22:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The principals don't even know what the deal is yet, nor has any reliable source posted its outlines. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] U2 360° Tour

 * Support, for the basic fact that its the highest grossing tour and highest attendance beating the old record by about $1.5m and 3 million attendees. YuMaNuMa (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support seems like a notable cultural achievement. Well worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * strong support as a fisrt (we just posted harry potter) and a minority topic as music is rarely on here. (forissues not pertaining to death)Lihaas (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Are we sure this is a minority topic? If so, why wasn't the Harry Potter blurb a minority topic as well?  Jim Sukwutput  13:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it it really matter? It doesn't make much difference. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that there seems to be a double standard here in terms of what exactly is culture and what isn't. But anyway, I support this.  Jim Sukwutput  13:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Potter was posted, but yeah it should have been a minority topic as its culture. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What an AWESOME show it was! But aside from the fact that I went, I support because of its record-breaking revenue and attendance. I still cannot believe they didn't play Bad... Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  16:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 16:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could someone add "in 30 countries" to the end of the blurb? I think this would be a good way to show how internationally diverse the tour was.  Here's a source. – Dream out loud  (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Military resignations and arrests in Turkey
I don't know if we have an article on it (yet), but [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/world/europe/30turkey.html? NY Times] has a very interesting article on it. NW ( Talk ) 02:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that we should use Sledgehammer (coup plan), per this BBC article linking the resignations to that. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * shouldtn we get an article and an update first? it would give better background as to whether its notable for ITN. i myself am a bit split at the moment.Lihaas (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Ukraine mine accidents
- At least 18 coal miners have died after two mine accidents in Ukraine. Many people are missing. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  16:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Large amounts of deaths and people are missing. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mining accidents, unfortunately, are extremely common and part of the job. The article on Mining accident says this for China: "Between January 2001 and October 2004, there were 188 accidents that had a death toll of more than 10." If this were to be posted, then we would have to post one mining accident every 7.4 days, for China alone.  Jim Sukwutput  18:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, a comparison of Ukraine to China is more apples-to-oranges; China is especially notorious for lethal mine accidents. Poland is probably more comparable; the article List of mining disasters in Poland lists fewer major accidents in recent years.  Spencer T♦ C 05:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I can see is that the bottom line is both countries are developing nations and accidents as such are fairly common and usually tend to go unreported. The fact that the death toll is 18 heightens the seriousness of the tragedy but it is not uncommon.YuMaNuMa (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that China is more notorious for lethal mine accidents is probably because it produces 45 times the coal that Ukraine does. If you have fewer miners, you have fewer mining accidents - and that does not make them any more notable. It wouldn't be particularly notable, say, if Cyprus had a mining accident, even if it were extremely rare due to the country's size.  Jim Sukwutput  10:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that relatively frequent events like mining accidents, especially in countries that don't necessarily have an impeccable safety record, should only be posted if they have some special claim to notability, like being the worst in a country for a long time. If either of these incidents develop into something like that, I could support, but I'm not sure why two completely different incidents in separate mines are covered in one article. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, we posted the story regarding the Chilean miners a while back. If this one gets popular, it may be worth posting this too based on precedence.--WaltCip (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Chilean miners story was popular because they were still alive and were successfully rescued. That's not the case here and, as pointed out above, that makes it just another tragic accident. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  00:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the sort of headline newsy news that we should be doing less of. Unless there's something more to the story than just a mining accident we should let it pass. If we look at it from our readers perspective, it's not likely that many of them will be looking for information on this topic. RxS (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Tropical Storm Nock-ten (2011)

 * Blurb: Tropical Storm Nock-ten causes 41 deaths in the Philippines and the evacuation of more than 27,000 people in China. – H T  D  17:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Major impact. Also, the Seoul-area floods are a completely separate event. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 17:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, seems okay, article looks good. αλεπού《FOX》  18:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing in particular seems to distinguish this storm from the dozen of other storms that tend to sweep across the South China Sea during this season, except the slightly high death toll. The damage is very limited at the moment, at barely $26 million (compare that to Sarika, at $248 million; Aere, at $1.37 billion).  Jim Sukwutput  18:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With damages of at (now) least US$34 million, Nock-ten is now the second costliest storm in the Western Pacific this year behind Sarika; Aere had US#31.7 million in damages... or 1.37 billion Philippine pesos. The "slightly high death toll" is sure to eclipse Aere, the deadliest storm of the year in the Western Pacific. – H T  D  18:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I misread that part. However, given that we did not post Sarika or Aere, or any of the other storms in the season (they do not even have an article), I see no particular reason why this ought to be posted. Having a few more deaths than usual in one small category of natural disasters does not sound like particularly newsworthy.  Jim Sukwutput  19:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's in the past now. We screwed up earlier this year... you're not suggesting to commit the same mistake again, are you? – H T  D  19:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it was a mistake, and it wouldn't be our mistake anyhow, considering that those articles do not even exist.  Jim Sukwutput  19:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-updated.  Spencer T♦ C 18:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Netural While Nocktens PAGASA name has met the pre published criteria for retirement. I do not think that Nock-ten did enough to justify a main page appearance. Esspecially when we are probbably gonna have stronger storms hitting PHP during the Autumn.Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral per the fact that while 41 deaths is rather significant, I have to agree with Jason Rees that in the grand scheme of an entire typical hurricane/typhoon season this isn't exactly the worst. Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 02:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - the rarity of this event and the degree of significance are probably debatable, but the article is looking good so a definite support. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u 03:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It may not be a clear case of inclusion, the article is in good shape and we're behind...supporting to hopefully knock it off the schnide. RxS (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  06:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Floods in Seoul
Also, if someone creates/finds an article about the flooding in South Korea that is worth a separate blurb. – H T  D  17:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Brief article created. Although last year's floods in North Korea and Vietnam killed more people, such deadly floods in South Korea are a rare occurrence. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 19:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per above. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 19:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Basically same reason as above - fairly common occurrence of natural disaster.  Jim Sukwutput  19:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please state what you mean by "common". Or this could just be another case of what I call news fatigue to seemingly oft-reported stories. Just because significant floods occur every year does not imply that an individual flood of a certain magnitude is always common in a specific area. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 19:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with news fatigue. I simply think there are much more important stories elsewhere - be they related to humanitarian disasters (see the Somalia famine article below, of which I was the main author), or scientific discoveries, or political conflicts with long-reaching consequences. Natural disasters like this are unforeseeable and largely unavoidable events, and do not have any long-term consequences. Reading about such news does not give us any information beyond the fact that, out there, some people have it worse than us. Yes, it's important to know what's going on in the world, but when 3/4 of the stories nominated here are natural disasters, there's something fundamentally wrong with how we consume news.  Jim Sukwutput  22:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I think (and this is purely my opinion) there are two important differences between those "disaster" stories that ought to be posted and those that ought not. First, whether it is man-made (i.e. preventable) - for example, famines, massacres, accidents caused by poor training, and so on. Second, whether there is something that can be done about it - for example, disasters caused by environmental damage that can be reversed, or disasters that require an international relief effort. If neither of these are true, then the disaster/accident is purely unavoidable and unchangeable, and it becomes simply a consumption of news. The famine below is what I think is most appropriate in this regard - it was preventable, and there is still something that people can do about it.
 * Not to mention the immense difference in scale - using the death rate provided by the famine article, the famine is causing nearly 3000 deaths per day. This disaster nominated here simply pales in comparison to what's happening in many countries in eastern Africa, and I would rather we post numerous developments on that than this.  Jim Sukwutput  22:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article needs a lot of expansion/improvement.  Spencer T♦ C 17:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Sticky: 2011 Horn of Africa famine
Comment. A bit late, in my opinion. The first UN airlift was on 13 July according to the article. There is no doubt that the famine remains a crisis, however, considering Al-Shabaab partially lifted its ban on humanitarian workers. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 20:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Al-Shabaab did not lift its ban (though it was previously reported so); in fact, it just entered into a major conflict with government forces. In addition, this is the first UN airlift since famine was declared on 20 July, and to my knowledge is only the second one throughout the drought. Airlifts are major operations, and few ever occur.  Jim Sukwutput  18:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. This has already been on ITN twice, on the 17th and the 20th. Have there been any new developments since then? Jenks24 (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Lots of donation pledges; violent conflicts between government/aid groups and Al-Shabaab; and so on. I don't think this is the most important development, but there's definitely something that can be posted, given that this is the first official famine in nearly 30 years and have already resulted in at least twenty thousand deaths.  Jim Sukwutput  18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, good points. But if we are going to post about this once a week, would it not be better to just sticky it? Jenks24 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support that as well. This is a disaster on the scale of the Japan earthquake, and it's ongoing and getting a lot worse. So since that was made a sticky, no reason not to do this one.  Jim Sukwutput  18:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to see this stickied, but if that doesn't happen, then I would be fine with a blurb regarding the conflict that Jim has pointed out below. Jenks24 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as to any majorfamine, the UN will be airlifting food to the country. An event like this was inevitable since the famine grew into a crisis so there is really no point posting the same/similar event twice. YuMaNuMa (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is plainly wrong. This is the first famine declared by the UN since the 1984-85 Ethiopian famine, and there was no airlift during that period.  Jim Sukwutput  14:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * neutral it has come under criticism for red tape delays, while at the same time the number of refugees into Ethiopia is steadily ridsing as a result of the famine/drought. might even be a weak supportLihaas (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support, though not necessarily this particular blurb. I think this particular event is more important: "Africa Union peacekeepers say they have seized key territory from Islamist insurgents in Somalia's capital after they allegedly threatened aid camps." This is a major conflict, involving tens of thousands of African Union soldiers.  Jim Sukwutput  18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I just updated the article regarding this particular conflict.  Jim Sukwutput  19:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm supporting a sticky, since there seems to be a consensus in this direction.  Jim Sukwutput  14:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support make it sticky. The crisis isn't going away anytime soon. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose use of sticky Previously, "stickying" something was reserved for the Olympics- international events with high probability of multiple ITN postings (new world records and such), and ones that were constantly being updated well with new information. Recently, the usage has been expanded, and I think at times it has been appropriate, but for items such as this, it isn't. Stickying should be for clumping multiple items at once, not just a way to blanket cover updates to a single story.  Spencer T♦ C 02:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you support posting either the nominated blurb or the one I suggested?  Jim Sukwutput  03:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support three items: in one blurb; the airlift, the refugee crisis and the insurgency. Major crisis is unfolding in Somalia. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 17:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I Moved this discussion as there seems to be a consensus that the AU/Al-Shabaab conflict on 28 July should be mentioned. I also marked "[Ready]" as there is a clear consensus for posting. However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what particular blurb to use or whether to make it a sticky. Maybe an admin can make the choice here?  Jim Sukwutput  18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How can this be ready? Nobody seems to know what we're posting, the discussion is fairly minimal, and where's the update? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an update for each of the blurb suggested, at the ends of the second and third section respectively.
 * Six supports and one oppose seem to be a fairly decent consensus. The problem is that we have different preferences for what particular blurb to use. But I don't think we can resolve that any time soon, and I don't think it really matters.  Jim Sukwutput  19:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But no one blurb has a consensus, imo. It's not like the options are minor stylistic preferences, the consensus is torn as to which parts of the story are and aren't worth posting. I think we need more discussion (and preferably not just voting). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see the point. Any one who hasn't stated his/her preference yet, please comment on whether you prefer the first blurb (UN airlift), the second blurb (AU/Al-Shabaab conflict), or a combination of both.  Jim Sukwutput  22:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this was the first time food was actually being airlifted into Somalia itself. Beyond that, I think it a sad commentary that, as of today, I cannot find any evidence on the main page that millions of people are starving to death as we speak. Instead we had Amy Winehouse's death and the Tour de France winner. The suggestion to make it sticky is a good one. If this doesn't merit it, then what does? --Rhombus (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Four people here seem to have a clear preference for posting this as a sticky (Jenks24, Ohconfucius, me, and Rhombus as the nominator). I'm changing the nomination title as a result. Also adding [Ready] - there are four supports for the sticky, two additional supports with no preference indicated, and one oppose for the sticky and one additional oppose with no preference indicated. A fairly decent consensus. Article was updated for both of the events described above and is being updated constantly.  Jim Sukwutput  14:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose both a sticky and posting. The posting as this is no longer news the air drop was over two weeks ago. The sticky as this is just one story, not a continuing series, such as Arab Spring or News International phone hacking scandal. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  03:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the article. The airlift you're referring to was on July 13, in Kenya. The one nominated here occurred on July 27, in Somalia. As for stickying it, I certainly don't see how a hacking scandal of one company warrants one while a historical famine that affects 11 million people in 6 countries does not. This is not "one story". We have already posted two stories related to this, and there are two more stories nominated above that have gained widespread support. If this does not become a sticky, then we will have to post the article four times, and as Ohconfucius said, that number is only going to increase in the future.  Jim Sukwutput  04:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the [Ready] tag, it was "added" twice by Jim Sukwutput first when he moved the text here only to be removed by an administrator (HJ Mitchell) here and then re-added here. Please only add the "[Ready]" Tag once, if someone else, especialy an administrator, removes it leave it to others to judge if it should be marked again. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mtking: HJ Mitchell removed the Ready tag because there was no consensus at that time about which particular blurb to post or whether to sticky it. Since then, two of the users have expressed their preference for stickying it, meaning that there is now a large majority in favor of that (if I can assume Eraserhead1 supports it, that makes three). And while HJ Mitchell said he prefers more discussion, 3 days have passed and there has been no response from any of the two previous oppose votes, one of which, by the way, is factually incorrect like yours. Would you also care to retract your incorrect statement, and explain why you still hold on to your position?  Jim Sukwutput  13:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Support either or all. Major news -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you mean support?  Jim  Sukwutput  13:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for letting me know -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to reemphasize the continued significance of this event and the many developments that have occurred around it - there are over 600 news articles about the Somalia famine alone during the last day. For example, torrential rain destroyed many of the refugee camps yesterday 12, leading to at least hundreds of deaths. On another note, some governments have made significant contributions to the relief effort, including Canada's $50 million and France's €30 million 3. To add onto that, the large-scale conflict between AU forces and Al-Shabaab is still going on and AU forces just launched a major offensive to seize large amounts of territories back from the insurgents 45.
 * This is also, by the way, stickied on the French and Spanish Wikipedias, and the German Wikipedia's article is constantly in the news section and getting more views than ours. How we can fail to post such an event in these circumstances is utterly incomprehensible to me.  Jim Sukwutput  14:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted as a sticky. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Matter-antimatter symmetry

 * Nom. --bender235 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, but we need a strong article to explain the background and why exactly this is significant. The Science Daily article seems like a good basis for an update.  Jim Sukwutput  19:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is confirm the right word? Scientists "confirm" evolution all the time but it can never become a scientific law. Also we should definitely cut the "By determining the mass of an antiproton" part out. I'm not seeing a mainstream coverage so I am opposing for now. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   12:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your counter-example is a bit off. Matter-antimatter symmetry is a physical property (or law); evolution is a theory (or explanation), albeit one that has been tested and affirmed endless times. Confirm is definitely the right word to describe the first one.  Jim Sukwutput  13:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright I believe you. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   15:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Important LHC discovery. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 17:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. You have to be a physicist to understand the article and the article doesn't mention the current discovery (although I'm sure someone will fix that.) This is a minority topic and we already have an item about as asteroid.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard-of-Earth (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - you have to be a physicist to understand the blurb, much less the article. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u 03:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] New Prez of Peru
Moved from 27th because item can only be posted today.


 * Oppose. We posted the election results in June. We very rarely post inaugurations as they are symbolic. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  16:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be confusion because it seems the posting administrator didn't make a note on the election article's talk page. The stats clearly show it, though. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 16:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "rarely " post? why the bias to anglo-countries. (although i think Ireland was posted too, coul dbe wrong)
 * Stats dont mean they were necessarily on ITN, it was a hot-issue at the time and it could have generated sensation. (peru market and silver prices in the news back then) STL generated views without ever being on ITN.Lihaas (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

*Oppose - as ericleb01.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * umm, did you see the response to that?
 * striking BabbaQ b/c its been disproved and withdrawn.Lihaas (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

*Oppose per Ericleb01.  Jim Sukwutput  18:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * to reiterate, we dotn vote count here. you have to give a reason;; and that point has a counter-arguement, so you should counter that.Lihaas (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't see it, and wouldn't have understood it anyhow. Anyway, switching to neutral now based on Arsonal's comment below. I don't think it makes sense to post a insignificant story just because we didn't post the main event previously, but I see the point. Jim Sukwutput  18:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm striking my previous comment because the story was never posted back in June despite its ITNR status. There was concern about the lack of a prose update. If the election article is inadequate, Humala's article is an alternate choice. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to Support in light of this. I guess I should have checked before making that initial claim. Lucky break, Lihaas :P <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ill take that as a barnstar ;)Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, in that case, as above. And because the timer is red hot and all other nominations today look like duds.  Night  w   19:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, but it's not until tomorrow anyway. Still... Good compromise for not posting the elections.  Night  w   19:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * so ITNR? though election has plenty of post-result prose too nowLihaas (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not ITNR, and the election story is old.  Night  w   22:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I tweaked your blurb, since the transfer of office, rather than the inauguration ceremony, is what's important.  Night  w   10:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Per Nightw -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * comment can someone makr this as ready? his swearing-in is either starting soon aor already udner way.Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ready. "Peru Swears In Humala as President" (Voice of America) I also tweaked the blurb a bit. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 17:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Question should we bold the election article (or both?)? as the former has the current quit e git prose update of the inauguration.Lihaas (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - no need to mention election, as a distant memory. Propose new blurb: "Ollanta Humala takes office as the new President of Peru". Short and to the point. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the lengthy prose on their on the inauguration is current,Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Where's the update in Humala's article? Only the lead mentions that he's actually the president. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Peruvian general election, 2011 can be bold linked.
 * also see the 2011 election and president-elect sections on the page[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That works. Posted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 2010 TK7

 * Support. An interesting discovery indeed. The pre-print version of article for publication in Nature is here. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Nature is a top quality source for this kind of story The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support i think this is obvious support... sharing orbit with asteroid is a rare discovery. -- Ashish-g55 21:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Per Ashishg55 and The Resident Anthropologist -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Article is woefully short at present. rev《FOX》  00:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Although I would have liked to see this expanded and showcased at DYK instead. But DYK or ITN, it needs some expansion. Remember how the polka-dot frog got kicked off ITN because the idea was cool but the article was too stubby.   Sharktopus  <sup style="color:black;">talk  00:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 *  Strong oppose in its current state  Not only is the article too short, it is written as scientific gobbledegook. The important terminology is totally absent except for links to 'Trojan asterioid' and 'Lagrangian point'. Thus, significance of this important discovery is totally lost on the average reader, who will be left utterly perplexed by the article. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What terminology are you looking for? There is only so much information a scientist can gather from a point of light on a photographic plate. Virtually all the information known about the object that an average reader can understand is already listed in the article.XavierGreen (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the use of terms like 'Trojan asterioid' and 'Lagrangian point' without any cursory explanation; there was also no explanation as to what makes the discovery significant. I see that that has now been addressed. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't support in current state I want to support but the article needs work as per Ohconfucius. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  02:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Support has been updated.  Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  08:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Post already This is a hugely significant one-time discovery. The article is technically ready, and will only be improved by further attention.  μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: I think the article and the update is adequate. While I dont know enough about the subject to comment on what else needs to be included, what is already there is sufficient for a layperson like me to understand. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Question While this is a decent article now, why was a piss-poor stub allowed to be the top ITN story in the first place?  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because a lot of readers of this section don't seem to realise that this section is to promote quality rather than be a simple news ticker. 狐《FOX》  13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand, the criteria are (and I quote) "the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article." While I wouldnt dare compare this to the cure for cancer, thats pretty much what has happened. A sub-par (but still found to be adequate as reflected by discussion above) article attracted other editors to join in and make it better. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what happened. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  16:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Doku Umarov/Caucasian Mujahadeen

 * Weak oppose The problem with posting these underground developments is that they're notoriously unreliable. Note here that the latter of your sources (in the article) says: "The Sharia court ruled in favor of Umarov, according to a statement released by Kavkaz Center, a propaganda arm of the Caucasus Emirate." Also, this is (despite its international notoriety) a pretty minor conflict, with only one million people in the territory involved. We give far too much weight to Islamic terrorism already, and even if we are to continue that, I'd rather some high-significance places like Northern India or Western China be covered.  Jim Sukwutput  18:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is one of those stories that nobody actually knows anything about. How many mainstream English Wikipedia readers knew that the Caucasian "emirate" was in a leadership crisis? Let alone cared. It's not exactly covered in independent journalism...  Night  w   18:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But thats exactly the point. to get people to know. WP out to educate as Jimbo has often said.
 * independent journalism? what else is the source quoted? its not mainstream media
 * + article now updated further to show that he was warned of an exscalation after the unity deal, which comes as russia faces "near daily attacks" in hte region and the occasional moscow attacks.Lihaas (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Unreliable and relies principally a source that is blacklisted by Wikipedia. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * longwarjournal?Lihaas (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * kavkazcenter.com -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the info comes from longwarjournal. though the blacklist discussion of that was quite dodgy too. I agree when its cited as historical truth, but when its cited as a source for a statement then its not off. (in this case itis used as such)Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, one finds that reports of who is nominally in charge of organizations without transparency is not reliable and generally irrelevant - much less front page news. Do we know who's in charge of each crime family? hacker group? the skull & bones folks? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Tomb of Philip the Apostle
Nom. --bender235 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Are there better sources? This is being attributed to remarks in the Turkish popular press by a researcher who, rather than finding something unexpected, has discovered exactly what he has been looking for for 12 years. μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed with Medeis here. Either we wait until we have a better confirmation, or we say that it's a claim. I'm also not convinced about the significance of this. From the sound of the article, it doesn't look like the tomb would contain any particular cultural artifact, so right now it's simply the place where a notable person was buried. Pretty much only symbolic value for Christians and Muslims.  Jim Sukwutput  18:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait I have some archeological training here see 4 major problems off the bat here. 1)Typically Archeologists announce these finds in papers at Major Conferences or Prestigious Journals after years of documenting their digs. The fact that 2)no paper has been received by some sort of peers. 3) they are declaring this as "Philip the Apostle" when the tomb is not even open yet. 4) I am not really seeing wide coverage of it anywhere but some of the more tabloid type of news. I am not holding my breath. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Poking some holes into this theory Read the Foxnews article and look at what they dont say: Francesco D'Andria is never described as an archeologist and they always distinguish between the "Professor" and the "Archeologists" in the text. This implies that he is probably a Legit PhD prof somewhere. My experience tells me that that he is religious scholar with no formal scientific Archeological training. Real archeologist go with measurable hypothesis to test (how large was is this site? what does the rubbish pile contain). Treasure hunting Religious scholars say absurd objects like  find the Grail! the The Ark of covenant! Noah's ark! Jesus' Tomb!  Philip the Apostle's tomb! It's also odd they dont mention the university or he is affiliated with which is not the norm for the press. There is always the distinct possibility that he is total fraud and just wants to make it a tourist spot. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Death of Joe Arroyo

 * Whoops, the death was expected; might as well withdraw the nom, Kevin, because we all know it sure as hell won't go through. *rolls eyes* For the record, I support this as I supported Facundo Cabral's murder, because South American culture is extremely under-represented here (aside from the Copa América) and this would be a nice place to start. Arroyo was supposed to receive the Lifetime Acheivement Award from the Latin Recording Academy in November. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  15:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * this is not an ITNR event. no deaths are, usually (always?) require consensus.
 * nbut about to nom a Latam article for tomorrow..or should i do it now? ✅ Lihaas (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is in a poor state. There are only two sources and the early life and health issues and drug abuse sections are completely unsourced. Truthsort (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Besides the poor sourcing, the article does not tell us why this singer is notable (besides having a lot of albums), which is always a bad sign.  Jim Sukwutput  18:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As I suspected, being outstanding in one's field, despite being mentioned in the death criteria, is far less likely to get a death raised to ITN than being a regular in gossip columns and scandal sheets.  Kevin McE (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

UK expels all Libyan Embassy staff

 * The UK has expelled all Libyan Embassy staff of the regime from the country and formally recognise the rebel-led National Transitional Council (NTC) as the country's governing authority. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for Story, Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose nothign new, just undue notice to one action. the Arab Spging sticky is already there. if something notable happens on the field then its worth an indiv. posting. (believe france has already don e so)Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as well. This is not the first country to do so; especially when we talk about recognising the NTC, as it has been done with 31 countries so far. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  15:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not even close to being the most notable thing to happen about the Libya conflict in the last few days. For example, there was a development about whether Qadaffi could stay in Libya under the rebels' demands. Jim Sukwutput  18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Expelling diplomats is symbolic, but no big deal; recognition of the rebels is much more significant, but since the US and several other Western countries have already recognised them as the legitimate government, it was almost certainly going to happen sooner or later. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ghulam Haidar Hameedi killed in suicide bombing

 * Oppose Was only a local-level politician.  Spencer T♦ C 12:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * support as pertinent to the stability of Afghanistan (the big conflict in the world at the moment that NATO is on the verge of losing) in general and Kandahar in particular. TWO high-level assassinations recently (both of which were posted (or was it just the one?)). mayor of the most precarious city in Afghanistan is notable by itself. three high-level this month aloneLihaas (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - local level politician.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * so is Karzai's bro (whos technically even lower)..posted that when elationships dont necessitate notabilityLihaas (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, if article is updated. Mayor of a major city assassinated is a yes from me. Connormah (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

[Ready] Border clashes in Kosovo-Serbia

 * Kosovo bid to retake two border crossings held by Serbs ends in one police officer being killed.--93.137.108.54 (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for story. --93.137.108.54 (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - if turned into major news story.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Found more coverage here.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Started a stub for the event, 2011 Kosovo-Serbia border clashes.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Article now at 2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - The Serbia-Kosovo conflict is important and should be covered.Olegwiki (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * strong oppose as an isolated incident, if it grows then post it. there are lots of "important conflicts" we cant post any incident in them Lihaas (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a big deal. Kosovo is the site of the largest EU international intervention now or ever before. Story also involves NATO and has serious geopolitical implications. --85.124.37.18 (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * like...? 1 dead kosovar means..? if a couple of terrorist mean anything than see aboveLihaas (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The situation has escalated even further now. See here, and here.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * support per my comment above about if the situation escalates, it has and there are intl concerns. Ive done a big update to the page and marked ready. re-worded the blurb slightly tooLihaas (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * yes definitly ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it's ready. There's not much in the article, and much of it is padding (like the almost-entirely unsourced reactions section, which, even if sourced, would be of little encyclopaedic value). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * umm, no its all sourced i did it myself. there are no intermediate refs so no need to add every para ref. the next following ref has all the info, you can check if you want. if you feel the need to repeat refs (which i didnt see) then youre welcome to add them. consensus seems to suggests its ready, though. (remarking)
 * theres also a massive 3 para prose on the current events as well as the even bigger reactions that pertain to its current "crisis" level. weve posted numerous articles with far less prose.Lihaas (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * HJ Mitchell is correct here. The article is poorly sourced. In particular, this source was used for half of the response section (by Lihaas' reasoning), but doesn't seem to contain any pertinent information. The article also needs some strong copyediting. Removing [Ready] once again.  Jim Sukwutput  20:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And what wrong with BBC, which incidentally is NOT the whole of the response section? Is that not RS enough? The incidents section (which is the crux of the issue) is not dubiously sourced. What copyediting do you suggest? (could do so if there was a prob) we still have three vs. 2 poeple suggesting its ready
 * Pretty much debunked Mitchell's statesments (and without acrimony at that)
 * Just saw the page and see no attempt at copy editing or anything in talk. (ready) per 3 vs. 2 conensus
 * Conversely, if one explains the problem it can be solved, but how is another editor to know what needs updating otherwise. Mitchell's concerns on sources were answered. but i dont see what JS' concerns are. sorry, if im blind ;) (but au contraire, not a single thing here is unsourced, excect possibly for background which is sourced on the requisite pages)
 * What then are the reasons for your (JS) claims that its poorly sourced? (asking in AGF so sa to correct it)Lihaas (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lihaas.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I seriously can't understand what you're saying. And ITN is not a majority-vote - 3-2 is not a consensus, especially since you have done nothing to address HJ Mitchell's issue with the article. Go work on the article if you want to get it posted, rather than starting an incomprehensible tirade against me.  Jim Sukwutput  16:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To help you out, here are a few examples of obvious grammatical mistakes that need to be corrected:
 * "Serbia has also stationed troops in the northern region and moved to enforced a boycott of goods" - 1st section
 * "...was killed during a grenade blast near the border and one more policeman with at least one currently being treated in hospital for severe wounds and five more have sustained injuries during the operation to take control of the border posts[3] and the consequent clashes with local residents from the North Kosovo" - 2nd section (run-on sentence)
 * "Serbian protesters came back returned in the evening and attacked the post" - 2nd section
 * "The mob reportedly included "dozens of masked men, armed with crowbars, clubs, axes, Molotov cocktails and handheld flares,"[2] as well as rocks and other debris" - 2nd section. The problem here is that the mob does not include rocks and other debris; it's rather that they're armed with rocks and other debris. The wording here makes that ambiguous.
 * "however the United States and the United Kingdom were opposed the move" - 3rd section
 * ...and a bunch of others. I suggest you seek help from other users if you don't feel that you can't copyedit the article correctly. Unfortunately, I will not be able to help, as I am quite busy at this moment.  Jim Sukwutput  16:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What tirade? i didnt once attack you, unlike the NPA above.
 * Virtually every single article on ITN is not grammar-proof, picking out bits to bite at after the original arguement was debunked seems more like vengeance mongering here. The phrase about the mob also follows "armed with..." see what precludes the dodgy bit. otherwise ✅Lihaas (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "original arguement" wasn't debunked; I did not talk further about it because you seem to have no intention on correcting the problem. I'll let another admin see if he thinks having half a section unsourced is fine - quite clearly, the admin above does not.
 * Obvious grammatical errors are not trivial problems. The article was poorly written to the extent that many non-native speakers would not be able to comprehend it. This was not "vengeance mongering" - I mentioned the problem in my first comment above. Since you did not seem to recognize the problem, I gave you some examples to help you with that. Your lack of appreciation is noted.
 * There are still significant problems with the grammar of the article, making some parts of it virtually incomprehensible. Here's another example: "He also added that though co-operation with the "international community...the constitution and the sovereignty of my country are sacred for myself and for my countrymen and go beyond any partnership or loyalty."" I strongly suggest you to ask another user for help in copyediting the article. Otherwise I remain strongly opposed to posting this.  Jim Sukwutput  13:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is starting to look more like a power-struggle than actual prose problems if you ask me. How can anyone strongly oppose this article, I find that to be very strange...--BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Power struggle? I have no problem with User:Lihaas. In fact he is probably the user here that I agree with most frequently. This article, however, is simply not up to standard.  Jim Sukwutput  16:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I strongly disagrees.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Colombian Constitutional Court rules on same-sex unions

 * strong oppose we can post every country in the world doing so and its not even a regional first. Furthermore it seems they legalised unionjs not marriage. Akin to Mexico City (although whats the status of that? as the largest Spanish -speakign country it would be more notable when its national)Lihaas (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the Colombian Congress may decide that it will be same-sex marriage. This is a significant news item; it doesn't matter that such news items are becoming increasingly common, the story is still a notable one. Also, this is a region which is fairly underrepresented on ITN. Additionally, the ruling of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court on same-sex unions was posted on ITN. --~ Knowzilla  <sup style="font-size:x-small;">(Talk)  17:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont think we should have posted that. But we got 1 ready Latam article, another that was rejected yest and the copa america wone below. the underrepresented tag is being overused;)Lihaas (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Moroccan Royal Armed Forces Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash
78 people have died after a plane crashed in south of Morocco. Support as the nominator. That's the deadliest accident in 2011. -  Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Article. <font style="font-family:Impact"> wacky wace  13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 line, 1 source. not a chance in hell thats going up even if its notableLihaas (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Eugen, for the love of all that is holy, start making longer articles before expecting them to be showcased on the Main Page. This sort of thing is part of why this section is despised and ridiculed by so many. ƒ ox   14:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason people despise ITN is because it's not updated often enough. And that's because we don't get enough nominations per day. How are you not encouraging the fact that he nominates one nearly every other day? <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  15:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with fox. There's no point putting it up there if the article has no content. People can just read headline news instead.  Jim Sukwutput  14:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tentative support pending additional information. There isn't much detail on the actual story yet. All sources are referring back to the Moroccan army release. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 15:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, I think you're forgetting the entire point of Wikipedia. An article very rarely goes from nothing to B-Class in a flash. Eugen made the article (Eugen didn't even make the article, so these personal attacks aren't even warrented!), but he's not obligated to expand it to ITN standards. It seldom ever does in most nominations. That's why we have a community to back his efforts up. See also: WP:BUSY. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  15:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That might be valid criticism, and it's possible that you might get some support for it at WT:ITN. However, the blurb for this, if or when it goes up, will be to the effect of "plane crashes, X dead". Common sense suggests that, if we're linking to an article, that article should contain more information than the blurb. This one doesn't, at the time of writing, but it is possible to write a reasonable article on a current event. thoughof course, you need sufficient sources and time. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to gather support for anything I've said. I'm just saying that articles on this encyclopaedia take time to develop and don't rely on single editors for expansion. You can see what I mean by checking the most recent version of the article. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  02:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when updated. hopefully the article will be expanded in a timely fashion.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support but I don't think any additional information can be added as airplane crashes take months maybe even years to determine the cause of the crash and as you all will know, Wikipedia doesn't run on speculations. YuMaNuMa (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Royal Moroccan Air Force" does not exist. * The very term is emblematic of Wikipedia's attempt's to classify everything in terms that the English speaking world can understand. I see a whole sequence of articles under the same terms all rubbish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The left nostril of the real prof (talk • contribs) 06:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, instead of just whining here, why didn't tell us what it should say, and try fixing the blurb and the article, as I am about to do? HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The left nostril has made no other edits. I smell a sock! Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support iff the article is expanded a bit more, and given some structure. I'm busy elsewhere atm, but it is covered by ASN and Flight. The relevant thread on Pprune, whilst not a RS in itself, does contain links to RSs that would be suitable to expand the article with. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Truong Tan Sang becomes the new President of Vietnam

 * New head of state of a country of almost 100 million people. DHN (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support new head of state in country of 90 million people is clearly notable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly ITN worthy. Not sure if the article is updated enough to meet the requirements, though? Also, I know this is a bit of a hot topic at the moment, but if the article title doesn't use diacritics, why should the blurb use diacritics? Jenks24 (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an ITNR item, and doesn't require further support. This should be posted as soon as the update is made. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article needs major updates; it has some, but it could use more expansion.  Spencer T♦ C 13:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that Vietnamese is not generally an accessible language to English Wikipedia users, so substantial expansion may be unrealistic using available English media. It's almost twice the DYK prose requirement, which, in my opinion, is enough for posting. Increased readership usually brings about more improvements. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 13:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article had been expanded by User:Kauffner. DHN (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We can't expect too much more than that. Posted. ліса 《FOX》  18:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yikes I don't mind the topic, it's a decent subject. But the article is in pretty sad shape for the main page. RxS (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the modest amount of English sources on this issue the article's actually looking pretty good. 여우 《FOX》  23:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree, article quality isn't a sliding scale depending on the availability of sources. The number of sources doesn't affect quality of prose for example. Not asking for this to be pulled, but it should never have been posted. RxS (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since Dũng had already been confirmed for a second term, I think the blurb should be changed to reflect that. DHN (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb as proposed was fine. However, by the time this reached the template, President of Vietnam had morphed into President of Vietnam. Other than the old bad habit of making two links when one will do fine, I can't see why? Vietnam is already at the second degree of separation from the subject, and those at the first degree have all been linked. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ohconfucius. Possibly worth making a request at WP:ERRORS. Jenks24 (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Everything about the lives of Vietnamese leaders is treated as a state secret. Until January, Sang was a guy on a list with a name and a position, end of story. The article represents pretty much every scrape of information available about the man that I could cull off the Internet. This basically consists of his résumé and the Wikileaks cable on Vietnam. There is no political campaigning and no one I've talked even voted in the election, although the government claims 90 percent turnout. Kauffner (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The NFL Lockout is resolved

 * Support as nom meshach (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No games lost so dunno how this will fly here... H T  D  19:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Hall of Fame games was canceled and the drafted players terms were changed. But the big news is the collective sigh of relief from fans that I feel makes this newsworthy.  Also the start of the lockout was featured in ITN FWIW. meshach (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Has it (Start of the lockout was posted)? Anyway... oh good. Now let's wait for the barrage of opposes screaming "U.S. biaz!!!!!!1111" Don't tell me I didn't warn you... – H T  D  19:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support this was the longest labor action in the history of the most popular sport in the United States of America.  I presuppose that certain people will object solely because it is popular in America, but  this was a huge story, and historical  in its importance for the NFL. -- Jayron  32  19:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain, for the benefit of a rather confused Englishman, what on Earth this means? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as much as I would like to understand this as news, those of us on the western bit of the big pond just cannot grasp how this is "news". It's just....a bit of sport, not even a notable bit of sport, isn't it? doktorb wordsdeeds 19:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Imagine, if you will, if all of the owners of all of the teams in the English Premier League locked all of the players out and refused to allow the teams to conduct any business for 5 months in an attempt to renegotiate the terms of the player's contracts.  Now, imagine the day that ends.  Same situation, except with the NFL.  -- Jayron  32  19:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obliged :doffs cap: doktorb wordsdeeds 20:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: Should that be "July 27" rather than "June 27"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume so, considering we don't have a time machine handy. Feel free to revert me if I'm wrong. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my mistake. Thanks for catching and correcting it! meshach (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Woo-hooo!!!!!!!!! man cant live without football at all!!
 * buit the NBA lockout actually resulted in a change to the season so this is not that big.Lihaas (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose so this is something that didn't really happen? Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support seems highly notable. Would clearly be posted if it involved football, and something did happen - the hall of fame games were cancelled. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support Has received a lot of press coverage, but I think that the NFL lockout section should be split into a separate article. A few of the agencies reporting from outside the US: Eurosport Yahoo (UK/Ireland), Toronto Sun, BBC; currently top "sport" news on the homepage, Sydney Morning Herald, Xinhua, Al Jazeera, just to name a few. Nonetheless, 2011_NFL_lockout needs substantial updates, which should also summarize some of the results of the negotiations.  Spencer T♦ C 01:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the article has been sufficiently updated. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. This is a major sport, and a major sports story in the U.S.. Nothing about "bias" here, if this were the UEFA Champions League we'd be clamouring to post it. However, the article needs work and I side with Titoxd in opposing until updated. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support agree with the above, if this were the Premier League it'd fly through ITNC. Also, this is much more notable than Yao Ming's retirement, which we posted last week. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Support per StrangePasserby.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per TRM who noted that nothing actually happened. For anyone who's interested, I would also oppose this if it was the EPL, Champions League or my favourite sports league, the AFL. Jenks24 (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still trying to come to grips with this. I'm getting the impression that this all happened in the off-season, so no actual competition was impacted. No team fan missed a game. Is that right? If it's right, Oppose. Claims of the form "If this were XYZ League it would be posted" are meaningless. It isn't, and it wasn't. Hypotheticals are not strong arguments. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No fan missed a game. Is that right? No, that's incorrect. The Hall of Fame game between Chicago and St. Louis was canceled.  Spencer T♦ C 12:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be incorrect because they're your words, not mine. You misquoted me. If you feel the need to be dishonest in your arguments, you probably don't have a case. A little bit of ethics here please. No trickery. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad HiLo, it was an honest mistake. I will do better in the future.  Spencer T♦ C 00:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering you said "no team (sic) fan missed a game" and he said "no fan missed a game" how exactly is that a misquote? Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What an idiotic question. It's a misquote because it's not what I wrote. HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * roflmfao BRILLIANT! funniest mo. on WP yet. ;)Lihaas (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So is someone else using your account? Because HiLo48 wrote "No team fan missed a game. Is that right? If it's right, Oppose".  Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a misquote because it's not what I wrote. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both of you need to stop trying to have the last word, move on, and stop this pointless argument. No one's honor is being impugned because they were or were not misquoted in an argument over an ITN article. (of all the things to bicker about on Wikipedia, this is probably the second most worthless, behind Wikiproject scopes) --Golbez (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So, in total, one pre-season match was missed? Jenks24 (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per HiLo48. I haven't seen a support vote yet that is not based on an opposition to imaginary "anti-American" bias. Please, drop the bullshit. Something that essentially did not happen would not have been posted, be it about American football, soccer, cricket or whatever else. We don't report news on hypothetical events unless they are almost certainly expected to happen. That is not the case here.  Jim Sukwutput  10:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't give an opinion on this as I don't know exactly what has taken place (not in America, haven't looked into it, don't understand most of what goes on in the big bad world of NFL). I would however request - if this is posted - that we indicate that it is related to American football, and not the other football. ƒ ox   11:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean the other footballS. HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * comment ditto per Jim Sukwutput, this would not fly if it was a mere threat in europe or the ipl or any nonsense, if it happened then yes there is more notability. Should we post all industrial lockouts that hurt production (Maruti recently had one, and possibly still ongoing, lockout that signigicantly cut output). Furthermore, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not valid.
 * per Eraserhead's support "and something did happen" but somethign did NOT happen,,Lihaas (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Syutfu ...or Sukwutput. Also, the national football league of where? Is a setting going to be included into this blurb?  Night  w   17:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, the NFL is the most popular sports league in the United States and yes it is the longest labor dispute in NFL history. However, what exactly of importance was missed? The Pro Football Hall of Fame Game is the only game that will be missed but even then it is just an exhibition game. As some have already pointed out, this is something that in a sense did not really happen. Truthsort (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing happened. This is a no-story. Put aside all preconceptions of bias for a minute and just let that sink in.--WaltCip (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't true, the hall of fame match was cancelled, and its been going on for months, it hardly sounds like a non-event by any means. -- Eraserhead1&lt;talk&gt; 19:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Hall of fame game is just an exhibition game in which the starters will just play one series and then all the reserves play and every day of this lockout has occurred in the offseason. Truthsort (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a sport only interesting for the US. US interests are not world interests.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See the instructions for why that's an invalid argument. "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * oppose since a lockout happened and got solved all out of season. And anti-Americanism can not be used as counter argument to get items in... more than half the supports here seem to be using future strikes of other sports as argument. Only past examples can be used for such reasoning not future... -- Ashish-g55 01:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Death of Nguyen Cao Ky

 * Oppose Military leader of a country for less than 2 years, nearly half a century ago; and died a natural death. This is interesting to me as someone who enjoys studying history, but I can't see how this is newsworthy at all, in terms of having any impact in the rest of the world.  Jim Sukwutput  00:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per above. Probably would be suitable for the recent deaths section I suppose. YuMaNuMa (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stupid that twas posted, but i guess former head of sate/government so support reluctantly.Lihaas (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Vietnam's leader during a very important time for all countries involved in the war there. (I hope the lack of interest isn't a sign of trying to pretend it didn't happen.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 2011 housing protests in Israel

 * A (so far) week long protest in tent villages across Israel increeased last night, with tens of thousands of Israelis gathered in Tel Aviv to protest against the soaring housing prices in the Jewish state.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * what the hekc blurb is that "in the jewish state" we dont pov-push here. discussions of the states religous nature dont belofeng here.Lihaas (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Seems like this is rare for Israel, but there have been far larger protests around the world this year. Hundreds of thousands in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, the Philippines, China, and of course the Arab Spring.  Jim Sukwutput  13:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, a switch to support, after reviewing more sources. I wish nominators would spend more time conveying the significance of the events they are nominating. Note that the protest is not limited to housing anymore 1. The PM has also made a pledge for reform, although I'm not sure about the credibility of this. 2. Also, the use of "Jewish state" to describe Israel is politically contentious. There are some who would argue that it essentially disenfranchises the more than 20% Arab-Israelis, most of whom are Christians and Muslims. If that is the intended blurb, I suggest the last part should be deleted.  Jim Sukwutput  18:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article looks updated, and given someone switched sides to support marking [Ready]. I don't have the time to look at this and have an opinion of my own. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Article updated only through 20 July. Either this isn't news anymore or it needs to be updated further. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very true. Removing [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Plenty of content now, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A blurb would be nice. Or, if someone doesn't get around to writing one and posting one, I'll take care of this about half an hour. --  tariq abjotu  11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, only saw this after posting, but feel free to adjust my wording. :) ƒ ox   11:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For convenience, the blurb I have posted is: Protests against rising house prices in Israel continue, with thousands gathering in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. ƒ ox   11:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * much better, and for the record post-posting supportLihaas (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a ITN mention in the article talk page would be good.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Egyptian Anti-SCAF protest



 * Support: As the nominator. I am going to update the page right away and I will post a blurb; Also trying to get an image to illustrate the protest -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: The July 28th is significant due to it's context and scale. It was the largest mobilization of Anti-SCAF protesters to the Min. of Defense. Along with June 28 and April 8, it is among the most violent days of the post-revolution. In addition, it comes the day following SCAF Edicts 69 and 70, which target the April 6th movement and those who use social media to organize anti-SCAF events, and represents the beginning of a more aggressive policy against these groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.20.77 (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. From the look of that article, this doesn't seem any more notable than the numerous incidents that have occurred in Egypt alone for the past two weeks. We already have Arab Spring stickied, and I don't think this warrants a stand-alone post.  Jim Sukwutput 
 * Support, now that more information is coming out about the incident(s). However, the article needs expansion; currently it provides too little context.  Jim Sukwutput  18:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment These nominations on blurbs concerning Egypt have been way too numerous to the point that some of them are no longer reported in the mainstream media befitting a sticky. Our stickies -- the World Cup, Olympics, Arab Spring this spring (it's already summer lol), the Japanese tsunami and nuclear disaster -- all had wall-to-wall coverage when they were ongoing. This one, Arab Spring in the summer, no longer has that level of coverage. Hence it's high time to take down the sticky as the updates aren't coming in daily or probably be pointed to a better article (such as an timeline article, if that exists). (Also, the News International has to go if there are no significant developments until next Tuesday). – H T  D  15:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This is an important development, and certainly warrants inclusion in the front page. This is the first time SCAF has openly resorted to police tactics (the excessive force, the use of thugs, etc...) in dispersing a protest, and it's all the more notable since SCAF has also entered into near-open hostility with prominent activist groups like April 6 and Kefaya, making various accusations against them. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's already stickied. But HTD makes a valid point. It's probably time for the sticky to come down. I'll reevaluate if that happens. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  17:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The sticky covers the Arab Spring in general, but not all major news from each country. I do not why we cant have the sticky and major incidents. Arab Spring is ongoing event that takes a huge part of any News channel that covers international news. Also note that we are in summer and not that many ppl like to spend their time in front of the computer typing :D -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Continuing to post incidents when there is a sticky is somewhat excessive. However, as I said, I'm of the opinion that the sticky could probably come down by now. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  23:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It might seem like that but honestly, it's not. Last time we had an news from MENA on ITN was on the 10th of July. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because it's no longer in the news. The developments in Libya or Syria are more in the news now. – H T  D  04:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  11:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Copa América

 * Support: As nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Obvious support for this recurring item, but why do sports fans forget to tell us which sport so often? For others unaware, it's Association football. (Yes, we can all look it up, but now only I have had to.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, Paraguay will win after penalties. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  09:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Obvious support for this recurring item -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding the sport to the blurb. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Er... is it just me or does the "Match details" section not have any details? I've removed [Ready]. --  tariq abjotu  06:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No prose, but I think that is the norm for such articles. See 2004 Copa América Final and 2007 Copa América Final. The tables generally convey enough information themselves.  Jim Sukwutput  07:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That won't be enough. – H T  D  16:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Background" section needs references.  Spencer T♦ C 01:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 2011 Tour de France

 * Support - Mar4d (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Inclusion is uncontroversial and we've got some half-decent prose for the update. However, it is certainly not a question of tweaking an odd sentence in that commented out section.  Ideally an update should reflect things that could not have been known before the event in question, and we need references before the post - obviously they won't be available until an actual result is reached, and ideally some reaction to the result as well.  If it goes the way you seem to believe we've probably got a head start on this one but no more than that - there is still plenty of work to do. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Refs are actually already available: the last stage is largely ceremonial, so although obviously none of this could have been known before the event, which started 3 weeks ago, it is known a day before it finishes. Refs now in invisible section, and even the URL, though not the title, for today's stage summary is there.  But no, I'm not suggesting that it is posted before they actually finish.
 * Reactions have never been a requirement for sports postings at ITN. I'm sure Evans will say that he is proud, and thank his team, some Aussie politician will say that it is a proud day for all Australians, the race organisers will say that it has been a great advertisement for the sport, and the Shlecks will say that he is a worthy winner, that they are proud to be on the podium, and that they will be back to try next year.  Are such predictable platitudes really necessary?  Kevin McE (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There were no references in that commented out section as of the time I posted my initial remarks and I don't care to trawl through the edit history establishing precisely when those refs were subsequently added. As for reaction, I did say that that was the ideal: it gives some idea of what kind of refs can be used to satisfy the update requirements.  Old references, or expansion of previous events, do not qualify as an update. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Sorry: re-reading what I had put it does look like a nag. What I meant was that, contrary to your assumption that refs "won't be available until an actual result is reached" doesn't apply, as it is 3 weeks that are summarised.  My "Refs now in invisible section" was meant to highlight the difference in the content from what you had looked at: I was pointing out a change since then.  Kevin McE (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support The Tour de France is a pretty big event in terms of news coverage each year. YuMaNuMa (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed with Crispmuncher here. More work is needed.  Jim Sukwutput  02:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: No reason not to. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Also, I'd support the blurb containing something about Evans being the first Australian to win the Tour. Jenks24 (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 🇦🇺 Support pending update etc (I think it's helpful to nominate early like this). Also agree with the blurb mentioning that Cadel is the first 🇦🇺 winner. He's the first outside of Europe and the US to win. Woo! --Mkativerata (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support And echo the request above to include something about him being the firdt Australian to win le Tour doktorb wordsdeeds 15:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Subtle hint Race over and all the updates done. Kevin McE (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Someone get their shit together and get this on the frontpage now, please.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  18:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a BIG problem with this blurb: "In cycling, Cadel Evans (pictured) becomes the first Australian to win the Tour de France." The one proposed above is miles better. Not only is the current blurb grossly overlinked with 'cycling' and 'Australia' in blue, the key article is hidden behind a misleading pipe 'becomes'. I would therefore propose this to be amended to : "In cycling, Cadel Evans (pictured) becomes the first Australian to win the 2011 Tour de France." -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Saw this from OC's contribs list. Australians don't regard themselves as such a backwater that their country-name needs a link (and not even to "cycling in Australia", not that I encourage any link at all in competition with the main one ...). Is "cycling" any more than a vague dictionary word, superseded by "2011 Tour de France" (deceptively piped through "become" to the main article!!!)? I agree with his suggested cleaner version, except that I piped the last item (the main article) to remove "2011", which corrects a wrong fact in the sentence. Tony   (talk)  02:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Linking isn't for Australians, it's for those not familiar with Australia or interested in finding our more about Australia. The blurb is fine as it is. RxS (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, it's for the typical American redneck who hasn't even heard of New York. ;-) You still haven't explained why the original blurb (Australian cyclist Cadel Evans wins the 98th edition of the Tour de France) was inadequate and had to have been substituted in this fashion. I think that the original blurb was more concise, adequately linked and without misleading pipes. I find this culture of admins who control the post and insist on making changes to the blurb to apparently incorporate as many darn blue links as is humanly possible to be quite bizarre. Then we have the dismissive "The blurb is fine as it is" – I say it's fucking pisspoor. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "typical American redneck" pretty much ends this conversation. Thanks for playing. RxS (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Still no substantive response! Quelle surprise! I was already under the impression you didn't much want to play, and was looking for an excuse to take the ball away. I guess you'll probably say my smiley was facetious. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "The blurb is fine as it is" seems to be the mantra around here. I do not regard it tickety-boo for one moment. Think again. There is no reason why ITN (already disliked by many WPians—see the recent RfC) should fly in the face of site-wide guidelines on wikilinking. Tony   (talk)  05:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting admin seems to have done his own thing rather; blurb v different from that initially proposed, and apart from overlinking of Australia, the linking of cycling, if not redundant, is inappropriate: road bicycle racing would be a far more apposite link. The article on the 2011 Tour de France is not wholly, or even mainly, about Evans' win, so hiding that link behind the word becomes seems inappropriate. Tried to raise this at WP:ERRORS, but was sent back here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Wenzhou train collision
At least 32 have died after a train accident in China - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  20:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) --Simfan34 (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Minor train accident. We have had consensus against posting train accidents with much higher number of deaths before.  Jim Sukwutput  20:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CCC. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  00:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not in two weeks, no. There gotta be some consistency here, or else we'd get hundreds of non-notable nominations every day just to see if some users or admins suddenly changed their mind.  Jim Sukwutput  01:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we do need new criteria. Because we are starting from scratch with each nomination. But that's a good thing, in cases like these, because we shouldn't be comparing two completely accidents by their death toll. That's just trivialising what's really at hand and is the completely wrong way to look at it. That's why WP:CCC applies. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  12:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to trivialize about an accident. Accidents are non-foreseeable tragedies. The only impact they have on society is measured by how much deaths and injuries they've caused. In which case, why does it make sense not to give more weight to larger accidents and less weight to smaller ones? Would you post this if, say, one person was injured?  Jim Sukwutput  13:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Impact is not solely measured by the death toll. I would support posting if the one injured person was the Dalai Lama from a car accident. I would support if just three people died from an oil rig explosion. I would support if thirteen died in a school shooting. You see where I'm going? No accident or tragedy is the same; hence why we cannot pin a consensus to one and expect it to decide the rest. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  20:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * School shootings are not accidents, and oil rig explosions are generally preventable. Getting hit by a lightning is not. However, there does seem to be more information coming out about how this collision might possibly have been prevented if a better system was in place. That would make this notable.  Jim Sukwutput  00:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realised while writing that school shootings are not accidents. It was just an example to help drive the point home. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  15:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A tragedy in its own right, but something that will leave people thinking why should I care? <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  20:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, comes right after another high-speed rail opened in China that we also featured ITN. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   21:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of high speed rails in China with new sections appearing every year. Just because one opened this year does not automatically make all train accidents newsworthy. Also, any attempt to connect the two would be WP:OR. I have seen no reliable source that said that this would in any way affect the future of high-speed rail in China. FYI, the high-speed rail that was opened a month ago was the Beijing-Shanghai line, which is nowhere near Wenzhou.  Jim Sukwutput  21:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I think there are good reasons for supporting this: accidents on high-speed lines are rare, in part because these are the most modern parts of a railway system and so have the best safety features. The expansion of China's high-speed rail network has been the subject of quite a bit of coverage. And 32 deaths, while fewer than have died on the UK's roads tonight, is still a non-negligeable number. Having said all that, not even I would put the article on the front page in its current state! Physchim62 (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support if some minister tomorrow declares that high-speed rail expansion will be halted until more safety measures can be put in. Otherwise, any argument about how this is related to the rest of the Chinese high-speed rail network is purely speculation.  Jim Sukwutput  21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting it was something specific to Chinese high-speed rail. If this crash had happened in France or Spain (two other countries with a lot of high-speed track), you bet we'd be posting it! Physchim62 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support – this is the first ever bullet train accident in China with passengers killed onboard. Python eggs (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Comes during the ongoing major expansion and revamp of the Chinese railway system. Significant death toll and very high number of people wounded. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  00:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we expect an article? <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  01:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has pretty much nothing because nothing pretty much happened. A lightning struck a train and a train got derailed. Then somehow this manages to be connected to China's expansion of high-speed rail, which has as far as we know absolutely nothing to do with it, and anything that asserts otherwise is pure speculation. If an accident happened in France would you talk about China's high-speed rail? I seriously cannot understand how this nomination is even being considered, given that we have a precedent against posting similar incidents.  Jim Sukwutput  01:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But this was an HSR accident, involving a CRH1 and a CRH2. You make it sound like it wasn't in China and wasn't fatal.
 * Being an HSR accident does not make it any more special, unless we have confirmation that the accident was somehow related to the design or construction of HSR. We have no such information yet. All we know is that a train got struck by a lightning and somehow managed to derail.  Jim Sukwutput  02:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support High-speed accidents are rare, and fatal accidents even more so. China Railways has been plagued by reports of corruption and poor construction as a result, and the significance of this event is quite great. Additionally, this is the first fatal HSR accident in China.--Simfan34 (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The accident was caused by a lightning strike, not "corruption and poor construction". How did you manage to make that connection?  Jim Sukwutput  02:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, lightning is not the main problem here, it just made one train stopped. The main problem is, breakdown of the signalling system didn't prevent the rear-ending.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for some perspective on how often this kind of accident occurs: List of rail accidents (2000–2009). Note that many of them have at least twice the death toll of this incident, and most of them don't even have an article, never mind an ITN nomination. I'll also note to admins that both of the "Strong Support" votes above are from users who are participating in ITN for the first time. They may be unfamiliar with the kind of criteria we have for posting certain items.  Jim Sukwutput  02:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted I don't find the two opposes compelling enough to overturn the support for this item. And I'm sure you're all aware that I tend on the side of posting rather than not posting. --  tariq abjotu  14:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Accidents like this are unusual in a highly developed and modern system like China; in India, 40 people dead isn't uncommon, but in a high-speed syatem like China's, major accidents don't happen too often. C628 (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Amy Winehouse

 * Support as the nominator Singer Amy Winehouse found dead in her apartment today -- Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  16:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Important music-news for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support International star. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - A musician known wordwide for her material. Has achieved critical aclaim. Extremely notable person in general - Been subject to much press antention internationally. Rain the One  BAM 16:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support seeing how the last update was 24 hrs ago and this huge news but the article needs to be updated -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Important artist, untimely death, good article. Lampman (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Unexpected death of internationally known musician. Confirmed by the BBC and a tonne of other reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go as far as "unexpected ", I chose the word "untimely" with great care. Lampman (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as above. Physchim62 (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, mate!   Night  w   18:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Support. all of the above, no doubt. --Marianian(talk) 17:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Article needs an update. I might suggest caution here; The Cause of death is currently unknown.  It'd probably be worth waiting to see if info develops.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - I'm somewhat hesitant to oppose this, especially given the wave of support above, and considering that I'm personally an admirer of the singer. However, objectively speaking, this just doesn't pass the criteria. She has two albums, only one of which has received notable attention, and ever since then she was known more in the tabloids than in the music industry. I simply can't see this being an equal of, say, the Oslo attacks or the East African famine.
 * A second problem is that there is very little information available right now. I suggest we wait for a moment, even if we post this (which seems likely).  Jim Sukwutput  17:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Batjik's second point. Let's give it a few hours to see if we get an reliable source saying it was a drug overdose. If we don't have more information in a few hours, at least some of the excitement at the article to insert the latest Twitter rumor will have died down.--Chaser2 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Toxicology tests will take weeks. I'm fine with waiting until we can put some more into the update (it's edit conflicts galore over there at the moment), but I don't think we should be looking for the impossible. Physchim62 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural oppose simply on the basis that a prose update is required.--WaltCip (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not being an ITN regular, what is insufficient about Amy Winehouse? Or even the lead para of the article? Jenks24 (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * it needs a 5 sentence/3 source update. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, the information we have is less than what someone could have gotten by just reading the headlines in Google News, and we're supposed to be an encyclopaedic source.  Jim Sukwutput  17:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The death sentence currently has four sentences and there is one sentence covering her death in the lead (and easily more than three refs). Jenks24 (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are only two sourced statements that contain useful information. One other says "many people believe it is drug overdose", which is WP:OR and I suspect will be removed soon. Another is a useless anecdote about musicians who died at the age of 27, and I suspect will be removed as well.  Jim Sukwutput  17:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the requirements is that the update contain information beyond what would be in the blurb. Currently, I don't see anything in teh update beyond basically it saying she died.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, if that is the case, then I agree we should wait (though I still support). Jenks24 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support significant artist and an unexpected death. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * strong oppose;;; these peeps in the ent. biz are perpetually dying of some drug over dose or somthing. Now is it was political then its somethingLihaas (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree. This wasn't particularly unexpected.  Grsz <b style="color:red;">11</b> 17:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont' think you could possibly call the death of someone at age 27 not unexpected (unless they had been ill for a while). It may not be particularly notable, but it's hardly normal even for someone with a history of drug use.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support sudden death of international star. The lack of information in the article is not the result of it being outdated; the info just isn't available to the public yet. There's no reason we shouldn't post on those grounds. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  17:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Article has four good sources now. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when suitably updated (seems good now already, includes Daily Mail). Very famous singer throughout the anglosphere. --hydrox (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The update basically says she died.  That's not nearly enough, even it  it's stretched out into 4-5 sentences.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not our fault. The article will be updated further once updates are available, but right now they're not available. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  18:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Death of an individual can be ITN-worthy per se. The three sentence limit feels rather artificial, especially if there is just not enough to write at this stage. --hydrox (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose on notability grounds, but I certainly don't feel there's grounds here to override our normal requirements. This sin't Michael Jackson.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, the article meets our normal requirements. Can you point out what the problem is? <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  18:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * support more updates will be made as they arrive. -- Ashish-g55 18:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, One successful album, 5 years ago, no more than two top ten singles anywhere, and a long decline into self-destruction that was more the centre of media focus on her than was recording career. Thousands of artists have comparable level of market penetration: not that important a performer. (Comment restored, having been mysteriously removed by Eraserhead1) Kevin McE (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why he removed your comment but I imagine it is because you could be violating the rule that this is not a soapbox.--Avala (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just how on earth you managed to get "soapbox" from Kevin's comment is utterly beyond comprehension. And tampering with other user's comments is never allowed, unless the comment was grossly insulting to another editor.  Night  w   19:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if expressing an opinion is acting as though this were a soapbox, perhaps we should delete every opinion. Alternatively, you might like to explain that extraordinary accusation. Kevin McE (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Avala, that was not even in the vicinity of soapboxing. You're an established editor here, so you should know better. Kevin, it looks more like it was a screwed-up edit conflict; I wouldn't be too suspicious. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The comment just got nuked, it happens. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  20:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I didn't see it, sorry. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I didn't see it, sorry. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Posted Article is updated and there's a consensus here. RxS (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not enough detail.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support Very notable singer, one of the most prominent singers of our time. Polozooza (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly per Kevin. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What consensus is there that this meets our criteria for posting deaths? Obviously neither criteria 1 nor 3 are applicable, so we are left with number 2: The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such.   She may have been important to the media, because of her very public history of substance abuse, but one album does not make anyone a very important figure in their field: there are assertions made that she is "internationally known", or "a star", but nothing presented as evidence that she was "very important", and evidence presented as to how she had not done enough (and sadly, will not be able to do enough) to be thus considered.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this kind of speaks for itself in terms of recognition. Also, we kind of have a de facto precedent of posting sudden, surprising deaths of highly notable people that should probably be written into our criteria somehow. Lastly, we're not governed by statute. If we have a consensus to do something, we don't ignore that consensus because it arguably doesn't agree with a written rule somewhere. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 23 awards? Britney Spears won over 300, and I don't think there'd be so much support here if she were to pass away. But anyway, I agree there is a consensus here.  Jim Sukwutput  20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * if britney passed away i can guarantee that there would be support at MJ level... you underestimate her popularity. -- Ashish-g55 21:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That'll be as long as the Ted Kennedy discussion lol – H T  D  08:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, for what it's worth. If we didn't post this, we might as well not post deaths, ever. It has the coverage, the significance (most Grammy Awards by a female signer in one night, most for a British singer), and it fits the stupid and new criterion of being "sudden and unpredictable". Can't believe people still find ways to oppose. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  00:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, if symbolic, along the same grounds as said by Kevin McE.


 * Clearly insignificant to our readers. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  06:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you love it when the page view stats are in your favor? lol – H T  D  08:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone who opposed this item really needs to reconsider their role here. 4.2 million hits is unbelievably high. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not appreciated: maybe we consider our "role" to be trying to apply the published criteria rather than focus on talented but underacheiving artists whose media profile is disproportionate to their importance in their field of expertise. Kevin McE (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ITN is not here to promote the Esperanza Spaldings of the world. – H T  D  08:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Kevin, the main purpose of ITN is to showcase our articles. And the day we forsake consensus and forsake posting things that are of interest to our readers in favor of a written rule somewhere that our consensus arguably doesn't support (which it does, in this case), that's the day I reconsider my role here. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  17:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Totally irrelevant: viewing figures are not part of our criteria. Reference to this will only serve to justify tabloid scandal type stories, and the principle suggests that ITN is redundant (people find the article without ITN's help) Kevin McE (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No "tabloid" story that doesn't already get nominated would ever get posted due to the inability to write a suitable update or due to the lack of coverage in non-tabloid sources. Maybe you could write one about Lohan going to jail, but it'd be a push. Posting one "tabloid" story a month isn't going to kill ITN, and its highly doubtful you would ever be able to post more than that - even if they were treated as a minority topic, even if none opposed them. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a sad fact that humans as a whole care more about some fallen singer overdosing in drugs than about the thousands of easily preventable deaths that are occurring every day in the rest of the world.  Jim Sukwutput  14:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * RECOMMEND REMOVING She is not really that famous for her singing, only having one real hit, being more famous for her shameless drug abuse. Her appearance borders on ITN being a mere news service, which is not what it's supposed to be. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 12:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * SHE had x-platinum-selling albums, see Amy winehouse discography, especially Back to Black. Albums are by far more important than Singles. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫  Share– a–  Power[citation needed] 13:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that the unknown number that you represent by x is in fact 1. Which is the whole point.  Kevin McE (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know anything about music recording certifications and music charts? The last album received 6&times;Platinum in the UK, GER and SWI and 2&times;Platinum. The "1" is the peak position on a chart.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫  Share– a–  Power[citation needed] 10:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This section is called In the News I never understood why we make death criteria so complicated. This death is "In the News" very prominently, second only to the Norweigan tragedy. Who cares if Amy Winehouse didn't cure cancer or land on the Sun? Her death, and the subject of her article, is very much In the News. There should be (or rather should have been) no debate. I know this is not going to be removed, so this isn't worth stirring up drama, but if this death could be said to not meet our death criteria, we need to fix -- or eliminate -- our criteria. --  tariq abjotu  14:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * she died at age of 27 people... that alone made the death that much more notable. -- Ashish-g55 15:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. If this death doesn't meet the criteria, the criteria need to go. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  17:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Overlinked as usual. Suggest it be changed to "British singer Amy Winehouse is found dead at her home in London." Why do we need to link anything other than 'Amy Winehouse'? Who in the English-speaking world do not know 'United Kingdom' or 'London'? When I saw 'death' linked, I was expecting to see another article focussed on her death, and alas, I was disappointed at being misled. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree about "British" and "London"—what a degradation of the linking system. I suppose we can count ourselves lucky that "singer" isn't linked. On the "found dead" pipe, yeah, I can see what you're trying to do: link both to the (top of) the article on her, and then to the newsworthy bit. Problem is that ITN ends up using weird piping to link to the unfolding-event target. My inclination would be to link only to the ITN section, which after all is the point of the whole exercise. If people want to scroll up to the top, fine "British singer Amy Winehouse is found dead at her home in London."  Tony   (talk)  03:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

41 people die in a bus fire in eastern China

 * Support as nominator. Almost as high a death toll as the bullet train collision. (Heroeswithmetaphors)   talk  05:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Didn't support the bullet train one, so an obvious oppose for me here. But I suspect many others would concur, given that the rationale for supporting the bullet train (recent controversies surrounding expansion, rarity) no longer apply. Plus, this will at least be the 7th item, and I suspect we won't have that much space tomorrow.  Jim Sukwutput  05:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Elliot Handler, cofounder of Mattel, dies at age 95.

 * Support as nominator. We don't have a great article but he was without a doubt a great influence on American kids. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose One of two founders of a toy company, passing away at the age of 95. Something for the Recent deaths section, but I don't see this being newsworthy at all. Even a Google search only turns up 30 articles around the world, and the kind of deaths we post here tend to have thousands.  Jim Sukwutput  10:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Batjik Syutfu, something for the Recent deaths not ITN.  Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  10:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Life was significant; death isn't. The article hardly tells us anything about him, especially for the last 40 years of his life. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. Thanks, you guys are right. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Oslo explosion

 * An explosion has occured at the Norwegian government building in Oslo, Norway destroying the government building according to norwegian media. Several injured reported. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for story, source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait (but support iff we have a valid updated article, this appears to be a very major incident). No sense in throwing a stub (if we even have one) on the main page. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 2011 Oslo explosion created a stub for the event.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. A building destroyed? If someone actually dies this might be considered. We also have no idea right now what actually happened. You ought to nominate after you have an article.  Jim  Sukwutput  14:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, I had no idea about the significance of this event when this was written. A post-post support. Jim Sukwutput  10:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on the details available at the moment. Cause is unknown, no fatalities and only seven injuries are currently being reported, and the BBC are now suggesting the origin may have been a newspaper office and not the government building.  Of course I may reconsider if new details come to light but it is looking fairly insignificant at this time. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC).
 * In western euopre where these things are much rarer. we posted the bombing in sweden that only killed the WOULD BE suicide bomber.Lihaas (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears to have occurred in a newspaper building, but caused lots of damage to nearby gov buildings.  Chzz  ► 14:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * is under development.  Chzz  ► 14:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support deaths are now being reported. --GoldenMew (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral If this were to a terror attack(which some sources point to) there would a support. Details are unclear right now and support or opposition seems premature. If clear details come out, my position will be changed. 86.85.205.212 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Has been confirmed to be a bomb.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've yet to hear if the prime minister was in the surroundings at the time, as his office was just near the blast. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  15:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, AP says he's safe. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  15:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, terrorist attacks are rare in the Nordic countries. Thue | talk 15:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - a bomb attack on government buildings is big news. Bob talk 16:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I think the article is in a good-enough state, now, to be posted up. Definitely a major, significant news item.  Chzz  ► 16:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Major attack in a place that doesn't often have attacks. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - A bombing against the government buildings in Norway with several confirmed casualties is definitely big news. This kind of attack is very rare in Nordic countries, and as far as I know, terrorist attacks in Western Europe with confirmed deaths are always included in ITN. Mathias-S (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant and rare attack in Norway, definitely seems notable enough to post. Hello32020 (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  16:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest image File:Statsministers_kontor_Office_of_the_prime_minister.jpg --hydrox (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We think alike, I changed the image before seeing this suggestion. --  Zanimum (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Couple of follow-up notes. One, the blurb neglects to mention the |main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2|80346#s314115&title=Norway_Explosion seven deaths, and two, should we mention the youth camp shooting? For now, I would suggest altering the blurb to say,
 * A bomb explodes in Oslo, Norway, damaging government buildings and killing at least seven. I don't think its necessary to mention the prime minister or his office specifically, as he was not even present at the time of the attack.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Summer Camp shooting
The "real story" (as insane as it seems) here is the Youth Camp shooting, where there are around 20 to 25 dead according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Swedish newspapers say 25–30. Anyway, there really should be two blurbs. One for the bomb and one for the shooting. Theleftorium (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Connection has been confirmed by the police. Theleftorium (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. They're obviously related, we should factor both into one blurb.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about A bomb explodes in Oslo, Norway, damaging government buildings, and a shooting occurs on the nearby island of Utøya with a total of at least 16 killed. Maybe a little long, not too bad though. Hello32020 (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the two should share a blurb. Maybe: Two attacks in Norway, an explosion in Oslo and a shooting in Utøya, kill 16 people and injure at least 15 others. ƒ ox   20:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A Norwegian minister just spoke on BBC, calling this a "double tragedy". Also, the perpetrator (who is alive and in police custody) was allegedly seen on the place of the bomb attack before the shooting. The attacks seem strongly connected. Shooting attack seems to have larger number of casualties. --hydrox (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fox's proposed blurb sounds good to me. Forget the damaged buildings, there's a lot of casualties. It should say 'bombing' instead of 'explosion' though, as that was the type of attack.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 20:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, any admin able to update the blurb? Hello32020 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I agree, these two should share a blurb as two elements of the same story. I'm happy with either proposed shared blurb myself. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Total deaths reported is now 17 for the admin updating. Hello32020 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated The blurb says "kill at least 17 people" since the death toll is still increasing. Theleftorium (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Update request With deep sadness I have to inform that the police are now reporting that there at least 80 people who have died on the island – sadly indeed, this is an official figure.. Most of the victims are young. The main page should be updated to refelct this at some point, because it currently says 17. --hydrox (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Update ** NYT they arrested a Norwegian man who allegedly disliked "Mr. Stoltenberg's liberal government"; how are those articles looking? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/world/europe/23oslo.html?hp   Sharktopus  <sup style="color:black;">talk  02:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be careful with use of the adjective liberal. It has many meanings around the world. It's a Labour Party government. Why not just stick with that? (I'm saying this from Australia where our Liberal Party is the conservative opposition to our Labor Party, so liberal seems quite silly.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe he is quoting the NYT article, so feel free to take it up with them. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with the NYT using language that works for its primarily US audience, but the global encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, should avoid it where it's problematical. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with HiLo48 here. We ought not to use political definitions that are only restricted to the American public, especially when posting about foreign events. Even American academics tend to use social democrat or socialist to describe the left-wing, not liberal.  Jim Sukwutput  10:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Liberalism isn't a term restricted to the American public and it only has one meaning. The term is being correctly used here, considering the stance of the Labour Party, but I agree, Labour Party is more accessible. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read that article, you'll see how you're wrong. What you're talking about is American liberalism. Liberalism in the rest of the world means social liberal or classic liberal. The Labour Party (Norway) self-identifies as social democrat and democratic socialist, not liberal; the liberal parties in Norway are the Progress Party (classic liberal) and the Centre Party (social liberal).  Jim Sukwutput  17:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, I'm talking about Locke-esque liberalism -- the "liberalism" studied in nearly every world history class. But, now that I think of it, it's a very broad term that can be applied to any progressive or left-leaning party. Probably why it has so many "definitions". The article for American liberalism is just liberalism applied in the United States. Is "classic liberal" referring to economic liberalism (since Locke was a strong proponent of "laissez-faire")? Because as far as I know, it's social and economic liberalism.  <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  01:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The liberalism you study in your "world history class" is probably classical liberalism, known in the U.S. as libertarianism (some claim a difference between the two, but it is minor - both are, to be rough, socially permissive and economically permissive ideologies). There tends to be a lot of confusion about the term in the United States because you guys use it to refer to what other countries would call "social democracy" or at least "social liberal", but then when you study it in history you're still using the old definitions, so that people like Locke are mistaken to be left-wing even though they're closer to libertarians. In other countries, liberal is usually considered centrist or centre-right, not left-wing. For example, parties with the name Liberal Party in Australia, Hong Kong and Denmark are all on the right of the political spectrum. Jim Sukwutput  04:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not American ;) We have a social democratic party and a liberal party here in Canada, which are left-leaning and a little left-of-centre, respectively. In my history class, Locke was portrayed as the founder of classic liberalism / libertarianism, and, essentially, as a reformer of individual and economic rights (a position that, for that time-period, I'd be poised to call left-leaning). It's still the prevalent view in my mind. But I'm a little ignorant of the modern or prevalent view of what liberalism means. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  21:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. the Liberal Party of Canada is generally regarded as social liberal. I'd say it takes a centrist position in the Canadian political spectrum now, considering that it's flanked by a larger NDP and two smaller parties on the left.  Jim Sukwutput  00:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's about right. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  15:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly are we arguing about here? The term isn't in the blurb, or in the linked article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Either they're talking about how stupid Americans are, or the American educational system teaches the wrong kind of liberalism. – H T  D  08:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the United States has a definition of liberalism that is different from the rest of the world. It makes little sense to use this for an encyclopaedic page, especially since we have consensus that we use the academic and worldwide definition of liberalism. This is certainly not an issue unique to the United States - plenty of countries have their own definitions for certain terms for historic reasons, for example in Portugual the "Social democratic party" is the right-wing party.  Jim Sukwutput  13:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Update request - Reaffirming Hydrox's request to update, since the police have updated the amount of deaths from 17 to 87. Hello32020 (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mother of God. Updated by Rettetast. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow... this sort of makes me sick to my stomach... <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  04:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OMG... <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  06:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Goran Hadzic update
extradition completed today, wo we can update the blurb (article is updated)Lihaas (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Condé assassination attempt

 * Oppose Another failed assassination attempt. These are fairly common in developing countries - Fidel Castro has had over 600 failed assassination attempts. Imagine if we posted each one of them.  Jim Sukwutput  10:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose As stated above assassination attempts are very common, and successful assassinations of government officials can be narrowed down to a weekly to a fortnightly occurrence so a fail assassination would not really qualify for wikinews headlines.   YuMaNuMa (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the attack was unsuccessful and attempts themselves aren't necessarily significant.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 10:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * not common or such a prolific one in Guinea, what a broad brush "developing countries"? Its not a govt official alone but a PRESIDENT, which is not fortnightly (libya/yemen excl.)
 * no supports go without saying, obviously, no?Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If it comes to the point where we need something to post, I support this. It's definitely significant enough for ITN if we have nothing better, which we don't seem to.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 11:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fidel Castro was also a President, and had been for decades too. I agree we need something to post soon, but at this point I'd rather go with the Malawi uprising or South China Sea agreements below rather than one of a few hundred failed assassination attempts to occur every year.  Jim Sukwutput  12:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, the South China Sea agreement is the 2nd largest territorial agreement in terms of the numbers of countries involved. Surely that is more newsworthy than the many hundreds of assassination attempts. Unfortunately the Malawi protests article is not well formulated yet so I don't think it would be advisable to submit that article yet. YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Many "hundreds of assassinaion attempts" on HEADS OF STATE? can we cite a mere 2 dozen (over a short span of time to show its not rare)?Lihaas (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Note that many failed assassination attempts are not published for various security and intelligence reasons - for example, of Castro's alleged 600 attempts only a few were ever mentioned at the time.  Jim Sukwutput 14:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * HEADS OF STATE gaddafis was dubious and up for various political manoeuvering to claim assassination. i already mentioend yemen (they are in the throes of a civil war, guinea is not)_ maldives is plausible yes, but that leaves about 2-3 in the span of this past few eyars.Lihaas (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's what I found after 20 seconds of googling. You don't expect me to keep a record of every assassination attempt that has ever occurred, do you? You're free to google yourself - I'm pretty sure you can find at least 20. And given that most assassination attempts are not published, that could plausible be up to 100 per year. And even if it isn't 100 per year, this is still far too insignificant to be posted. We want things that are once in a year or at least once in a few months, not something that happens every week or two.  Jim Sukwutput  14:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said mention of has EVER happened i said in quick succession. ie- roughly once a year. of which only 1 head of state plausibly holds up of what you added above. Country's at peacetime with instability threats are more notable ofbviously.Lihaas (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't decipher this comment. Could you please spend a little more time on what you write?  Jim Sukwutput  14:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lihaas (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support We are not talking about Fidel Castro, Gaddafis or any other of the politicians mentioned, but about Alpha Condé, president of Guinea, and unless someone point out that these thing are common in his government, I see no reason this shouldn't be posted. Maddox (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Way to miss the point. Tell me why dozens of assassination attempts every year don't even get mentioned on Wikipedia and yet suddenly a failed (and alleged) attempt on the President of Guinea is newsworthy enough to be posted on ITN.  Jim Sukwutput  22:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again: we are not talking about these "dozens of assassination attempts" that happen with other people, in other countries, but about this one. Maddox (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that this country is somewhat 'small' and relatively 'unknown' isn't helping you prove your point. The other fact that this is a developing country with a well below average GDP.YuMaNuMa (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now we're talking Guinea, and not about other countries, finally... What was your criteria to stablish it as a "somewhat small and relatively unknown" country? Maddox (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That was obviously a subjective statement, and we all have different criteria for that. Personally I think we ought to exercise caution about posting news that is limited to a country with less than 10 million people. In this case Guinea has slightly over 10 million.  Jim Sukwutput  10:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm going to take that back now as it is pretty much my personal opinion of the country based on my criteria but assassination attempts are fairly common for impoverishment countries where much of the nation possibly despises their government for not doing enough to sustain the country's economy. YuMaNuMa (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on, we have ITNR events on countries the size of Singapore. This one ain't that bad. – H T  D  14:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Singapore's GDP is about 55 times larger than Guinea's, meaning that their influence in the rest of the world is much greater. Still, I agree that Guinea isn't insignificant, but it's just the event which is extremely insignificant. A failed assassination attempt? Come on.  Jim Sukwutput  17:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on, not all failed assassination attempts are created equal. This one apparently failed to injure Conde. If he was injured, it would've been supported very easily, just like what happened to Jose Ramos Horta, the leader of the most insignificant of countries. (See nomination.) – H T  D  19:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

DADT Repeal Certified and in full effect
Last hurtle for DADT repeal is going to occur tomorrow with Panetacertifying it for the Senate. Discussion should probably should start now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Discharges of service members were still occurring up until July 6th. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   23:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We posted the symbolic part of the repeal; I think that's enough for this news. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  00:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems like a mere ceremonial act. The main hurdle was the courts and the legislature, about which we've posted plenty of times in the past. Batjik  Syut  fu  01:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose we posted the abolition (or whatever the technical term is, I forget) a while back. Similarly, we post elections, but we don't (normally) re-post when the head of state/government formally takes office. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the perfect analogy that HJ raised. Passage of laws can be significant, but there's no need to repost when they take effect.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 04:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was an inevitable step and is less noteworthy than either passage or September 20 (the date the old policy ceased to be effective).--Chaser2 (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Lucian Freud dies

 * Oppose I could do quite the impressive tag bombing run on the article with the number of tags it needs. would not mind posting if issues could be resolved in a timely fashion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure. He was 88, though his death seems relatively sudden. I don't know a lot about the man and the article is poor, but The New York Times saw fit to write an obituary and "OM" and "CH" are two of the rarest post-nominal letters in the British honours system. If the article were polished up, a good case could be made... HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Unlike Harry Potter 7, that broke a meaningless record of "weekend opening" and was considered ITN-worthy, Freud painted Benefits Supervisor Sleeping and set a world record for "highest price paid for a painting by a living artist". Maddox (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Aside from the unnecessary initial claim, I agree with Maddox. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  00:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Natural death; not significant. The world record for the painting is important, yes, but that's the only newsworthy thing about him. When we post about people who die of natural deaths, there is generally more than one notable thing he did; otherwise, just post the original event. For that matter, the 2008 sale was not posted on ITN either.
 * Natural deaths aren't significant? About the sale, not being posted means only that: it wasn't posted. Maybe ITN didn't had as many editors contributing as it has now. Maddox (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're a new user in this process, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rules and criteria that we have for posting ITN items before you begin hounding everyone. That's certainly what I did when I first joined the process.  Batjik  Syut  fu  22:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not exactly a "new user in this process", but I understood your point. I've participated in previous discussion abouth deaths (Itamar Franco and Peter Falk's) and they were both significant people that died of old age. I noted three points in your comment:
 * (1) "Natural death". I repeat the question: "natural deaths aren't significant"? Since when? "Cause of death" isn't a ITN criteria, althouht it can certainly have a influence in the impact of the news.
 * (2) "Only one newsworthy thing about him". The record is the most noteworthy thing about him, not the only. And even if it was, i presume if "the deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such" a blurb about his death should be included.
 * (3) "The 2008 sale was not posted on ITN". The fact that the record wasn't posted only means that: it wasn't posted. If there was a discussion about it, and someone pointed as not ITN-material, we would have something to discuss.
 * Last but not least, I suggest you familiarize yourself with these rules I alleged am not familiarized with and point why he is not relevant enough. Maddox (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I also have doubts about his significance because every news article about him I've read starts with "grandson of the founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud". That's interesting, yes, but if that's the most notable thing someone can say about him.... Batjik  Syut  fu  01:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is always a valid concern what an individual has a famous relative: are they famous in their own right or by association. In this case I would contend the former.  By by association tends to be fairly direct and in this case it has skipped a generation.  Who was Sigmund's son, or Lucian's father?  The fame has skipped a generation and transferred to a completely different field.  Signmund Frued is long enough ago that any surrounding celebrity status has dissipated anyway.  When coupled with the independent recognition (and record price as noted elsewhere) is seems the relationship is an interesting side note rather than the reason for Lucian's fame. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Signmund Freud is one of an extremely small number of famous people known by one name. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Lucian Freud was the Kanye West of contemporary art. Lampman (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Natural, old age death → Recent deaths. Even if he was a significant artist, his death isn't significant enough to put on the front page.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 03:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 04:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did you guys got this criteria? If he was a significant artist (and he was) his is death is significant. Or we will only post blurbs about murdered people? Maddox (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support signficant and well known artist. At a post rate of two a day he's easily notable enough. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a person who spends quite a lot of time on Wikipedia, news websites and an all rounder leisure researcher, I have never came across his name once (Wikinews headlines should reflect the interest of the general public not just a subcategory of people) and his death was of natural causes which makes this news item even less significant. YuMaNuMa (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You not having heard of him only means that: you haven't heard of him. Not intending to go off-topic here, but, I have to answer to your claim about headlines: most jornalists I know believe headlines should reflect what is of public interest, and not what is interest of the public. Maddox (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Freud was a major artist – Britain's foremost figurative painter, awarded the Order of Merit (the highest accolade available in Britain), and his work sold for record-breaking amounts at auction. His age is immaterial, given that we've posted the likes of Sargent Shriver and other elderly American politicians when they've copped it. And his death is considerably more significant than the retirement of some basketball player. 87.113.71.232 (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it's easier to define achievements in sport and politics than it is in art. The article is improving, but it's not there yet, and we'll need a few sentences on his death. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Swarm above -- "Even if he was a significant artist, his death isn't significant enough to put on the front page". --Mkativerata (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's only significant when old American politicians die. Or basketball players retire. 87.113.71.232 (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why? Because people tend to die when they get very, very old. When people die suddenly, like Amy Winehouse above, that's a "significant death". And while it's appropriate to post deaths of extremely significant people, (e.g. we'll undoubtedly post Mikhail Gorbachev's death), we can't post every artist or every person who was significant in their field who dies at an old age, that's precisely why we have recent deaths perpetually stickied to ITN. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  18:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there's such a thing as "significant death". The criteria is exactly the opposite of what you're saying - "The death must meet at least one of the following criteria: (...) 2. The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such" - and no one has disputed the record. Unless someone is able to pont he wasn't a important figure (and by that i mean unless someone is able to prove the record does not exist) this should be posted. Maddox (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The death criteria are minimum criteria. The very part of it you quote makes that clear ("must meet"). It's not a case of you meet one of the criteria and the death gets posted. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It says very important figure, not "broke some record". Lots of people would dispute that breaking a record for how much you sold for your painting is an achievement in the fine arts.  Batjik  Syut  fu  21:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Having the most valuable painting of a living artist is a pretty significant record. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Achievement in arts had little to do with how much your works sold for. Otherwise Backstreet Boys could be some of the most important musicians in the world. Van Gogh lived a life of poverty; so did Shakespeare.  Batjik  Syut  fu  22:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't really argue that this is manufactured art like the Backstreet Boys - it is high-art. Piccasso is famous for making money before he died unlike some other older artists - but I doubt da Vinci and Michelangelo were poor. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, but point is, earning a lot of money is a pretty poor indicator of how great your art is. Some great artists were rich, some were poor. There ought to be some other way to demonstrate him being a "very important figure".  Batjik  Syut  fu  22:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Malawi uprising?
Pretty serious anti-government protests and riots in Malawi http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14231251 --93.137.144.166 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2011 Malawi protests article needed first, of course.--93.137.144.166 (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * support seems big. 10 deaths today, but we need an article and it can be part of the Impact of the Arab Spring (✅)Lihaas (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - seems itn worthy news.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article's pretty much nonexistant, so there's really nothing to support at this point. Let's wait and see if it gets amply developed.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 13:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'd like to work on it, but all the news article I've seen are either extremely short or mostly filler (history of Malawi, economic data...). Let's hold on for a while.  Batjik  Syut  fu  15:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * agreed, i was just about to work on it but went out. im adding stiff now.Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment better?Lihaas (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Question Arab Spring is sticked to the template. How does this impact discussing blurbs related to it? Maddox (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What? Malawi is not an Arab state. Not even close.  Batjik  Syut  fu  16:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't said Malawi was a arab state... I noted Lihaas comment about the impact of Arab Spring. As "Part of the impact of the Arab Spring" (not me saying, but the article), is it alreayd covered? Maddox (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't agree with Lihaas here. I'll note that he wrote what is in that article, and he did not cite a source, so this seems like clear WP:OR to me. I'm a little familiar with the situation there for personal reasons, and I see absolutely no connection to the Arab Spring protests.  Batjik  Syut  fu  10:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll just note here that I oppose this based on the current state of the article, which is not only short but completely incomprehensible at some points.  Batjik  Syut  fu  18:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Conditional support if there is strong copyediting and more expansion.  Spencer T♦ C 20:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

American Airlines aircraft order

 * -sigh- We just posted "the largest single order in commercial aviation history" a month ago, you're telling me it's already been surpassed? Good god. Anyway, looking back at the reasons the previous deal was posted, I don't really see anything convincing. It was posted with a few weak supporting statements as it was a minority topic and it "sounded like a big deal". With this coming up one month after we jumped on the last "biggest deal", I'm hesitant to support posting something like this again.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 06:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this not two separate orders, one with Airbus and one with Boeing ? If so does either one of them exceed the old record of US$18.5 billion ?  Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  09:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure since I'm not too familiar with the airline industry. I've not seen something that specifically breaks down the value orders from each company (though that maybe because the final breakdown of planes has yet to be determined). Sources are putting both orders together and saying that this break's AirAsia's record. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 09:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling that this is a PR only record, this is really looks like two orders being "joined" to make the news for American Airlines, so unless it is clear that the order to either one of the companies beets the US$18.5 billion I have to Oppose this.  Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  10:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose From what the nominator said, there seems to be sufficient doubts here about whether this actually is a record. I say we exercise some caution here.  Batjik  Syut  fu  10:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * support on the basis of consistency. just need to confirm if this is prospective or confirmed and itf the article is updated.Lihaas (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the basis that its not a single order as its with two separate suppliers. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very sceptical here. It looks two separate orders to two manufacturers, and it looks like American have framed it this way as an exercise in PR. I'm inclined to oppose on that basis. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Space Shuttle

 * Can we use Space Shuttle retirement as the bolded article instead? That would be a better target than STS-135. StrPby (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Or should we link "end of the Space Shuttle Program" to Space Shuttle retirement? I would prefer not to. I've added the "30-year" to the blurb. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   02:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I considered that, but ultimately I decided to go with the mission, as that article is far better than the retirement one. In any case, the link to the retirement article is now in the blurb.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 02:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This works for me. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   03:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an obvious entry in my view - I don't see it not being posted. Not bothered about the actual target - why not wait till it's happened and we can see which articles are getting the updates?  We need a good, solid update for this one - we did post the launch so we need significant new content to justify the posting, not fudging or completely ignoring the update requirements as some were advocating for the launch. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC).


 * I will be on hand for updates and uploading landing photos. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   03:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. The story here is Space Shuttle retirement, so that should be bolded. Thue | talk 10:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Question- Lands at Kennedy Space Center or Lands at the Kennedy Space Center? <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   03:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking 'the' is more appropriate, thanks for pointing that out.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 03:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, conclusion of a landmark space program. Here are some alternative blurbs pointing to different articles. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 09:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the retirement article should be headlined because one, multiple better articles exist. Two, this is the third space shuttle to be retired. We've individually featured the other two (if I'm not mistaken), so I don't see why we wouldn't feature the final one. Three, STS-135 appears to be ready. The retirement article needs work yet. Regarding the last suggestion, I don't see why we should exclude the mention that the shuttle landed.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 10:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I know little about the issue, so can someone explain why the end of a space programme would be particularly newsworthy? I thought it'd be more newsworthy if some new space progrmame is to be declared. Batjik  Syut  fu  10:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was one of only two human spaceflight programs in the world. It leaves the United States, for the first time in decades, without such a program. It also had unique capabilities that no other space program can accommodate for. It also opens the door for commercial spaceflight to take over some of its roles, such as supplying the space station. So it's a very significant and historic event for NASA, the U.S., international space programs, and commercial spaceflight in the future. A manned space program is certainly no small thing.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 10:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've convinced me. Support.  Batjik  Syut  fu  11:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So, er, which article are we bolding? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * STS-135 has more page views and is of better quality than the retirement article. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   13:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, STS-135 is the primary article regarding this and it's in the best shape by far.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 13:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  14:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Uzbekistan–Kyrgyzstan earthquake
Hurricanefan25 tropical  cyclone 14:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant earthquake, toll could rise. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 15:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose 6.1 is at least lower than 10 of the earthquakes that have occurred this year. And the article is in poor shape. Might change to support if death toll rises significantly.  Batjik  Syut  fu  17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The magnitude often doesn't matter, it's the Mercalli scale rating and the death and economic loss. In this case, I feel that those two contributing factors make the event worthy of appearing on Wikipedia's in the news section. Hurricanefan25  tropical  cyclone 18:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, I know. But without any details yet, the size of the earthquake is often a good proxy of its destruction. And even if we take the current death toll, it's far lower than many comparable earthquakes and other natural disasters.  Batjik  Syut  fu  18:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * comment the title doesnt match with the blurb. has no one noticed?Lihaas (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason for that is explained in the first paragraph of the article. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Query are there any rough estimates of Damage and scale of it? 6.1 can be quite powerful depending on its depth and building code in the particular country. This is two of the "Stans" over there so my knowledge is limited of the area. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Yao Ming Retires
I know we don't normally post sporting retirements but Yao Ming is unique. He is by several metrics China's most popular athlete ever. The article is FA class. The article does need an update. I'm open to suggestions on the blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I was prepared to post this, until I noticed the update consists of one sentence only. We need a paragraph or so... Courcelles 21:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC) I've updated the article and am marking 'ready'. I'll add that Yao Ming's move to the NBA resulted in 2-3 hundred million people in China watching his games.1.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems far too run-of-the-mill for my taste. A sports star retires... so what?  Assertions of popularity seem to be based purely on sponsorship income and I would venture that these are nothing out of the ordinary for a figure of Yao's standing in the American NBA.  The fact he is Chinese while making that money does not translate by necessity into popularity in China.  It seems to me we have had several very strong ITN contenders in the last 24 hours or so after a comparatively threadbare few days.  This is a minor side show in comparison. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Oppose ^He is, actually, one of the two most popular athletes in China according to various surveys I've seen. But I don't think this is sufficiently newsworthy, considering that the retirement was expected since his last injury.  Batjik  Syut  fu  16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - FA and special instance. Yao Ming has been the face Chinese basketball for years, as in, he's been the only driving force behind it. This is a pretty unique situation and inflates the importance of this retirement to much more than it normally would be. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for one it's an FA, that's a tremendous plus. Two, this is an extraordinary situation, for reasons outlined by Ed.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 17:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think for a sports retirement story the only way I could see one qualify is if it were a player who was considered the greatest (Jordan or Gretzky) or if it was a superstar who had to retire due to extremely notable circumstances. Ming's popularity in China aside, his retirement could be seen on the horizon for a very long time now. This is not so much news at this point as it is he is simply confirming what we all already knew. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support People might be surprised how Iconic a figure he is in China. He is "8 time NBA All-Star (2003–2009, 2011)" and has a Featured article. Any one of those on its own (or even two of those) would not always get the support in my book but combined... yeah lets post. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support the post rate has been pretty poor over the last few days with only one story and one sticky posted since Monday. This seems notable enough, and better than most of the other stories nominated. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as well, mostly because he is a very skilled player getting much attention for his retirement. He's got a very strong base in China and, although this "isn't unexpected", the article is in an excellent shape and provides lots of background information as to why it is unexpected. The update needs a bit more work though. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that the update is only one sentence is a good indicator of the lack of significance. It has been expected for months, and Yao Ming hasn't been a serious player for years (a total of 5 games in 3 seasons). Yes, he still has a huge support base in China (being Chinese, I know this quite well), but so do many other retired or semi-retired players. Sports-related news should be kept to sports; I feel that this is crossing the line into celebrity news.  Batjik  Syut  fu  22:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose He may have been the face of basketball in China, but I believe there has to be extraordinary success at the highest level (in this case the NBA) for an athlete's retirement to be posted. The fact is he never won an MVP, never received All-NBA first team honors, and never won a championship. Truthsort (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted There is sufficient, if rough support, and that it is an FA tips the balance towards posting this. Courcelles 03:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please take this down. There is no consensus to post. Truthsort (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose his relevance and popularity has slipped in the last few years. Even in China, he's losing popularity to players like Kobe and LeBron. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So we're really going to post whenever somewhat major sports figures retire now? Duly noted.. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 05:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support/Leave up per Ed, Anthropologist. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 05:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although we don't have a strict law of precedent, it would be naive to believe that this will not be cited.  There is nothing obviously unique, or even outstanding among his generation, in his achievements.  The sport had a long and fairly successful history in China before him.  By definition, every sport in every nation has a most popular practitioner of that sport in that country, and often many pretenders to that title.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I really think complaining about nominations after they have been posted is really inappropriate, and makes it far too difficult for admins to make good decisions about content - there is already far far too much vote counting by admins when they post, asking for items to be pulled after they have been posted isn't reasonable, and should require a clear WP:NOTVOTE consensus in opposition (including the !votes before) before it is done. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not going to ask for this to be pulled, but there was absolutely no consensus for posting (5 supports 4 opposes, with 3 more opposes after the posting; no discussion between votes). If the administrators feel that this is an acceptable standard for posting, then fine. But many other items are not posted even though they have far greater support in either relative or absolute terms. This decision seems to me highly arbitrary.  Batjik  Syut  fu  08:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhh, I see 6 supports in total and 6 opposes. Truthsort's comment was not an oppose. But I agree, there wasn't a strong enough consensus for a sports item. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  00:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus ≠ vote tallying. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, but what sign of consensus is there? Nearly half of the people disagree, and there has been no response to any of the disagreements. If all the oppose votes were one-liners with no rationale I'd agree with you, but that's not the case here. In fact, all the support votes noted that the article was FA-class, but none noted that the actual update was only three sentences long and had absolutely no context (at the time of posting). That would not even pass the basis criterion for a nomination. Batjik  Syut  fu  10:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the reasons for supporting this were comical. Basically, it consisted of a.) He is the face of basketball in China b.) it's a featured article and c.) We haven't posted anything since Monday so we should post this. Truthsort (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with those support arguments? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea that FAs get special treatment was rejected. And Kobe's been the top selling Jersey in China for four years   Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It'll be interesting to find out how will the discussion look like when Kobe retires... :P – H T  D  18:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No it was not it was agreed it was not a minority topic. As long as I have been around here We have always had the desire to post Featured and GA content when possible. It's not that every FA and GA related event get posted but it can tip the scales on borderline issue. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FA is good, but when basically every support vote cites the FA status, and the posting admin cites it for his reason to post again, without any regard for the actual significance of the event or the quality of the update, that's a bit overblown.  Batjik  Syut  fu  01:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Hot Stop, I just want to underline the fact that the only conclusion about FAs was that they shouldn't formally be added to the minority topics list. The discussion was too limited to draw any conclusions beyond that. RxS (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * while this is dubious, goran hadzic below has unanimous supportLihaas (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

4th moon for Pluto

 * Support, as nominator. Reh  man  14:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support but please expand the article! Hurricanefan25  tropical  cyclone 15:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Caution urged What we have here is insufficient for the IAU to formally recognise the discovery - there are no orbital elements for example. Until that time this is the claim of one scientific team based on one week's photos.  I'm not against this going up - I'm marginally in favour, in fact - but we need to be careful as to presentation. I would be reluctant to describe this as a "discovery" for example since in the absence of further confirmation it may yet be dismissed or retracted - it has happened many times before.  Yes, that article does need work but available data seems to be very limited at this time.  If our article is sketchy but that is a genuine summary of what is known about the new body I don't think that should be an automatic bar on it going up. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when named. This dwarf planet discovery is important, but it would make a better story when the name goes public. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 15:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That will only happen with formal IAU recognition. That could take years. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC).
 * The existence of this planet is verified - is that not enough? Hurricanefan25  tropical  cyclone 16:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a re-reporting of the same findings, not an independent verification. It's not enough for the IAU, who are the worldwide authority on this matter, have seen it all before, and have defined procedures in place to prevent the formal discovery of non-existent object - claims of discoveries of this nature that turn out to be erroneous are surprisingly common, even by teams of professionals.  Without orbital elements it is difficult to show definitively that it is even in orbit around Pluto.  It is an interesting development and again, I think this is worthy of posting something about.  We just need to be careful as to what that is. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC).
 * I'd suggest the blurb "The discovery of a fourth moon orbiting Pluto is announced" (or reported). This would make it clear that it's not yet officially confirmed. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's more along the lines I would be happy with, although a HST mention may be warranted. I'm aware that this whole thing may sound like a pedantic point but the IAU haven't adopted their current procedures on a whim. One other point about the original blurb - the HST is a joint project, not a NASA one. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC).

Oppose An un-named, un-verified, assumption is not front page news. It will take years for the IAU to verify this, as it should be. Follow due process. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support, even if not recognised by the IAU. There's no reason we cannot use the blurb suggested above and then post the official recognition later in the future. As long as they are certain this is another moon. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Crispmuncher. Seems premature.  Batjik  Syut  fu  20:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Three or Four years ago I would have given an unconditional support but Pluto is not even cataloged as planet any more so its really not all that important. If there are interesting feature about it I will listen but it's oh another asteroid in orbit situation. Given the Caveats in addition to that I cannot support right now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - while I think such a discovery can generally be considered credible enough to be posted before official verification, I'm going to have to oppose quite simply because the only reason this discovery has any significance is because Pluto used to be considered one of the planets in our solar system.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 06:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: @Swarm: Even as a "degraded planet", Pluto remains well-known to the public, and is one of only 5 acknowledged dwarf planets (two of which are moonless). And it is the only known example of a minor planet with 3+ moons. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

[Stickied] News International phone hacking sticky
Seems to me that this story has enough daily developments to a level we would not want to cover daily, but enough for us to sticky it. Thoughts? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose its just 1 issue so we can always bump/update per consensyusLihaas (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support could probably replace Arab Spring now. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  11:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * need consensus for that. cant unilaterally pull it.Lihaas (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No reason we can't have two stickies. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * cant have 2? says who? + no reason for consensus? since when. just reread it
 * anyways see below...(weve also had 2 before thi s year itself)Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Definitely. Along with the Arab Spring one.  Batjik  Syut  fu  11:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Batjik Syutfu -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry quick question, usually when someone uses the "per" argument, they are referring to a rational by another editor. I don't really see Batjik offering any rational. Can you clarify that for me? Thanks...RxS (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rationale ;) And you're right, it's used to repeat a rationale said by someone else, so Egyptian didn't use it right, but it's fine. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * hmmm....is it fine? At the time of posting there were no actual justification behind the supports. It was posted purely by bolded vote counting. I don't think that's fine, do you? RxS (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant. I meant that the usage of "per" was not semantically correct (i.e., the word was used wrong because he was referring to Batjik's post, which had no substance... therefore he was referring to "nothing"), but we understood what he wrote, so "it's fine". Whether or not the support should have been accounted for was not what I was addressing. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  02:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ask the admin who posted it. I was quite busy with another article at the time and did not have the time to explain my rationale, so yes, there's less substance in my vote than I'd like it to have. I'm not sure what The Egyptian Liberal is referring to, but I suspect he might mean that he agrees with this being posted along with the Arab Spring sticky rather than replacing it.  Batjik  Syut  fu  20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a question for the admin who posted it. It's posted and there's no point in dwelling on it. I was responding to Ericleb01 who may or may not think that pure bolded vote counting is ok. Though, in your case, how much weight do you think your support should have given a lack of any rationale?  RxS (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I haven't been editing or even visiting WP much lately, and I was surprised not to see this story featured on the front page. Let's have it up there!. __meco (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I understand it's a big story, but it's not that big, Japan earthquake, Arab Spring big..RxS (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe this is now stickied. I'm not necessarily blaming you, HJ, as there is a wave of support already, but putting this item as a sticky has seriously lowered the standards of what gets stickied. Put things in perspective guys: Olympics, World Cup, protests in the Arab world, Japanese earthquake -- all stories that have been very prominently in the news with international interest and contributions. But, this? C'mon; folks. This is an example of systematic bias, if ever I've seen it. The nominator made no mention of the developments that he (or she?) found so noteworthy, developments that would have otherwise been posted on ITN on their own. It sounds like we just put this up because our British and, to a lesser degree, American readers have been bombarded with play-by-plays of this not-so-important story during this slow news month. I am very disappointed. --  tariq abjotu  16:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm Chinese, User:The Egyptian Liberal is Egyptian, User:Strange Passerby is Singaporian, User:Meco is Norwegian. Why would you think we have a British/American bias?
 * I'm also somewhat confused as to the purpose of this comment. Isn't the role of an admin to determine consensus, not to complain about it? You posted an item below that had barely a majority of supports (which I have no complaints about), and yet you complain about another admin's decision to post something that had overwhelming support? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you feel so opposed to this posting, couldn't you have offered your opinion during the discussion instead of complaining about it afterwards?  Batjik  Syut  fu  16:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not complain about HJ's decision to post the sticky. Read what I said. And please don't tell me about "posting during discussion". This was up for a mere six hours; that's not a particularly long time. If one looks at my contributions, one sees the meager contributions I made during that time frame because, believe it or not, some people have other things they need to do.
 * I'm not one of those people who gets blue in the face when something they don't want posted gets posted. It's not important to me, despite the time I spend on ITN. The purpose of the comment was to... well, if you read it... do exactly what I said: lodge my disappointment that the standards for what gets stickied has been lowered. It's similar to lodging my disappointment over a paragraph break in TFA; I mean, if that's the way forward, if that's what people want, fine, but I don't have to like it and I will say so. --  tariq abjotu  16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with much of this. If we want to lower the standards by which we add stickys that's fine, but we need to explicitly understand that's what we are doing. RxS (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I find this event much more deserving of a sticky than Arab Spring, though I supported both. I really don't agree that this is a lowering of standard - it is IMO at least more important than two of the stickies that Tariq mentioned. We definitely have a different assessment of its significance here, which won't be changed by a few back-and-forths. Maybe we should end this debate?  Batjik  Syut  fu  17:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you underestimate the significance of the scandal, Tariq. It's one of the biggest political scandals in the UK (affecting a media conglomerate with interests in the US and Australia as well as the UK) for a decade at least. Arguably more so, even, than the "cash for honours" business. Parliament has held an emergency session to discuss the matter for the first time since the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, there are allegations of police corruption, political cover-ups etc. It's not just the media inventing stories for silly season. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the UK --  tariq abjotu  16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country."  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 17:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your point? On September 11, all the planes struck on US soil—being confined to the boundaries of a particular state does not, in itself, diminish the significance of an event. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever used the expression "flabbergasted" before, but I can only describe myself as flabbergasted as to how Tariq can post things like Harry Potter and netball while complaining about our low standards regarding things like high level political scandals. It's just way beyond me.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 17:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * HJ, this is not 9/11. Swarm, neither Harry Potter nor Netball were sticked, and the posting of those were based on my judgments of consensus, not on my judgment of their significance (and I explicitly said the latter was not significant at all). I'm not going to waste my time further on futile discussions that involve nonsense comparisons like these. My disappointment has been lodged, and all I needed to say has been said. This is certainly not worth the further stress from replies, like the preceding three, that completely fail to address the matter at hand. --  tariq abjotu  18:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the sticky and agree this is a massive story with legs. Every day this week has seen a new headline several of which would have been ITN candidates in their own right.  It's affecting the entire Murdoch media empire which is influential all over the world.  It's dominating news talk shows in the US.  Last week I listened to the New Yorker political scene weekly news roundup and the entire show was on the NotW fallout.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * After the fact strong support for the sticky, in fact I was going to propose this. Major scandal for an immensely powerful and influential international media empire that's already affected high level officials in the UK. It's been going on for some time, and it's already starting to spread into the United States; it's not likely to 'go away' IRL or at ITN anytime soon. It could probably be argued that this is more significant than the World Cup or the Olympics.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * post-posting support because there are new developments everyday. And it's very notable. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm placing my support behind the sticky as well. It may seem like a small-scale saga, but it's highly covered in the media and there seems to be new notable developments every day now. It's a convenient solution. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Post-sticky Oppose I am lodging my opposition on the record to this. I fully accept that the story is significant. I do not accept that it is somehow important *enough* for the status it has been awarded. The momentum this story has is already slowing down. It has not spread to other countries outside English speaking ones, which should say a lot (whereas, if we use 9/11, the consequences most certainly did). I suggest, with all respect due, that Recentism and Bias have creeped in here. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that all four of the original supports (not counting the nominator) were from people who live in non-English-speaking countries, isn't it quite ludicrous to say that this scandal is limited to English-speaking countries? I know what I read every day, and I'm the last person to have an British/American bias.  Batjik  Syut  fu  20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But the story itself is narrowly defined. Rupert Murdoch said as much in his evidence - NoTW makes up 1% of his Corporations incomings. His dealings are essentially confided to the USA. This story only involves English language media in 2, predominately English speaking countries. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you check where Rupert came from, and his dealings there. Another perspective on this is that it's the media talking about the media, perhaps trying to tell us how bad Murdoch is, from a non-impartial position. This is a case where media emphasis is a very poor guide to significance. We need to judge really carefully for ourselves how important this really is. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * News Corp owns most of the international media where I grew up, and it was not an English-speaking country.  Batjik  Syut  fu  20:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, your claim that this only involves English-speaking media in the US and UK is quite simply not true. You obviously are unfamiliar with Murdoch's media empire, but I assure you it goes beyond "2 English speaking countries", LOL.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 20:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't treat me as though I have dragged myself from under a rock on this. My objection from the first post is about the status of the story, not the man himself. This scandal, such as it is, involves just the US and the UK (and the former only just, for now). Has any other event featuring an English speaking country been stickied? Recentism over reason. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Review this decision** I would like to suggest that we officially review this decision elsewhere, to get a project-wide consensus. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously? That seems totally overblown.
 * FWIW Support this seems perfectly sensible given the level of coverage. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read my comment above saying that level of coverage in this case could be a very poor indicator? If you were part of the non-Murdoch media, you would be making a huge fuss over this, wouldn't you, just to show how evil Rupert is. So be very careful with that measure for this topic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Matters involving ITN postings — content, mind — should be discussed here, at ITN. It's downright crazy to suggest we need to "officially review this decision elsewhere" when what this amounts to is disagreement on content within a WikiProject, which happens so often that if everyone felt the need to get an "official review" with "project-wide consensus" every time, we'd never produce any content. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, there are commonly very harsh disagreements about things that do or don't get posted and the griping can continue for days after an admin has made a decision. However, calling for an "official review" with a community-wide discussion is a bit out of line. HJ made a reasonable decision and did not act out of line with accepted practices in any way. The support for the sticky has clearly outweighed the opposition, and there's no grounds for a review of the decision.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 02:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Things seem to have got overheated here of late.  From my observation things seems to go on a downward spiral initially in the Harry Potter noms but could be the real origin was slightly earlier.  I don't think having a couple of days with few if any decent nominations helped.  Everyone needs to chill out.  Ultimately nothing we decide here really matters - it'll be gone in a few days. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Things have been in a downward spiral long before the HP nomination. ITN has been dysfunctional for quite a while... us contributors have very polarised points of view and it's for that reason that discussion often gets out of hand. We lack proper guidelines for submissions and therefore the same arguments and dilemmas continue to appear over and over again. There was WP:ITN3.0 but that only ended with the addition of section tags... <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  02:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 South China Sea dispute agreement

 * Support as nom. <b style="background:HotPink;color:white;">Sp33dyphil</b>  "Ad astra" 10:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Has sufficient context for me to understand the story, is well sourced and is of sufficient importance to put on the front page in ITN. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose They agreed to a set of guidelines, but the discussion is far from over. This is too premature. We ought to post when they actually make a deal, in the unlikely scenario that it happens. The article also needs more work.  Batjik  Syut  fu  10:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * wait until its implemented, no issue yet that this will hold or themetings wasnt a talk shopLihaas (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose from the reuters article "But a broader accord on which country owns what in waters believed to be rich in gas and oil remains as far off as ever." Until that time, it's not main page worthy. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait story need to progress a few more days(weeks?) until more detail and a clearly foreseeable outcome is in sight. YuMaNuMa (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with YuMaNuMa The key of this blurb is "preliminary guidelines" negotiations could break at any moment and be back where we began. If we get a treaty or some other substantial resolution at the end of it all then We can post.
 * It's been so long since the start of the disputes (since 2002) that an development would seem crucial. <b style="background:HotPink;color:white;">Sp33dyphil</b>  "Ad astra" 11:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't the only development that has occurred in the last 9 years. And it certainly isn't more notable than all the rest.  Batjik  Syut  fu  02:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this has been in dispute since the Qing dynasty (who claimed the whole area) - any progress in this area is significant. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both the PRC and the ROC have border disputes with India, Pakistan, Vietnam. The PRC also claims Taiwan as its own while the ROC claims the entire China, Mongolia, and parts of Burma and Russia. Border disputes are quite common in this region.  Batjik  Syut  fu  02:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a non-binding agreement, I would only post a formal binding agreement. This little agreement may produce nothing in the future.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the agreement merely outlines how would the countries talk to each other -- they did not agree on something nor are there breakthroughs. – H T  D  12:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Goran Hadzic

 * Support. Very notable. --bender235 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support the last of the fugitives being arrested is particularly significant. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Posted. Although there are only two comments, we have posted the arrest of other ICTY-indicted war criminals, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume a pre-existing consensus, especially when this is the last one. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is he the last to be indicted or is he the last to be arrested? I thought it's the latter, but the blurb makes it seem like the former...  Batjik  Syut  fu  14:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * blurb here suggests "fugitives." if the others are arrested then they cant be the last indicted fugitives.
 * though i agree the non-consensual ITN blurb is well off the mark and uncitedLihaas (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] UN declares famine in southern Somalia

 * Support. Important development. Arjuno (talk 08:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Droughts and floods seem worse in recent years. This particular crisis is part of a drought that has already affected over 10 million people in one of the world's most impoverished regions. An indirect link exists between the famine and the ongoing food price spike and MENA protests. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 15:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support A declaration of famine does not necessarily indicate a significant deterioration since the term has an official definition and something "becoming" a famine simply indicates that threshold has been crossed.  However it is a significant indicator of the severity of the situation and does cause aid efforts to be ramped up. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Posted. The blurb is bare bones, but I'm open to suggestions for improvement. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not the second sentence of the blurb above?
 * Some other suggestions (one of these should suffice): First time a famine has been declared since 1984-1985; 3.7 million people in need of food aid in Somalia; over 11 million people in need of food aid in the entire region; worst drought in sixty years; severe lack of international aid according to Oxfam ($800 million urgently needed according to Oxfam; $300 million in Somalia according to other sources).  Batjik  Syut  fu  16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Post Post Support This is a definitive statement authoritative body on the issues there. We have been waiting for such statement for awhile on this issue. Worst Since 1984 as some are reporting which is also substantial. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion
The Cypriot Foreign Minister has just resigned, making him the second cabinet minister to resign in the aftermath of the massive explosion which killed 12 people, including the head of the Cyprus Navy. I know we've already posted it once, but the article is of good quality and it's not every day that two cabinet ministers resign over one incident. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A number of minor reasons here. First, the main incident was already posted, so this would only be about one minister. Second, the death toll is quite small and it seems mostly to be an accident, although it could have been avoided. Third, two cabinet ministers resigning from a country of less than one million is not really a big deal. For comparison, a few days ago 13 cabinet ministers were replaced in Egypt, a country of 80 million, and it was not posted on ITN.  Batjik  Syut  fu  20:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We didn't post Egypt because it's stickied to the front page! As to the story, I'll have to think about it. I agree with HJ, but I'm not entirely sure whether this is politically significant enough to feature it a second time.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 01:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Murdochs testify before parliament
The Murdoch's testimony before parliament has gotten extraordinary coverage, even though their denials were not shocking. CNN covered their testimony live (I only caught a 15 minutes, but they may have covered all of it). It is currently the lead story for the NY Times (despite the debt ceiling crisis), Le Monde, El Pais, and of course the BBC. I think the news coverage is there, but I do not know whether a denial is significant enough to post. Thoughts?--Chaser2 (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "testify" is the right word, since British select committees are not courts and don't have the kind of power that Senate committees do in the States. Oh, and Parliament consists of about 800 people. It seems that journalists are using it as shorthand for the Culture, Media and Sport select committee. I'm inclined to support just for the comedy value of the "shaving foam pie" attack! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm using my American vocabulary. Please re-phrase as necessary.--Chaser2 (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose We've had a lot of posts on this recently and while the overall story is massive we need to restrict ourselves to big new developments rather than every minor twist and turn in the story. I watched the whole thing live on the BBC and didn't see any truly earth-shattering developments - the whole thing was pretty tame really.  The most significant aspect was probably the shaving foam attack and that kind of counterproductive political stunt is not ITN worthy in my opinion. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC).
 * I read about that part, too. I am not proposing posting that nonsense.--Chaser2 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose No Significance as there are many more such scams in varies democracies much bigger than UK or USA such as India.--<span style="font- weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 1px; padding: 1px 3px;"> . Shlok  talk. 19:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do they get this much international news coverage?--Chaser2 (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is international news coverage? Do you want to say size or readership? If it is so then Indian media is much bigger than UK and USA put together. --<span style="font- weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 1px; padding: 1px 3px;"> . Shlok  talk. 19:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indian media covering India is not international news coverage.--Chaser2 (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, So that UK or US media covering UK or US scams is also not international news coverage.--<span style="font- weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 1px; padding: 1px 3px;"> . Shlok  talk. 20:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the Times of India covering the hearing. Here are two more articles about the News Corp scandal from today 12.  Batjik  Syut  fu  20:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of the "extraordinary" coverage is one part of the media saying "Look how bad Murdoch media is". It's media against media, rather than real news. It was also one more chapter in a saga. Wait till the movie comes out. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing significant came out of the proceedings from what I can tell. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  01:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Tummalapalle Uranium mine

 * support  worls dlargest is a notable event.
 * brilliant! and sell it to Iran, thatll be notable and a NAM boost ;)Lihaas (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Significance? It might have one of the largest Uranium reserves? That's really questionable, but even if it was confirmed- so what? Is Uranium particularly rare? I wouldn't suspect so, based on its seemingly common usage.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 15:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Uranium is actually quite valuable. It is not extremely rare when you count all the deposits around the world, but the problem is that the deposits tend to be concentrated in a few specific countries. None of the countries in Western Europe, the Middle-East or North Africa have an extractable amount of uranium reserves, which makes it an extremely valuable strategic resource (since countries who do possess it can then export it to any country they like - such as Iran or Israel). However, India does already have uranium reserves and in fact it has long ago developed nuclear weapons and a nuclear energy industry, so this might not significantly change the geopolitical situation in South Asia. Also, there is no confirmation that it is the world's largest yet, so it might be premature to post this. All in all, a weak oppose.   Batjik   Syut  fu  19:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here BBC News is covering the news and Reuters also covering the news. Lot of International news coverage to justify news worthily.--<span style="font- weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 1px; padding: 1px 3px;"> . Shlok  talk. 20:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I never said international news coverage is a criterion for posting on ITN. I only posted those links in that other section (where I did not vote) because you and Chaser2 were engaged in a pointless back-and-forth.  Batjik  Syut  fu  21:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, analysts are saying that the deposit isn't even sufficient to meet India's nuclear energy needs. This discovery certainly won't change the geopolitical situation, and it won't even really change India's energy situation. If it turns out to be the largest reserve, that seems like a significant discovery to I might consider supporting then.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 01:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe they are still doing the analysis, may be once it is complete, we can may be post the story. The notability would have to be on the volume of the uranium deposit and not on the impact on Indian energy sector, as India would still need to import uranium given that India proposes to build 30 more nuclear reactors (as I understand from BBC news). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Syria recognises Palestine

 * Support but the article has to be updated more. The minimum is five sentences and three references. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Check though. The Arab League was the pressure, so the leadup is a substantial part of it. It's a country article so five sentences just on Syrian recognition would be undue. An alternative article is Foreign relations of Palestine.  Night  w   13:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support significant development in one of the world's largest IR issues.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 15:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I also think it's important to emphasize that this is a concession from its decade-long policy of full liberation. For those who are unfamiliar with the issue, they might mistakenly think that they were against Palestinian statehood in the past.  Batjik  Syut  fu  19:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to see a bit more elaboration about what this means. People here are, for example, implying (if not saying) that Syria's original perspective was that what is currently Israel proper should be part of a Palestinian state, but that is not clearly mentioned in the article. On another note, why is the update under a section about the upcoming vote in the UN? --  tariq abjotu  19:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This article explains some of the background. "Syria has always been calling for the liberation of Palestine from Israeli occupation and ambitions. The latest stance, however, shows that [Syria] has given up on a national policy that has spanned several decades." It's under the section about the vote because this recognition was made in response to Palestinian efforts to become recognized. According to this article: "In a statement to SANA, Abdulhadi said this recognition constitutes a great support to the Palestinian cause and the efforts of the Palestinian people to attain UN recognition of the Palestinian state in September."  Batjik  Syut  fu  20:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Syria does not recognise the state of Israel. It considered it (until yesterday) all as "Palestine". Until this point, its policies regarding Palestine were simply liberation from Israeli control with the possibility of it subsequently becoming part of Syria. See Pipes and Rabinovich. The update is where it is because the development is part of the Arab League's recent push to get Palestine into the UN as a state in September.  Night  w   20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware Syria doesn't recognize Israel, and I'm quite certain that even after recognizing Palestine, they still don't recognize Israel (like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc., who recognize Palestine but not Israel). But the conclusion that Syria would like to see all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza as part of a State of Palestine, or as part of a Greater Syrian state, is not for-gone, and not necessarily changed because of this recognition of Palestine on 1967 borders. If the belief is that this recognition changes that policy, I believe it should be mentioned in the article sourced by more neutral sources than Pipes. It's not essential to getting the item on the Main Page, but with an update of merely two sentences, something needs to be added, and I think this is a key piece of information that could complete the update. --  tariq abjotu  08:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the shift in policy may simply be on paper to help the current agenda. All of this is merely speculative at this stage. I think the comments from Hoss are enough to represent those speculations. That aside, the blurb sticks to the simple facts (i.e., that it's made the decision and that it's the last Arab state to do so), so readers can read into it however they want. If it's decided that this is not notable enough then I understand.  Night  w   10:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * markign ready as its got the suppots and the updaet is with adequate prose/reactionLihaas (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to remove [Ready] again, but, in my opinion, it's not ready. There are two sentences (including an extended quote) in the State of Palestine article (the nominated article) about this happening. That's not enough, and I provided an example of what could be added. If people don't think what I suggested is important / relevant, fine, but something else needs to be there to make the update more wholesome. And it should not be particularly difficult to do that. --  tariq abjotu  10:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag, I agree the update is below what we'd generally expect in terms of length. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll withdraw the nomination. The article is long enough, I simply can't add anything more about this one development.  Night  w   12:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though I gave you an idea what to add... --  tariq abjotu  14:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that I'm strapped for ideas on additions, as I said, it's that adding anymore about this one moment in history to that article would be like adding a section on the latest development of the Don't ask, don't tell policy to the United States article.  Night  w   05:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, slow news week and this is pretty notable. So what if there aren't multiple paragraphs? Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 05:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not requesting multiple paragraphs; just more than two sentences and a long quote. --  tariq abjotu  07:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Launch of RadioAstron
We haven't yet posted such launch as I remember, though it's a really important news in the space technology development. The article is in poor shape, but I hope this won't shadow the nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm very supportive of this in principle.  It is an ITNR event and it seems to me that if it was a NASA project it would be a shoe-in even if not.  However, the article is not in shape and that is something we cannot overlook.  Sure, it's been greatly expanded today but the five sentence update guide is best thought of as meaningful sentences that refer specifically to the updated element, in this case, the launch.  In this case I see plenty of padding that adds no real value to the article (e.g. "The massive space traveling telescope promises to unveil numerous mysteries of deep space" and some awkward turns of phrase (e.g. "space-borne").


 * We are also lacking some basic details of the scope - we don't even have its aperture listed, for example, although it is given in at least one of the sources. The core rationale of the mission appears to be obtaining an unusually large separation for very-long baseline interferometry, much further than would be possible even on a pair of antipodes.  If that is the case we could probably do with explaining that too since it is core to the very rationale of the mission.  These comments should be regarded as exemplary rather than a comprehensive critique, since no doubt other stuff should be in there too that does not spring immediately to mind.  Overall then, it is a tentative and reluctant oppose based on the quality of the article. I'd love to spend a couple of hours knocking this in to shape but I doubt I'm going to get the opportunity today. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Of course this needs times more work than usual, but I hope the news as such is sufficient to warrant inclusion, despite of the technical issues that could be easily met. The blurb also will be reworded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's actually looking a lot better now then when I first looked at it. I'll give it a little attention now too. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now done what was screaming at me, but credit is due to BIT1982 for the bulk of the work. There still isn't actually that much said about the actual launch though the article as a whole is unrecognisable from what was a few sentences 48 hours ago - it's almost a new article. As such I'm now inclined to support, although I could understand if people argue a further update is needed. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC).
 * I've also asserted ITNR in the template although I had already highlighted that in my initial comments. I would like to see this posted reasonably speedily since it is likely to only have a short run on the template anyway: it is more or less inconceivable that the last shuttle landing due tomorrow will not be posted and I don't anticipate the appetite for two space articles up at once, although more input is probably needed: two supports plus the nomination is pretty thin. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph begins with what has to be a machine translation from the Russian source (it's not really coherent), and the rest of the paragraph is evidently plagiarized from the sixth source (just needs to be converted into a paraphrasing). Other than that, I'd like to see this posted before the shuttle landing as well.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 21:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I re-worked that paragraph and a few other bits and pieces too.  I've also adjusted the blurb above to better reflect the notability of this mission - it is the largest space telescope, after all. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC).

Support in principle as well. The article needs development, but if I or someone else can get around to improving it, it's definitely ITN worthy. I agree that it would be a shoe-in if this were NASA.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 15:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. The article is in fairly rough shape still, it's still pretty stub-ish, some awkward phrasing and overly technical language. There's also still some PR sounding text as well. Normally I'd support this type of subject but at this point I'm not comfortable with the quality, I think we need to take a fairly strong stand as to article quality at ITN. RxS (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Extradition of Ivo Sanader
The trial has begun in December 2010, when he was suspected for criminal charges after he fled to Austria. An international warrant to arrest him was immediately issued, and he's finally extradited to Croatia where the trial will continue.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Death of Sean Hoare
A former News of the World journalist who made phone-hacking allegations against the paper has been found dead. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  19:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Surprising development. Here are some sources The Guardian, The Guardian 2, Daily Mail. Death is treated as "unsuspicious" but some say suicide. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I think we need to wait for more details to emerge to be able to assess this properly. My initial view is that the continued coverage of the NotW fallout is rapidly descending into running commentary.  A confirmed suicide would be significant and may be grounds for an update, possibly even a bump, but right now this seems too speculative to be ITN worthy. We also need to have one eye on the Select Committee tomorrow - there's a good chance of something substantial coming out of that.  Crispmuncher (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
 * This does seem significant, but I think we should wait for more details, if its a coincidence it probably isn't worthy of posting. Crispmuncher puts it well. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Self important "journalist" puts hundreds of colleagues out of work, kills oldest and most broadly circulating British tabloid, is the cause of many arrests, none of which are of the state apparatchiks who actually violated their oaths of office, and is found dead of...? What's not to like?  Do we have to wait for the same bureaucracy which enabled this fiasco to happen to pronounce this a suicide before we post?  μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Could just be a regular death. No confirmation on anything. A death of a mediocre journalist is no ITN matter.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, generally for the reasons outlined by Crispmuncher and BabbaQ. There are bigger developments happening right now; the suicide of an otherwise non-notable journalist isn't news. StrPby (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose A few more details have been reported now. This is an individual with drink and drugs issues with reports of increasingly paranoid behaviour of late.  It is tempting to read this as another David Kelly affair but at present it appears more like a "routine" tale of self-destruction, with ultimately only a tangential relationship to the ongoing controversy.  As I noted in my comment above, more details are needed and this oppose is not set in stone but it appears to me that we could easily overplay the significance of this. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Oppose for now, unless there is anything to indicate foul play (by indicate I mean a top police officer coming out and saying so, and not media speculation).  Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  00:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sadly the otherwise non-notable journalist is an accurate evaluation. I personally think this entire thing stinks to high heaven and reeks of targeted killing and and a staged suicide but my own suspicions are frankly irrelevant. This is worth keeping an eye on but right now lacks substance for ITN posting. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it looks bad, but the Parliamentary Committee hearing later is likely to be more news worthy, as way of an indication it is being carried live on Australian TV. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  02:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * strong support for the bump. more notable than the idio t who resigned. possible repercussions wjhen News Corp is under fire.Lihaas (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose We're becoming just as bad as the tabloids. I can read this trash on Sunday in the News of the World...  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not any more you can't. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * nice ;)Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Egyptian Government



 * Support: as the nominator. Egypt's PM appoints 14 new ministers while keeping 13 ministers in their current positions including the highly contested ministers of interior and justice in an attempt to stop the protests against his government and the SCAF -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is particularly more notable than the rest of what has been happening in the Middle-East (particularly Syria/Jordan), so I'll reaffirm my support for a sticky instead (see below). Batjik Syutfu (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * weve got FIVE supports (+nom. ) vs. 2 opposes for the MENA sticky below...Lihaas (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose now that the sticky is posted. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the sticky has been posted. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Jan Mohammed Khan assassinated

 * Oppose Never heard of him. Four years of governing a province with a population of 300,000 (smaller than about a hundred cities in the U.S.) Doesn't seem remotely close to ITN-worthy given that his entire article without the assassination is only two paragraphs. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You basically used three of the worst arguments in usage in ITN. You never hearing of him is irrelevant; if the head of the African Union was assassinated, you wouldn't oppose this for the same reason... because I doubt you've ever heard of him. Comparing the size of the province to a US city is not much of an argument either... if at all. And then you look at a Wikipedia article's length to determine worthiness, which really doesn't give you any insight whatsoever.


 * But I'm only weakly supporting neutral for this, because I don't see the level of interest and coverage seen in Ahmed Wali Karzai's assassination. However, I'm beginning to see a trend of assassinations following the recent withdrawl of Canadian troops from the region of Kandahar Province. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I did not state three arguments against posting this. What I wrote was an informal way of saying that the event is not significant; and yes, the fact that I've never heard of him, that he is not a significant government official, and that the article is was a stub are all indicators of the lack of significance. Yes, it's completely personal opinion - and so is yours. "I'm beginning to see a trend" - original research. "I doubt you've ever heard of him." - original research again. "I don't see the level of interest and coverage" - basically another way of phrasing "Never heard of him".
 * We can either be assholes picking apart one another's comments, or we can respect each other's opinions and make our own case. Can we be nice? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa, OR =/= personal opinion; it's OR. It can be biased research but it's not an opinion, and definitely not in this case. And "I don't see the level of interest and coverage", as far as I know, means that I don't see the same level of interest and coverage. I don't know how you extracted "Never heard of him" from that. And what I said is true, because media that covered the Ahmed Karzai assassination aren't doing so as extensively as they are now, if at all. The Karzai story was on the front page of many newspapers and news sources worldwide, whereas this news hasn't even made the front of the BBC. Although I agree my argument isn't strong either, so I've changed to neutral, as I simply don't care if it goes up or not. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  20:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My point was that we would all have plenty to say if we were to list out everything that we disagreed with in our interpretation of another person's vote. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. That's fine by me. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  21:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say I think the oppose above was fairly well thought through and reasonable, if all opposes were of the standard of Batjik's here we'd be in a much better place. I think I saw this as the top story for a while on the BBC, but it isn't there now, so I'd be inclined to weakly support. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm going to remove my vote. Now that I've read the significantly expanded article as well as the new sources, it seems that my initial assessment of his significance was off by quite a bit. Clearly not just a former governor of a small province, but someone with deep connections to Karzai. On the fence for this one. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

[Closed] Casey Anthony released

 * Comment the blurb is manifestly false synthesis. She was released after completing the sentence for the charge of which she was convicted, not upon acquital.  μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't beat a dead horse. As we saw with the nomination of the trial, barely last week, this isn't going to get anywhere. Let's not disrupt ITN further. (Oppose, for the record, for the exact same reason as last time.) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support we should actually be grown up enough to post items of clear widespread interest that aren't primarily of interest to the intellectual elite. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want this on ITN, you need to at least make a case as to why this is more important than her acquittal, which did not get consensus to post. Otherwise, this is just going to attract unneeded drama. --  tariq abjotu  14:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well actually her release and her acquittal has reached the same amount of high media attention and recognition so really there is no need for the supporters here to justify our stance to support this news story. Because it is infact major news so its not even a question in my mind that this newspiece should be included on ITN. Also the first ITN suggestion on her acquittal was not posted only because the opposes !votes was only made out of the usual "news on murders should not be included and thats it, no matter how notable it is end of story."--BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough.
 * While these events are clearly both less important than Potter (which has "significance" as well) the acquittal should have been posted on the grounds that it was covered worldwide for several days, was of worldwide interest leading to over 2 million views over two days and we had a very good article update for it.
 * The interest has also been sustained with an average of 40k-50k daily views since she was acquitted, that's more than many ITN items at their peak. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @BabbaQ, given I have insisted that people justify their positions in opposition over Potter, I think it is perfectly reasonable that at least I am required to do the same here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, More coverage than Harry Potter movie. Article is well structured. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   15:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW Nominated for GA. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, for the same reasons as before. We already rejected the verdict, and there's no way this is more important. This nomination smacks of forum shopping, given the earlier discussion. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not forum shopping as in the same place. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps forum shopping is the wrong term in a technical sense, what I meant was repeated nominations until the desired outcome is obtained. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a different event and the previous nomination isn't on the page to continue. Noone has had an objection with the continued nominations per say about the News International issues, and they could have been followed up in the same thread. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what Modest Genius meant is that the previous nomination of this story was already opposed by a significant number of people, so it makes no sense now to nominate a similar (and less significant) event. The News Corp scandal is nominated for numerous times because 1. major developments keep coming; 2. they weren't opposed by a significant number of people every time. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like users here are turning a blind eye to notability guidelines when it fits their own purpose for example not posting "crime related ITNs". Sorry to say.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about commenting on the issues and not the people? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose She was released? Well, given that we had a report here that she was found not guilty, that seems unsurprising. Is there anything changed to make this less a tabloid story than it was a few days ago when it was rejected?  Kevin McE (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not really legitimate to claim its a tabloid story when its being covered by a ton of reliable non-tabloid sources. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you really never noticed other media following a tabloid agenda? It is a pure tabloid story, that other media will report because they don't want to be accused of elitism.  For ITN, I would far rather that we be accused of elitism than that we feature such low-brow "human interest" satories.  Amazing how unattractive, minority, or male murders and disappearances, or those occurring elsewhere in the world, are  so much less "important" Kevin McE (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When its being covered internationally by reliable sources, and outside a section purely covering entertainment news no. The reason this case gets coverage is that its a particularly interesting case for a number of reasons. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eraserhead, has right its not a legitimate claim when a single persons release itself is covered by a ton ton of reliable non-tabloid sources. seems like users here are turning a blind eye to notability guidelines when it fits and then slams the notaiblity guidelines to users in their face when it fits.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What notability guideline is this? No-one here is trying to set up an AfD.  That sort of accusation of duplicity requires a high level of evidence, or retraction and apology. Kevin McE (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines for ITN - things like our purpose which states that we should post items of wide interest to our readers - I cannot fathom how a million page views a day fails to meet that criteria. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right that one of the purposes is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". There also happen to be a completely opposite purpose: "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them". Unless you're saying that they are contradictory, the "purposes" are not meant to be necessary and sufficient conditions. There are only two main criteria at present, which is significance and quality. In any case, this discussion is completely pointless; we rejected the acquittal, which is by any standard much more notable than this one. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support possible GA on front page, plenty of interest among our readership. People seem to be trying to protect our readers from their own interests. But I'm guessing this will be sunk by a flood of WP:Idontlikeit votes. RxS (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tabloid fodder is tabloid fodder no matter the coverage and ITN is not for tabloid fodder. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again this is irrelevant as it is being covered by reliable sources. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources don't print tabloid fodder? Thank you for clearing that up for me. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they don't - especially not when it isn't in their own country. When reliable sources start covering an event widely that it stops being tabloid fodder. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an extraordinary claim. Charlie Sheen's "problems" were reported in other countries, Beckhams' baby is reported in other countries, countless affairs are mentioned in multiple countries... Kevin McE (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sheen should have been posted, the others its highly doubtful you could get a suitable update for them. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Eraserhead is right again. These arguments can be twisted around to fit anyones agenda. Totally turning a blind eye to the notaiblity of this ITN piece. Anthony has recieved sufficient amount of press worldwide even today to justify inclusion on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose, and suggest closing the discussion. We didn't post the acquittal; it makes no sense to post this one, which is in every way a direct result of the acquittal. I didn't oppose posting the previous one, but posting this after the previous consensus against posting the acquittal is just extremely inconsistent. A lot of the support votes here seem to be attempts to reignite the previous discussion, which is a waste of everyone's time. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously there are users that disagrees with that notion of closing. And the previous discussion has nothing to do with this one. Giving that as a reason to oppose is taking the easy way out, isntead of giving a honest reason to why it shouldnt be posted. The ITN nomination should not be closed, this is not North Korea or Burma. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest a warning to BabbaQ for intentionally reigniting a heated discussion and disrupting ITN, and now personally attacking numerous users who disagree with him. I happen to have grown up in a communist country and I find your comment about "North Korea or Burma" extremely insulting. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are seriously not considering that suggesting a closing of a non-consensus ITN is wrong? Please dont make this more personal then it already is, suggesting warnings etc etc.. that is simply like stating "ok BabbaQ is telling his/hers personal opinion, then lets warn him/her for it so BabbaQ doesnt do it again ever" that feels infact very much so like North Korea. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is consensus, from two weeks ago. Every single one of the opposes from that nomination would apply here. You admitted this yourself: "Also the first ITN suggestion on her acquittal was not posted only because the opposes !votes was only made out of the usual "news on murders should not be included and thats it, no matter how notable it is end of story."" You were not satisfied with that, so you took the chance to bring this up again and try to get this non-story posted. That is intentional disruption and hence why this discussion needs to be closed.
 * Please also refrain from your repetitive personal remarks. Comparing me to Kim Jong-il will not in the slightest bit convince me or other users of your intention to contribute constructively to this discussion. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that you "strongly oppose" posting this makes it entirely out of line for you to call for suppression of the discussion, and even more so to call for warnings against BabbaQ. That's not how we work anywhere on Wikipedia, and unless a discussion turns into an unbridled flame war, there's no reason to close any of them.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 20:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggested closing the discussion because, at its current state, it is an exact duplicate of one we had two weeks ago. I didn't know that was inappropriate for an involved user, so apologies for that. As for how I responded to BabbaQ's remarks, they are completely appropriate given that he accused me of being the equivalent of a communist mass murderer.Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd clarify that I'm familiar with mediation processes on Wikipedia and was not in any way suggesting that an admin take immediate action against BabbaQ for his personal attacks; it was merely an informal suggestion for concerned users to look into his pattern of personal attacks on numerous users and intentionally disruptive behavior.Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support this isn't just "tabloid fodder", and it can't be compared to 'entertainment news'. This is one of the largest recent news stories we could put on the front page; it's been followed by millions of people and reported around the world, and we'd be showcasing a GA, which is really the primary purpose of ITN! I mean, we're talking millions and millions of people who this is of interest to, which I would venture to say is more than netball's three fans can say, but, no, we actually have to avert consensus to plaster that on the main page.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 18:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The acquittal was notable, but what I completely fail to understand is how her release from prison is. It was expected since the acquittal. If the acquittal didn't make the ITN section, why should this? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If anything this is infact even more so notable. As this news is the end result of this story if anything should be published on ITN with crime-related material it is this story. Because when it all comes down to it, this is about anti-crime story articles amongst Wikipedians in general.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments: GA status requires a certain amount of stability to the article. Given that this is a recent topic, the article is unlikely to meet that criteria considering updates are constantly being made. This is one example of Recentism, with the only foreseeable long lasting impact as HLN's rise to become a household name, which is not related to the criminal case whatsoever. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been reviewed yet and I made it quite clear above that it had only just been nominated. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I absolutely, absolutely disagree with the implication that the story is a result of recentism. The level of media coverage was unusually significant and indicative of a major cultural event, similar to the O.J. trial. The story was not simply overblown as a result of recentism on the part of Wikipedia editors. If you can substantiate that HLN experienced a permanent "rise", it's a different issue, but I doubt that's the case.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 20:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * strong oppose NO global notability, whos even head of them outside amrica?Lihaas (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just wow. You deserve a trout for that one. Seriously, that's probably the least thought out comment I've ever read. This has been covered globally, and BabbaQ even provided numerous non-American sources. There were Japanese television reporters, reporting this story from Orlando. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but if you're going to leave unhelpful and unlearned comments like that you're better off not contributing here.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 20:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * you can wow it till the cows come home. justb/c some online source says doesntmean its intl? do you live/travel abroad?
 * Japanese America? but anyways, youre better off refraining from NPA AND ofucisng on the issue at hand' more productive,Lihaas (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, if "some online source" means "major international news agencies", then yes, that absolutely does make it internationally notable. And no, "Japanese reporter" does not mean "Japanese-American reporter", it means "reporter from Japan".  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 21:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Someone found not guilty earlier has been released? That is not even news. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well except that it is as its being reported worldwide, pretty strange that something that is "not even news" is being reported worldwide. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hollywood bimbos having babies gets reported worldwide, for some sad reason. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably because people like human interest stories - that doesn't make them "not news". -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose We've been here before. For the same reasons, oppose again. This strikes me as a pointy attempt to re-open the earlier debate. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What are those reasons? Its highly likely they've been refuted. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That does not matter. The previous discussion did not develop a consensus to post, and duplicating that discussion will not change the result. We really should stop wasting time with this.Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * People continually making WP:IDONTLIKEIT opposes which can be trivially refuted shouldn't sink nominations. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, nobody ever mentioned anything remotely close to what is described in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't agree with all the opposes, but they deserve to be respected and not to be repeatedly hounded. Plus, disagreeing with the results of a previous nomination is not grounds for starting one all over again. Can we agree at least that this is not more notable than the acquittal itself? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree that its less notable than the acquittal. Here there have been a number of "tabloid fodder" and "not news" arguments which while not explicitly WP:IDONTLIKEIT is basically the ITN version. The same sort of poor quality opposing happened in the previous discussion. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Über-duper-mega-oppose Of absolutely no significance beyond the State of Florida and the estate of her murdered daughter.μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And by the way, she wasn't even paroled or pardoned or her conviction overthrown--she had simply served her sentence. "Released" is an Orwellian equivocation.  What other criminal have we featured in ITN because his sentence was completed?  μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * International significance is not a requirement for posting - this has been covered worldwide so there is clear international interest. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose for all of the reasons noted already- absolutely not of national or international significance. To add to the discussion above, no matter how widely this is covered, it's still tabloid fodder. It's still one woman (who was not notable before) and one (unfortunately) dead child. -- Mike (Kicking222) 21:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that its being covered internationally, thus refuting your argument. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a strange idea of what refute means. James Tate being banned from attending the Sheldon High School prom was covered internationally. What of it?  You might have my support for this when some outraged Frenchman takes vengeance on that creature. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah James Tate is being covered internationally. By the Daily Mail (a non RS and non serious source) - and the top hit on Google News for James Tate is a four day old article (also the Daily Mail) about a horse racer. The coverage isn't remotely similar this case. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is arguing that the James Tate story of May is current news?μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So do you have any evidence that the James Tate case was covered internationally by reliable sources? Or that it would be remotely possible to write enough content about it to warrant an encyclopaedia article? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Joining the sea of opposes - A criminal finished serving a sentence. Explain to me how this qualifies as anything of even remote significance. (Not that this matters, it won't be long until this is marked as [Ready] anyway.)--WaltCip (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because its being covered worldwide by reliable sources and we have a good article on the subject and there is widespread interest from our readers. You know our purpose, of which this item meets 3 out of the four points. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So where exactly is all this high profile international attention you keep talking about? Absent from front page of Die Welt, Le Monde, El País, JapanTimes, The Australian, and the BBC. Searching for "Anthony" on half of those pages does however yield coverage of the breakup of Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony, so it is good to know that, by Eraserhead's principle, that is not a gossipy tabloid style of story. Kevin McE (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a ton of coverage internationally last time around and BabbaQ has found quite a bit above.
 * With regards to Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony splitting up that its being covered by reliable sources means its not tabloid fodder, Jennifer Lopez is an extremely famous actress and singer - I suspect that the story would be sunk on the ITN criteria by the simple fact that it would notFtate be possible to write a suitable update for it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right Eraserhead. Its always amusing to see how the Opposing side always have an answer to why they are opposing without ever touching the subjects actual notability. Anthony is actually one of the most notable and newsworthy people covered on this Wikipedia right now. The opposing side as always turns a blind eye to all facts pointing to ITN inclusion as expected, when they know they are wrong. amusing to say the least.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Last time around??? Sorry, this is not In Last Week's News. And at least where I live, it had no profile in the news last week either. Once again, some strange appeal to notability, which is not remotely the issue here. Kevin McE (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You obviously live in a very strange place if it wasn't covered at her acquittal. I saw it on the front page of Xinhua days later, and I read about it at the time from the front page of the BBC.
 * Besides if notability isn't the issue here what possible reason is there not to post it. The article views have been higher than a decent proportion of ITN items each day since the acquittal, we have a good article and its in the news. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out many times, the BBC tailors its front page based on IP geolocation. Just because it's on the front page for you, does not mean it is on the front page anywhere else in the world. Now can you please let it go? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 00:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So ignore the front page thing. The story was still covered by a huge number of reliable sources and attracted massive readership. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are coming very close to accusing me of lying there, which is not appreciated. You have made your contribution to this discussion: allow others to make theirs without harrying them. Kevin McE (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Kevin McE, but to be fair you are actually accusing Eraserhead of lying to. So I suggest you both take a step back. But I have to wonder were you live if you havent heard anything about this case? hmm.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that BabbaQ has been repeatedly asked to either justify or retract this accusation, but has failed to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please also note that Kevin McE refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing on his part. Actually twisting the argument around. Just for the record. If we should do it in this childish level.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, if BabbaQ refuses to explain where I am believed to have accused Eraserhead of lying, I cannot comment on it. If he uncovers evidence of such activity on my part, I will be only too happy to apologise for it.  On the other hand, if he cannot provide the justification for his accusation against me, the ball lies in his court in terms of acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Kevin McE (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop this madness. Some people won't accept any reason, no matter how wonderfully crafted. It would've been bedlam anyway if this was posted, so I don't see the reason in continuing the discussion, aside from generating more drama. – H T  D  14:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - woman found not guilty, jailed for a lesser crime, released. Ignore the original plea - people are released from jail all the time. Lying to the police is a serious crime, but it's not as if she was freed after a guilty verdict for murder. ƒ ox   00:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is nothing but tabloid fodder, just as everyone else says. A woman who was found not guilty of a crime got released from prison. That's not exactly news, even if everyone is following it. People followed Paris Hilton when she got released. Should we have put that up because people in Nigeria were reading about it? --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 02:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it tabloid fodder? If Paris Hilton is so well known that reliable sources are talking about her prison sentence worldwide and someone can write a suitable update then it should be posted. Given that Paris Hilton went to jail back in 2007 makes it quite clear that the event has vast significance in your mind because you still remember it. I doubt in four years you'll remember the assassination of Ahmed Wali Karzai, or in three years the winner of the women's world cup.
 * Tabloid fodder is truly stories like this. But no serious source would cover that, and no-one could possibly write an encyclopaedic update, so I really don't see what all the fuss is about. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Plasma's well phrased comment. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What's really sad about the whole thing is that this item is so "tabloid fodder" and so "non news" and so on that a group of people have basically written a GA on the subject. Trying to claim an event is "not significant" when it has enough meat to write a GA (and therefore in due time an FA) seems like a very strange line of reasoning to have been taken by so many people. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Rebekah Brooks arrested
In the ongoing News International saga Rebekah Brooks has now been arrested. Maybe this should be a sticky instead? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably the article should be: News International phone hacking scandal as that's what Google News have used. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support either sticky or update. Clearly a major development, and the latest of many. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Because a blurb is already there, it's probably no harm to simply update it and keep it where it is, but ITN does not need to have a blow-by-blow of this scandal. And this story most certainly does not deserve a sticky because it is nothing compared to the other stickied stories (Olympics, World Cup, Middle East protests, Japanese tsunami) which had sustained (often above-the-fold) international interest, and especially importance, for days to weeks on end. At the end of the day, this is primarily a UK story. Please let this drop off ITN, as, as of now, there hasn't been a non-hacking-scandal story posted in almost four days. Please devote your attention to other stories if, for nothing else, in the interest of diversity. --  tariq abjotu  13:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "At the end of the day, this is primarily a UK story." But it isn't. It's receiving daily coverage in the papers where I am (Singapore), and Murdoch's media empire reaches far enough that you cannot seriously argue the point that this is UK-only. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not having posted anything else for 4 days is an issue, but there are other nominations below which you guys can post. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add on Strange Passerby's comment. This is absolutely not a local story - it's receiving headline coverage in newspapers which barely mentioned things like the Casey Anthony trial. It's also giving us a lot of pageviews, for example Rebekah Brooks had 117k views on Friday alone. Much more than the usual stuff we post on ITN, even for political items. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Casey Anthony had over a million views when she was acquitted. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sticky or bump, I understand the international scope of this story but it's not such a huge story to justify this blow by blow we're falling into. Updating the blurb is a good alternative. RxS (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No need for a bump, but we could update the existing blurb. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Modest Genius. Mocctur (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Update the Current Blurb and reset the clock for its removal from the template. An extremely significant development in the case. Very few corporate leaders are ever arrested in the Western word. On a speculative note.... does this mean she had direct knowledge of the crimes? Or even have ordered them? This development puts more questions in my mind than it answers. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Update the blurb. This is a big story, and it just seems that big developments are constantly happening. Updating the blurb should be the chosen tactic each time I feel. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 16:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support sticky or bump. Another major development. According to some sources it was a big surprise even for Rebekah Brooks herself. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Update. As Strange Passerby said, Murdoch's media empire is profoundly far-reaching and influential; the arrest of one of its corporate leaders as charged with widespread phone-hacking is extremely relevant. —Iamthedeus (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Update I agree that we shouldn't have blow-by-blow updates if the scandal, but this is a major development.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 18:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has resigned due to issues relating to the scandal. If we update the blurb this should be added! <span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 18:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've updated the existing blurb, but not bumped it. It's the second item anyway, so a bump wouldn't make much difference. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we keep Les Hinton on the blurb? It happened only yesterday and he's probably the most notable resignation in this scandal up to now. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the Metropolitan Police commissioner is far more notable a resignation. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  23:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't he just the commissioner of one city? Resignation of the CEO of Dow Jones & Company (publisher of largest newspaper in the U.S.) seems to me somewhat more notable. But anyway, I think all three should be on there. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just the commissioner of a city force but a huge force with policing responsibility's outside just London. If you look at the number of staff in the force 52k then compare that to the 60k offers and staff employed by ALL the state forces in Australia or take NYPD and the LAPD combined at 47k you see the size of the force.  Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  02:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The resignation of the London Police commish, in these circumstances, is pretty major.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Women's World Cup

 * Can Wikipedia handle two sports ITN on the same day? Of course if American's win them both then we don't have to post them.  Thats the rule right? -  CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  12:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That comment was unhelpful. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But oh so representative of most of the opinions here.  Grsz <b style="color:red;">11</b> 21:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support ITNR.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Both teams have some human interest stories worth reading about. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 13:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Yes, this is a sport event worthy of coverage on ITN. much more so then netball etc etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No need for support, on ITNR. However, we should use our standard ENGVAR-neutral phrasing:


 * The 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup concludes with United States/Japan defeating United States/Japan in the final
 * The article on the final is a decent start, but will need a proper prose update on the game itself and/or some reaction. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If the US wins, can we use the better sounding "In soccer, the United States wins the 2011 FIFA Womens' World Cup." Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That standard phrasing has been developed to avoid complaints on WP:ERRORS about the phrasing, which is plagued with defeat/defeats, win/wins etc. ENGVAR problems. We could certainly add 'in association football' to the blurb, but not 'soccer'. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Darren Clarke wins Open Championship

 * Golf major. Not much to debate. -  CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  12:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could someone clean up 2011_Open_Championship? We really can't be posting such a poorly formatted article. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've marked as ready. The update seems sufficient. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One dramatic improvement might be to mention which country's "Open" it is. The article doesn't tell us. (I have raised that matter on its Talk page.) The article doesn't even tell us which sport t is! At least we've done that in the blurb above. Why do editors make such unthinking assumptions about the importance of a subject to their readers? HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to add anything to the blurb, it is in line with others such as the 2011 Masters Tournament see it's posting here. (BTW Support posting) Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  02:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care what "it is in line with". There is valuable information missing. Don't you want readers to know? In its current form, I must Oppose posting. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Open Championship is its official and common name. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC) it does no harm (and would help readers a lot) to simply title it that
 * Yeah but I think HiLo makes a point here. These issues should be quick to fix anyway. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Common name? I really don't think so. Every time I see it or hear it mentioned in Australia, it's as the British Open. Surely that could be used in the blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny, I also in Australia heard it refereed to as "the Open" on the radio this morning. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  11:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Australian (I think that's from Australia) calls it the British Open. US media universally do.  The Canadian Globe and Mail calls it the British Open.  Let's call it the British Open.  I think we should expect a full paragraph with 3+ references on the final round and I don't see that now so I oppose posting until the update's improved a wee bit.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, ESPN which aired it in the US universally referred to it as the Open Championship. Its The Open Championship. - CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  13:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Official title is The Open Championship which is what should be used. I don't hear a clamour for the descriptor American when the Academy Awards comes up each year.yorkshiresky (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the ready. There seems to be some dispute about the blurb and the article here.
 * I'll also oppose the article at its current state. Somewhat of a mess. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is ITNR listed as "The Open Championship", not "British Open", nor any other Bowdlerised attempt at internationalisation, just as the PGA is listed as the PGA and not the U.S. PGA. The article seems fine to me so that's a support from me.  I personally don't think disputing the name is grounds for delay here - there is no doubt as to the official name of the tournament and the ITNR listing is evidence of precisely what the existing consensus is for.  As such I'm re-marking ready. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC).


 * The article is not ready, the updated content is largely unreferenced and it's more of a list than an article. Needs some work yet. RxS (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: It's possible to use Darren Clarke, which is already updated, as the headlined article. This is a solution we've implemented in the past if the tournament page does not meet reviewers' standards. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can an admin go ahead and post it then? There's one, really bad, confusing section in the 'Open Championship' article that will very likely prevent this from being posted at all. Featuring Darren Clarke as the headlined article instead is clearly the common sense alternative. At least until the Open article is cleaned up, but if that doesn't happen, this would be better than nothing.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 17:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't someone here just clean up the article real fast? I would myself but I know nothing about golf. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to go, the most important points are well referenced. I'm not sure which paragraph 'Swarm' is referring to but as that is a pipe from the lead article I don't see why the lead shouldn't be posted.yorkshiresky (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  18:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You stubborn fools. It's just stupid for the blurb about a major sports event in a country to not name the country. (I am not discussing the name of the event.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think that's commonly mentioned. Sometimes it is but, for example, Wimbledon blurbs never mention what country the tournament is in. I thought mentioning the golf course was enough to establish locale; even if one has never heard of the golf course, its name alone suggests it's probably in the UK (and, of course [no pun intended], one could click on the article). And I really didn't want to put "Sandwich, Kent, England" up there. --  tariq abjotu  20:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's very commonly described as the British Open in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Potter breaks opening day record
200k+ readers for the various articles, tens of thousands of Google news hits, biggest selling book series, biggest grossing film series. No possible reason to justify that this isn't news, no possible justification that this isn't of encyclopaedic interest and no good reason to continue to wait. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, pop culture phenomenon, but a big pop culture phenomenon, and easily "newsworthy" enough to be featured on ITN. Also a few of my friends would rip me to shreds if I opposed this. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if there is good proof of international headlines, which shouldn't be hard to find (and I'm too tired to look for right now.) Grand  master  ka  08:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why does the reference in that article say "Retrieved July 18, 2010"? Why when I check "Harry Potter" in that reference does "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows - Part 2" (the one in yellow) say "$92,100,000"? And why do the other films listed above it each have several times that number? There is also "opening weekends" but this film does not appear there. In other words where is the record? Just asking. -- can  dle • wicke  08:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The record is the first day. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno what to tell you about the refs, but this page appears to discuss it. Also, to someone out there, I believe the article needs to be updated. EDIT: found it, see . Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:57 & 09:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The link provided above led here. -- can  dle • wicke  09:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article looks updated to me. What more can you say? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, never mind me, I didn't expect the opening days to be separated into different paragraphs...! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that record going to be nominated and posted every time it is broken? It seems to have happened quite often recently. November 2009 is only slightly more than a year ago. -- can  dle • wicke  09:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more than 18 months ago. How often is "quite often"? When was the last one before November 2009? Care to justify it with some evidence? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, the opening day/weekend sales records are normally newsworthy. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the article is updated, there is no opposition and the timer is red marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The last one before 2009 seems to have been 2008. Then 2007, 2006, 2005... does this happen every year? -- can  dle • wicke  09:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The evidence I used is the list provided above. I looked through the dates. Is the record broken every year? -- can  dle • wicke  09:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Confused Lots of figures being thrown around here. The film opened on different days around the world, as do most films. Is there an obvious source that clearly tells me that this claim is true, with no analysis (=OR) required? HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add "in the United States" if its required to avoid WP:OR in which case is enough. Otherwise this covers a bunch of countries outside the US. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE This film will also break the worldwide opening weekend record and the US/Canadian opening weekend record. If the opening day record gets posted, will the opening weekend record be added to blurb after it is confirmed? Theleftorium (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think so, as I believe that's the more important record. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I went through the list. Number two is "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" and this happened in 2009. This would have beaten the record that had stood since 2008 (number four: "The Dark Knight") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2007 (number seven: "Spider-Man 3") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2006 (number nine: "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2005 (number eleven: "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2004 (number seventeen: "Spider-Man 2") and so on. -- can  dle • wicke  09:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * comment "opening day record of..." important to mention it (former recorD) or its weekend gross total.
 * sad, sad people watching the idio t box ;) Lihaas (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. -- can  dle • wicke  09:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * we should list the record fihure it broke.Lihaas (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would that not count as a statistic? Like the scores in sport? -- can  dle • wicke  10:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this record seems to be broken as often as Apa Sherpa's record. -- can  dle • wicke  09:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This nomination is being done not because the record is necessarily the most amazing thing ever, but because the film in question quite blatantly is highly, highly notable. Apa Sherpa's record doesn't attract tens of thousands of Google News hits each time he does it. There are plenty more reasons to get this posted now listed in my opening statement that have nothing to do with the record. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia isn't Google. Why Google? What does Google have to do with the ITN section of Wikipedia? Apa Sherpa not attracting tens of thousands of Google News hits each time he does it doesn't make his achievements any less notable. -- can  dle • wicke  10:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We can go with our own article hit counts, or that the film series is the highest grossing ever, the vast cultural impact of the book/film series etc. etc. If you wish just taking the common sense approach that clearly people are interested in this topic, for which we have good articles. That should be reason enough. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose sources are just not clear enough, and frankly know one can no for sure what the number is, it has the feeling of trying to jump the gun. There is no rush here, lets wait till the full worldwide opening weekend results are in then post that if we must. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  10:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ITN covers news. People quite quickly move on to the next story so there is always a rush to get stuff posted. And its quite clear that there is clear sourced information about this particular record if you actually read through the information presented here rather than knee-jerking in opposition. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I should have to defend myself, I did look, and came up with the same issues that HiLo48 did since opening days are different. As I said in my original post, there seems to be a rush here to get something out, not just here but on the "movie" websites. I think it is prudent to wait, till Monday or Tuesday when proper audited numbers are made available and we can write a proper blurb that is correct and does not need to be amended or added to as the week goes on.  Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  10:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At that point far less people will care. Its quite clear this movie is significant and attempting to force us to wait is deliberately damaging the section further by preventing us from posting obvious stories.
 * Your opposition is like saying with the Japanese earthquake that we have to wait for the magnitude numbers to be verified before we post it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, and I cannot stress this enough - In the news is not a news ticker. Secondly, I think we did. ƒ ox   11:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly we need to post events that people are interested in. Posting events late after interest has moved on is counterproductive to the sections future. There are lots of comments in the Main page RFC complaining about ITN being slow. The only good reasons to wait are article quality and where the event might not be notable without confirmation - neither apply here. Secondly we posted the Japanese earthquake promptly and didn't wait for confirmation of all the details as you can see from the extended discussion below the items posting. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural Remove of "[Ready]" as it was placed there by the nominator Eraserhead1, in contravention of the clear notice at the top of the page. (see here) Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  11:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Its an obvious story. Who added the [Ready] is totally irrelevant. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * you dont change consensus unilateralluy. if you want to (as is your right) you take it to talk.
 * for the record i oppose as these are all too ferquent and we dont posts otehr FISRTS.Lihaas (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So is this further evidence that ITN is entirely dysfunctional and should be pulled from the main page, or are you also failing to read the section through properly - there is far more in favour of this item than the record itself. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what Lihaas is trying to say, but I'm guessing that what he means by consensus is the rule that the nominator does not add the "Ready" tag. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough I guess. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support BUT I still think waiting until the weekend's over is the better idea. I don't give a shite if Wikipedia looks to be "trailing behind" professional news sites, but I don't really give a shite that we post this every year, either. I'm not too bothered if this is posted sooner than that, though (but please make it "worldwide" rather than "in the US"). ƒ ox   11:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose any claim of a record based only on US/US + Canada data. It is not an American film, it is not based on an American book by an American author, and it does not have an American cast.  Global figures, or the whole thing is just systemic bias.  Kevin McE (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted in the above discussion you will see that this shows the record has been broken in a number of other countries aside from the United States. This from the Daily Telegraph clearly shows it broke records in the UK, and lets not forget that its a British book, by a British author and with a British cast.-- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely: let's make sure that the blurb, if agreed, reflects that. Kevin McE (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support. one million views in the last week.  There's very strong reader interest.  This isn't just any movie.  We don't post much news from Entertainment.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking [Ready?] so an admin can take a look. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedurally removed tag. Nominators are not allowed to tag their own nominations as "Ready." – H T  D  13:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, uh, Eraserhead, can you stop doing that? If you're the only one who thinks the article is ready, there's an issue. --  tariq abjotu  13:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That was thoroughly unhelpful to the situation and imo is just trying to bait Eraserhead1 into doing something he'll regret. That said, I'm not going to re-tag it at this time. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ready? just means an admin needs to check consensus. This nomination is more than ready for that especially when you take into account WP:NOTVOTE. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would seem that "importance", whatever that is, is the reason for the opposition. Is breaking the opening day record significant enough? The only other instance ITN reported anything about the film box office is when Avatar broke the worldwide gross record. Is that the same? Would it make sense if we wait? – H T  D  13:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have thought "Importance" is well and truly covered by it being part of the biggest book and film series ever, the tens of thousands of Google News hits, the million odd views of the article etc etc. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's more like "interest" rather than "importance." "Importance" is more into like "they acquitted a baby murderer!!1111" (sniff sniff lol). – H T  D  15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait for the opening weekend record. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not update it via WP:ERRORS once its gone live? What's the possible harm in that? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE Biggest opening weekend ever in the US and Canada confirmed just a few minutes ago. Now just we need to wait for the worldwide opening weekend record. The article is List of biggest opening weekends. Theleftorium (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The only film gross record that is significant enough is Avatar's. Courcelles 15:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? You are completely failing to address all the other significance reasons that go with it. I have to nominate it for something, but there is a huge amount of significance around the event such as its cultural significance. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What do we have? Guesses?  I mean, the day is barely starting, and we're already assuming the movie will take 33 million today domestically.  Besides, with inflation and ticket prices being what they have been, all these so-called records don't mean a hill of beans.  The only objective record there is, total tickets sold, not even Avatar sniffed.  Putting this on our main page is nothing more than a free quarter-million dollars of publicity for the film studio. 17:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This nomination is for the opening day - the opening day hasn't "barely just begun". -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Not a strong preference for this one, but some of the oppose votes make no sense. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose in favor of the blurb below.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 18:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which you've now opposed. What's your justification for not posting this one? Or is there no justification beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This comment is pretty unnecessary. His reason for opposing below could very well be applied here. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Retracted. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Harry Potter breaks opening weekend record worldwide and in the US/Canada

 * Support, but without the last part about United States and Canada. Makes the blurb too long and is kind of redundant. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, significant theatrical record. Agree with Batjik though, the US and Canada part should be removed to simplify and shorten the blurb.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 18:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Switching to oppose. Looking at the list, I realized that that the previous "record holder" was another Harry Potter film, two years ago. Yeah, it sounds like a "significant theatrical record", but 9 out of the top 10 "records" have occurred in the past 5 years! So I'm definitely inclined to believe that this is really not a big deal in the grand scheme of film history.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 20:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with the sentiment here, but would like to note that this film broke three records, and in each case the previous record-holder was different. Its margin for the worldwide weekend opening is also nearly seven times larger than the previous margin. So it is kind of a rare event, even though I generally don't like "record"-related stats. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Swarm, you realise that Harry Potter is one of the most significant cultural events of the past 20 years? Obviously its pretty likely to beat another earlier film with a later record. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really address my point though. Your argument in favor of posting this relies very heavily on the fact that "it's Harry Potter" and it's culturally significant. Yes, Harry Potter's culturally significant. However, we've already determined that it's not significant enough to post simply for being Harry Potter. We're talking about the film's records now. And I believe, as I said above, that this record isn't significant enough for an ITN blurb. "Biggest opening ever" isn't really that significant if it happens every few years.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 16:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this blurb instead of the above one, for reasons I stated in the original discussion. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  18:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is Hollywood self-congratulatory nonsense at its worst. We get new all-time records every few years.  That is inevitable so long as they continue to ignore the effect of inflation.  The fact that they choose to ignore crucial factors for the purposes of PR and marketing hyperbole, which is all this is, does not mean we should consider ourselves bound by the same ultimately meaningless metrics. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC).
 * So let's just never post any records related to film. Hey, while we're at it, let's not post sport records either, because it's quite obvious that it's a PR stunt for the organisation in question. You know what? Records in general serve no purpose whatsoever and change way too often for ITN standards, so let's just not post them at all. Because, you know, our standards are so high. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Every sport record is "self congratulatory nonsense", arguably even things like the Beijing Shanghai railway and all the spin the Chinese setup beforehand for journalists was self congratulatory nonsense. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument isn't valid because even when adjusted for inflation, it is still the highest-grossing opening weekend. Theleftorium (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the only person to have to have asserted this. Therefore I await your reliable source with interest.  Without that your argument lacks any credibility whatsoever. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Oppose Rather meaningless "record" compared to either Avatar's or Gone with the Wind's. Posting this would be little more than giving the studio free advertising. Courcelles 19:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Two film records in 100 years is the rate which ITN should be posting them. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your near constant stream of badgering and sarcasm does not help. Note we post MANY film stories, the Oscars, the BAFTAs, at least three film festivals... The records, however, are inflation and high-ticket price invented news. Courcelles 22:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If people should have the right to post whatever comments they like here other people should have the right to counter their arguments. That's only fair.
 * Regardless of inflation I would have thought posting the final film from the most profitable film series of all time, and one based on a book series which has sold more copies than any other in history would be notable enough. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Opening weekend record is due to inflation, let's wait til it has biggest adjusted gross sales ever. μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, and what was the reason for not posting the film in the first place? The reason given then was "gotta wait for the record, gotta wait for the record", and then when the record comes along everyone goes and says that the only notable film ever made was Gone with the Wind - so basically saying that we should only post one film record every 100 years. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your blatancy here is blatant. There is simply no way yet to show this compares with actual blockbusters like Star Wars, ET, Titanic, Avatar.  The need for patience and calm here is blatant.  It's blatant, I tell you. μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But we already know that this is the final film of the biggest grossing film series ever, on that alone its clearly notable. If we wait until we know whether its verified to be biggest than other films on an individual basis we'll never post anything. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, Medeis's comment is plainly wrong; the opening weekend record is NOT due to inflation, as the list can show you. The reason that inflation is so prominent for total gross but not weekend gross is that, until relatively recently, a film was mostly spread through word-of-mouth and not huge advertising before its opening, which flattens out the earnings curve over a long period of time. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wheres the source for this assertion when adjusted for inflation? ITN does not deal with what people assert to be true.  None of the links given here or in the articles make this assertion so where has is come from?  Without a source any assertion of this nature is meaningless and should be discounted immediately. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Oppose This is the THIRD attempt to get this listed, the first closed with "re-nominated when final opening weekend revenues are released"; the second (still open) has a significant number of Oppose's this one started with the words "Let's start this over". I am just not convinced with all the numbers being thrown about that any of them can be believed at such an early point, take this it was written at a little before 1pm on Sunday, with at least 11 hours still to go of the weekend. It is like publishing the election results with the polls still open, it can be nothing more than a educated guess, also what is the source of the numbers ?. The fact that the box office numbers are not adjusted for price and inflation also is of an issue and devalues the record, it would be like moving the starting line for the 100m sprint 10cm closer to the finishing line every year; what would be more impressive is the "bums on seats" count. I am willing to change my mind on this, once some audited numbers are made available and it clearly shows record numbers of viewers worldwide and the blurb focuses on the world as a whole and not singling out one area for special mention.  Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  23:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With the time you wrote this comment you could've read this part of the blurb "highest-grossing opening weekend worldwide" ("singling out one area of special mention"?); calculated the gross for inflation and realized that it is indeed record-breaking even when adjusted for inflation; and also found about the source used in the article, namely this. Seriously, treat your vote with some respect and don't lash out when you haven't read the article or even the blurb. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You forgot to read the last part of the blurb when it says "opening weekend in the United States and Canada." is that not singling out one area of special mention ? I have read the article, and I still ask the question, this time of this report, what is the source for the numbers they are reporting ? As I type now there is still just a little under 7 hours of the weekend to go in LA so I ask again how can the US numbers for the weekend be anything more than a guess ? Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  00:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So we can remove that comment from the blurb before posting, that hardly seems like a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a note: I did a rough count and there appear to be 9 votes support and 5 votes oppose after merging the two discussions and neglecting repeated votes. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted - there seems to be a decent amount of support for this over the numerous discussions (as in, the posting of this record, not the film's release) so I have no issue with posting. ƒ ox   00:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Protest You've got eight supports versus ten opposes. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The film series neither beats out LotR for revnue per film or budget and does not beat out other individual films for gross revenue. All we have is a statistically regular next highest grossing weekend for a sequel, a predictable, common, yearly event.


 * It isn't a vote.  Grsz <b style="color:red;">11</b> 01:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, for even if there were a small in favor majority it would still fail consensus. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Protest a) There does not appear to be consensus to post, and b) issues relating to the accuracy and sources of the numbers have Not been addressed. This should be Pulled until these have been addressed. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  01:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * a) Over the three discussions, those opposing have (generally) given the impression they would be willing for this blurb to go up as opposed to the advert-y other one; b) the numbers are not what matter with this intentionally vague blurb. ƒ ox   01:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not under any of the three discussions nor in total was there ever a majority, let alone a consensus in favor of this. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Without wanting to dampen your italics.. ƒ ox   01:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty to pull this for now. I'm a sucker for BOLD ALL CAPS SHOUTING, how did you know?! ƒ ox   01:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, I mean what I said, I want to understand how weekend numbers can be arrived at with (assuming we included Friday) one sixth still to happen, who is the ultimate source for the numbers ? is it the studio ? It is like posting the US Election results at 3 PM on polling day; something just does not feel right about it. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  01:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have redacted mine to initial caps, but one does shout not when voting but when trying to get immediate attention.
 * I am staunchly opposed to this even if it were a record pull. (A fair blurb might be "HP7B biggest hit ever on audience pocket")  Looking into the statistics, Average U.S. ticket prices for 2008 when Batman Whateverth premiered were $7.18 while they were $7.86 in the first quarter of 2011.  At that rate Harry Potter would have to have topped $173M to be a record adjusted for inflation.  That does not include the fact that sources are crediting the numerical record to 3D ticket prices, not the number of warm arses in sticky seats: "3D ticket prices help Harry Potter beat Batman record".  A random check of prices shows $7.50 children under 12, $10.50 Adult, at AMC Newport, Kentucky, (not an upscale market), giving a fair average of $9 a ticket. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More, in most locations I've heard of/visited. $11 for a 3D movie here in Salina, Kansas was the lowest I'd heard of until you mentioned that $10.50. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 02:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn, I saw the movie for $5 in 2D. 3D would have been $8.  Grsz <b style="color:red;">11</b> 02:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3D by me is £10.50 adult, £8.50 child. That's why I posted Kentucky price.μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to post something, but given the issues with sourcing of numbers, ticket price inflation, the effect of 3D on the revenue, it really needs to be of the form "A record xx million worldwide got to watch HP7B in it's opening weekend" with the number clearly sourced to an independent source (not just some website repeating what they have been told without disclosing who told them). Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  02:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeez, what a mess. Article posted, pulled.  All this fuss over ticket prices in Kentucky seems hardly important to me.  Anyway, we posted Avatar breaking records and its sales were also boosted by 3d sales.  I don't know; one of the major complaints about ITN is that we don't post enough stories.  We've got a decent article here with proven reader interest (interest which has nothing to do with box office records), certainly 'in the news', and people staunchly objecting because they don't think that 'type' of news is suitable here.  There've been three separate discussions on this now.  I can't remember if I !voted here but support anyway.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Johnsemlak votes THREE (bold caps intentional) times in support of this topic with the excuse that he "can't remember" whether he's voted here before? μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the three times. In fact I see one vote in the above section and one vote here, which is what many users have done. You might also want to read up on WP:NPA. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Meaninglesse record given extra importance to justify mentioning Harry in the ITN section. Maddox (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So what should we do? Completely ignore the vast significance of the final Potter movie? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I get 3157 Google News hits in the last 24 hours on opening record "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows". Not all of them are about the same record but both the record and the opening itself is big news, and the article has around 200000 hits per day. That's more than all the currently bolded ITN articles together. We shouldn't reject the story because of record criteria news sources usually don't care about. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Number of hits" is ITN criteria now? Maddox (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Number of Google news hits is a pretty good way of showing the event is getting significant coverage and hammering home the point that this event is significant. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm tired of this drama here, but I'd just like to note that Medeis and Mtking are very much wrong when they said that there is no majority in support for the post. Medeis claimed that there were ten opposes. This is false. Here are all the users who have opposed by the time of posting: Candlewickle, Mtking, Courcelles, Swarm, Crispmuncher, Medeis. (There was an earlier oppose by Kevin McE, but it said that he opposes "any claim of a record based only on US/US + Canada data", which is not the case for this new blurb.) I haven't counted the number of supports in detail, but there are more than ten. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. Fox said he based his decision on support shown over the various discussions and there were ten opposes to eight supports in the non-closed sections above my comment.  And even if you counted only the opposes in the third section they still outweighed the supports in the third section!  This entire process is highly irregular, claims of "significance" (versus "popularity) are absurd, and the discussion should be closed down. μηδείς (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? You just accused someone of lying for voting in two sections and now you're counting all the oppose votes from both sections, three of which are repeated? I don't really give a damn about this post or whatever happened during the discussions, but you are being extremely dishonest here. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I nowhere said lying, and you obviously have a problem with the plain meaning of English words. But you do have my sympathy for your obvious distress. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You claimed that Johnsemlak used a false "excuse" to do something that would be clearly against the rules. That is plainly an accusation of lying. I have no interest in getting into whatever dispute you might have had with him; the only reason I brought it up is because you lashed out at Johnsemlak for doing the exact same thing you just condoned, namely voting in multiple sections. As for my English ability, it is just fine, thank you. You're taking this discussion way too seriously, and I suggest you cool down lest you ruin your reputation with another silly personal attack like the preceding comment. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If we are actually being honest about it there was very little opposition because most of the arguments made in opposition were refuted and Wikipedia is not a democracy. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A follow up to a post you disagree with does not nuke the original position. In this particular case, myself and others have questioned the significance of unadjusted figures.  The response was a simple assertion that it was still a record breaker even on that basis.  If thta is shown to be true I would probably move positions.  So I asked for a source, twice, and none has been forthcoming.  If that is a sourced statement why not?  If there is no source and it was made up on the spot then there is no rebuttal of any significance whatsoever.  So where are these counter-arguments that neutralise the arguments you disagree with?  They are not on this page. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
 * AP for starters. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Try again. That doesn't even mention inflation adjustment. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
 * If your going to argue that then the only film that's ever going to meet the criteria is Gone with the Wind. Box Office Mojo only have non-inflation adjusted stats for the opening weekends. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the assertion that has been made, so I am asking for evidence of it. It isn't an insurmountable burden since we are talking about opening rather than overall figures. We have more screens and screenings, with the 3D premium, and many more prints than in times gone by - the age of prints starting in the major cities, then being passed to large towns before ending up in the smaller towns a couple of months later are behind us. Films are released simultaneously in many more locales than previously to combat piracy.  These are all factors that have arisen over periods varying from the last couple of years to perhaps the last 25, which collectively conspire to make for a much stronger opening.  The fact we still can't find a real-terms record speaks volumes as to the real significance of the release. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Posted I am far from happy with this discussion, and I considered refraining from posting this item simply because of the unnecessary, abrasive comments, primarily from Eraserhead and Batjik Syutfu. And Medeis, in opposing this item, wasn't substantially better. As someone who doesn't participate in ITN/C discussions (and, to be honest, I actually don't), this discussion would be a deterrent for one to participate. I would like to point out to the sharks here that your respective opinions were made clear the first time you posted and, further, not a single person has changed his or her position on account of you hounding your opponents. So, perhaps for future discussions, instead of wasting your time and energy futilely ratcheting up the temperature in here, how about you work on finding and improving some other up and coming article?


 * With that being said, I think there actually is clear consensus that this should go up once it was clear Harry Potter broke the record. The precise record-breaking figure is not mentioned in the blurb on the Main Page and the item is not limited to US/Canada earnings, so opposes on those grounds seem irrelevant. There is no debate whether the film broke the record; it's just by how much. And I must say, I don't find it particularly savory that by halfway through the weekend, there was an almost unanimous decision to post the film on Monday at the latest. And then, when that time came, suddenly there were objections that could have been made before the film even came out. I honestly think some of you are setting the bar to high for inclusion of film items on ITN, but regardless, there seems enough support for this item to post with a well-written update to back it up. That's good enough. --  tariq abjotu  19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Tariq, for your well-reasoned posting statement. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Your criticism is uncalled-for, Tariq. I provided arguments based on available sources that the film does not set a record for seats filled, just for cost to the consumer. The 20087 and 2011 average US ticket prices are widely published. I pointed out the oddness of having three separate listed support votes by one person when the posting editor was citing overall support from different threads--but presumably should have stayed silent in face of the hysterical accusations of my calling people liars (where) or in face of false accusation against me of lying about the total numbers of votes over various sections?

It is quite obvious there is no consensus in favor of posting this item. If consensus means majority, we should say majority--and tally the votes. Where has this been done?

Worst of all, intentionally making the blurb vague so that its claims of "record setting" has no verifiable meaning is the sort of thing one expects from tabloids, not encyclopedias. Which this is. In case you have forgotten.

μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu fulfilled the role of admin here which is judging the debate and finding a consensus. We need more of that rather than less and I for one thank him, regardless of how I feel about this issue. I also think that once an admin makes a call, everyone should move on. If anyone has questions about how an admin came to a decision, it's probably best to take it to the talk page, or for that matter the admins talk page. RxS (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to move on as well, but given that Medeis just accused me of being hysterical, I'd like to clarify two points. First, what Medeis described as "point[ing] out the oddness of having three separate listed support votes" is this comment: "Wow, Johnsemlak votes THREE (bold caps intentional) times in support of this topic with the excuse that he "can't remember" whether he's voted here before?". I found this an inappropriate remark directed at another user, but obviously Medeis did not think it was. Fine, point settled.
 * Second, I did not accuse Medeis of lying. What I said was that he counted six "oppose" votes coming from three users (in two sections), right after he lashed out at another user for voting in different sections, and this seems to me quite bizarre. That is all that I said, and I apologize if anyone found this "unnecessary" and "abrasive" as Tariq did. For that matter, I did ask Tariq on his talk page about which comment of mine he referred to, but he chose not to respond. I'll respect his privacy. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, "lashed out". Pointing out factually that Johnsemlak was either disingenuous or incompetent for voting three times while saying he "couldn't remember" whether he had voted or not is a sin on my part.  Of course.


 * If this were something important, like impeaching Barack Obama for his illegal war in Libya, I could understand your placing POV above factual accuracy and common decency. But go ahead, accuse me of crimes against humanity for protesting that Harry Pottery is not a reason for debasing Wikipedia to the sensationalist level of the New York Post and the News of the World. As for you 'administrators'--the ones who pass this nonsense, and the ones who let it stand--Shame on you.  μηδείς (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, there wasn't a debate about whether the film broke the record; the debate was whether the record was significant. And Tariq, finding a way to discount some of the opposers, obviously couldn't do so with the supporters who utterly failed to answer the argument that the record isn't significant. On top of that, I don't see how he could have interpreted a "clear consensus" based on only 53% support of the first blurb and 34% support of the second blurb. Yet he somehow managed to, providing a weak posting statement complete with a paragraph dedicated to personal attacks. IMO, this discussion definitely didn't yield a "clear consensus" and is the second instance of terrible judgement on the part of Tariq in the past few days.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 15:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This being posted is a clear example of how strong can the "fan lobby" be. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides recently became the eighth film in the history of cinema to surpass 1 billion in box-office performance, but this meaningless opening record is away more important... Maddox (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

@Critising tariq. I don't think his complaint was so out of line to warrant any complaints on my part. I have taken it on board and so should you. With regards to significance it was pointed out several times that the opposition on that was too fussy as it'd mean we'd never post a film record.

With regards to "fan lobby" yes I have read the books but I haven't seen this movie yet and I've only seen about 2 of the previous ones (and yeah I do go to the cinema every couple of months) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] MENA sticky
Issues hotting up: / Syria + Libya/ + Egypt/// + Bahrain/// + Jordan/ + Yemen/// + Iraq + UAE + TnusuaLihaas (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Surprise, surprise: Middle Eastern news agencies (less Xinhua) covering... Middle Eastern news! There are no actual newsworthy rolling developments to justify a sticky. Oppose. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Updates are too slow. This is obviously important. How can the entire Middle East be dismissed as just being the Middle East? 340 million people? -- can  dle • wicke  08:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Big coverage of the Middle East in the Economist this week. Seems sticky worthy. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Eraserhead1, Candlewicke and Lihaas -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SP. No actual newsworthy developments. I wouldn't consider "updates are too slow" to be a problem anymore.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 18:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * see the new issues i just added for libya, syria, yemen and bahrain. more bomigs, takeover of town, takeover of town with rival tribes and withdrawal fro natl dialogueLihaas (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I would also support posting most of the items separately. Thue | talk 00:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Major new developments every day. If there's anything here that's going to be in the history books 30 years from now, this will be it.Batjik Syutfu (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Lokon erupts
Nom. --bender235 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just one of several eruptions since Thursday night. There's two million people in that province and only 5,200 had to be evacuated. No reported casualties, and its smoke may disrupt flights. Unless it causes major casualties, property damage, or some type of major societal disruption (e.g. the Icelandic eruptions), it doesn't seem to be too major.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 18:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your stance, I must object to your second sentence. Evacuated population vs. provincial population has no relevance in this story. North Sulawesi is a much more rural area compared to Java, which is the location of the highly reported 2010 eruptions of Mount Merapi. No population size in the outer islands of Indonesia will ever come close in comparison to the population density of Java. I ask that you don't simply dismiss them as "only" 5200 people. That is ground for systemic bias. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 18:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've struck it.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin award row and retraction


*Support Important international story that has already received wide attention in Germany, Russia and few other countries, and I hope so to be interesting for the readers of the English Wikipedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Seems like the whole discussion is heading in the wrong way and I don't like to be a victim of it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support seems very worthwhile - this sort of thing doesn't often happen. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral leaning support. I dunno. I'm somewhat skeptical about this; I feel that if Jimmy hadn't been on the Board of Trustees (or whatever) for Quadriga and that fact hadn't been posted to foundation-l, this would have never crossed our sights. The news articles seem pretty short filler-style ones, but they are largely written by staff as opposed to news agencies. I would definitely oppose such a long blurb though; that seems to be giving it undue proportion in importance. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I support anything anti-russian regime news.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for at least being explicit about it. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not about the anti-Russian regime, but about the retraction of the award. And I'm pleased to see no points of view during this discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh well, thank you. Now we all know you are Russophobe.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫  Share– a–  Power[citation needed] 11:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure yet Still trying to get my head around the significance of the Quadriga (award). Never heard of it, but that's OR. Very few sources from outside Germany in the article, and a lot are primary sources. Obviously not in the class of the Nobel Prize, yet, but if they really have been able to get those recipients (it's an impressive list) to turn up to receive their awards, they're getting there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated. No opposes (yet)? Marking ready, recent lack of updates, etc. -- can  dle • wicke  00:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the instructions above it says the nominator shouldn't mark an item as ready. As such I've removed it. Hot Stop (t) 03:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The Quadriga award appears to be fairly obscure. NYT calls it "the relatively little-known accolade" and says that "The confusion stems from the fact that many here do not seem to know quite what the Quadriga prize is meant to represent". While this is an interesting story in terms of highlighting European attitudes towards Putin, the event itself isn't really going to have any significant policy implications, nationally or internationally. Does not seem to be ITN worthy to me. Nsk92 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The same could apply to the Nobel Peace Prize... nobody really seems to know what it represents anymore, and claims as to what it does represent are generally nullified by a recipient's actions subsequent to receiving the award. Still a big deal regardless.--WaltCip (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Nobel Peace Prize, the quintessential little-known accolade. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support An interesting topic of obviously international scope. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose the award itself wasn't notable enough to post, I don't think this is either. The only reason people on Wikipedia care about this is because Wikipedia got the award 3 years ago.  Hot Stop (t) 03:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that, and I support per Medeis. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 03:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, largely per Hot Stop. If it's not notable enough to post it when won, it's not notable enough to post when the award is retracted. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It seems inappropriate to feature this considering Wikipedia's (indirect) connection to the event. Jimbo was one of the "former recipients" who took part in the protests that resulted in the retraction and cancellation of the award. Although all of us obviously lack a connection, plastering this on Wikipedia's front page could make the site (or at least ITN) appear biased.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 05:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I was going to support given that it involves a prime minister and former president of Russia. But I'm a little cautious if that is the case.  Night  w   07:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Thousands of awards/honorary degrees of similar standing are given every year and I'd bet that at least some of them are cancelled/retracted. I know of at least two cases this year, although they don't involve someone as prominent as Putin. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose the award itself is not notable outside Germany.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫  Share– a–  Power[citation needed] 11:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Dawn arrives at Vesta
Nom. Will occur around 06:00 (UTC). --bender235 (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Conditional support at this time. I have two main concerns. Firstly the blurb needs some work. In particular we need to be explicit that Dawn is a deep space mission, we are not referring the the everyday sense of the term. It also needs to be re-written in the present tense. Secondly, it hasn't happened yet. As a result, if you want us to consider the update then no it is not ready. We need actual confirmation that the probe is in orbit and some decent updated content in the light of that: things that were not available before it entered orbit. I realise scientific results will take time but there will be other things to post: quotes from the team behind it, reaction, that sort of thing. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

Support Several firsts here. (Editors should read Dawn (spacecraft)). Vesta is a BIG asteroid, the kind that fiction writers love, although behaving much better than most of those in fiction, and maybe that's the point. This IS educational stuff. For anyone who wants to argue "no impact on me", maybe THAT'S the point too. ;-) Both articles are in very good condition, Dawn (spacecraft) just needing update for the actual arrival. Very important scientific achievement HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Support per HiLo. Scientifically significant event.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 07:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested blurb: "NASA's unmanned Dawn spacecraft arrives at the asteroid Vesta." I've named the organisation responsible for the spacecraft, included the word spacecraft, made clear it is unmanned, and reduced the links to two (the spacecraft and the destination). Changed 'orbit' to 'arrives' as I'm not clear on what sort of orbit it will achieve. Also, I've piped 'Vesta' to the full name. Article update will still be needed, but if that happens, I would support this being posted. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, due to the high scientific value of the project. It's also the first time a spacecraft enters an orbit, de-orbits, and then heads toward another body. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  14:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support when updated. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see an update yet. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Support when it occurs, per Hilo48 and Ericleb01. Preferrably post a (new) photo of Vesta too, for illustration. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So this item looks likely to get posted unopposed even though it has less than 1/80th of the news hits that Potter does. Good move! -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Carmageddon" has 3000 Google News hits right now. We're not Google; we have different standards for what we post. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If story x is getting more than 10x more google news hits than story y and we have a suitable article for x we probably should post it as well as y as its clearly of interest to our readers. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop being disruptive by trying to make a point. There is no argument whether posting the space mission would be akin to an advertisement, or whether it's better to wait a couple of days to have a different and arguably more significant accomplishment in the spacecraft's mission. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 18:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: We should receive confirmation of its arrival at 07:30 UTC on Sunday. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dawn has entered orbit around Vesta. (NASA) (NASA JPL tweet) I'll try to put something together now. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 12:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now it should be ready. There's also a note in the update explaining why we won't know the exact insertion time for some time until Vesta is studied more. We should have additional information from the Dawn team over the next few days once we get out of the weekend. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 12:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  13:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Major offensive launched after deadliest attack in three years

 * Is there an article yet? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

$16 million fine for bribing UN official

 * Nah - The UN does irresponsible things like driving uncamouflaged tanks all the time. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   23:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. I fail to see the relevance of tank liveries to the importance of this subject. While I don't agree that the UN is somehow automatically notable either $16m is chunky money. I would like to see some reference to BAE Systems in the blurb though, or at least not describe it as a US manufacturer when it is now in foreign hands. However, I do notice that the article needs a substantial update: the current coverage of this is too slight to be considered. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Just saying that if anyone was put at risk it was because of defective tanks and not body armor. Also $16 million is chump change in military terms. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   01:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But there isn't so much as a hint anywhere that the goods supplied were at all defective, just that the contract was awarded following improper inducements. And a multi-million dollar fine is still not small change even for defence multinationals, especially on a contract that was only worth a fraction of that to begin with. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Factoring inflation makes it a slap on the wrist. BAE spent more just on graphically modeling the U.S. Army's GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle and that is still years from completion. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   03:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you going on about? Whether or not the fine was "a lot of money" isn't the point, nor is "the UN drives uncamouflaged tanks".  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 06:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support, but the article's in such condition that it's almost an empty gesture. According to BBC News, "Armor Holdings" is indeed paying a fine, but according to the article, "Armor Holdings" was renamed and/or reorganized years ago and is a former entity. Confusion much? That's not even to mention that the article makes no mention of this whatsoever, so pending some major work, I don't see this happening.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 06:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral This is a significant event, but the article is in pretty bad shape. Someone needs to work on it - I would if I had the time. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bribes to a UN busybody (or letting them rape you in exchange for food, or whatever) are just a dirty daily fact of business in the worst parts of the world. I support this when the bribed officials get life sentences for corruption of office. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Rebekah Brooks resigns

 * Support as part of a bump for the NI/NOTW blurb. Significant development. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose already posted this twice, no need to ost every single event. we dontdo that for olitics (taht affects the world) certainly not for some fringe co. (yes it is fringe)Lihaas (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You oppose valid items and support some ridiculous ones. That's pretty unhelpful to this section. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Really her resignation isnt interesting for anyone outside the UK. Neither is really the news that NOTW has been cancelled for good, that being on ITN only proves the Wikipedia English/american news bias.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A thoroughly unhelpful oppose alleging more "bias". A lot of recent discussion on the talk page focuses around the very matter of such opposes based on non-existent biases, and you only go and compound it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder why there aren't rules forbidding users who are known to have used multiple sockpuppets to stack votes from participating in ITN? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but we do have rules against ad hominems and personal attacks, so you might like to strike that comment. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That was not intended to be a personal attack, but I do see why it is inappropriate. Done. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support (see below for comment on revised blurb) The News Corp scandal is probably the single most important political event to happen in the last few years, and this might very well be its apex. I completely disagree with BabbaQ's comment - this is hugely important around the world. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you honestly saying that had it been a for example slovenian newspaper in the same situation we would have published it on ITN? I highly doubt it, this is typical English/American bias. How is the phone hacking and cancelling of a newspaper in the UK relevant for the entire world. No im not buying it at all.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The News Corp scandal is probably the single most important political event to happen in the last few years (in the UK perhaps but not in the entire world. Its quite insignificant outside UK boarders.)--BabbaQ (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This whining about U.S. bias or anti-U.S. bias is tiresome. I've been accused plenty of times of both. Please stop with the condescending accusations - you're not the only person who pays attention to news.
 * I suggest you read the News Corp article to understand exactly how this is important on a global scale. Murdoch has a global media empire that has meddled in political activities for decades, from China to the United States. The vast majorities of movies you've watched, the vast majority of television shows you enjoy - they are all under the control of the same corporation. The fact that this corporation is being crippled by a once-in-a-decade scandal could very well result in important changes throughout the world. Comparing News Corp to a "slovenian newspaper" is simply ridiculous. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever, it doesnt change the fact that had this been a slovenian /bulgarian or whatever newspaper of corp then it wouldnt have been a huge deal. This is basic American/english-news bias, just because it is a UK news doesnt make it worldwide important. And by the way, it is really ridiculous of you personally to bash someone for expressing their opinion calling them ridiculous. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't call you ridiculous, I called your comment ridiculous, which it is. Now if a Slovenian newspaper also happen to be one of the main services provided by the second-largest media corporation in the world then yes, it would have been a huge deal. This has nothing to do with it being in the UK. I'm an ethnic Chinese currently living in Indonesia, having grew up in two other countries. Are you really accusing me of having UK bias? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support bump Significant event not only in US/UK but also here in Aus. Mtking (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure if it replaces the current blurb or is incorporated into it. No reason we can't be flexible as a story changes. No bump however. I am, however, thoroughly tired of claims of American (and/or UK) bias. If we ever do an arguments to avoid that'll be number one with a bullet. RxS (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm wondering if this is on the same level as the other previous posts. I suspect not but I'm not going to call it one way or another since there is at least a potential for coI - it would naturally displace the BSkyB blurb that I nominated.  It appears to me that if ITN is not to devolve into running commentary of stories we need to isolate the significance of the specific story being considered from the significance of the wider frame story.  It  appears to me that without the wider scandal an executive of Brooks's stature resigning under a cloud would not be considered ITN material.  The fact this is largely a domestic story here in the UK weighs in too.  Yes, that is a valid consideration: while there is no requirement for a story to be of international importance the geographical scope of an article (national or by extension even sub-national) is fundamental to determining the relative significance of a story.  To argue otherwise and that geographical scope is an irrelevance is to argue that a big story that only affects a small village of say 500 people is more significant than a lesser story of multinational proportions.  We're discussing this story here and it is not shoe-in nor a SNOW.  Does the closure of e.g. an individual  primary school rank ahead of this story on the basis that that story is more significant to the one square mile or whatever that school serves? Crispmuncher (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
 * You might have a mistaken impression that it is a domestic story because you're in the UK. This has gotten HUGE responses in Asia, where I live. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Without the wider scandal it wouldn't make it to ITN, but that's not the situation here. It's part of the larger story and that's what's carrying this forward and making it something suitable for ITN. This is not a domestic story. It's being covered globally and is having real world consequences far outside the UK. RxS (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus Brazil. -- can  dle • wicke  16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

'* Strong support clear worldwide interest given the whole story. Am happy to justify this tomorrow. But it's Friday night and pub o clock. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It's definitely getting interest outside the UK even though that's not a requirement.  Batjik Syutfu says it well.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support bumping the existing blurb. Major development in a significant ongoing story. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there's a reasonable consensus for this now, so marking ready. General sentiment is that this should replace current BSkyB blurb.  Consensus on whether the new blurb should be bumped or not is less clear so the admin can be the judge of that. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Note: Someone called Les Hinton has just resigned and is referred to by the BBC as the "biggest scalp". Is there any space for him? -- can  dle • wicke  22:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * CEO of the company that runs the Wall Street Journal? Definitely. Better blurb proposed below. I'm assuming there is already an update.
 * Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton, two top executives of News Corp., resign amidst political controversy surrounding the media conglomerate.
 * <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unmarked [Ready]: revised blurb and in particular fresh bold targets warrant further discussion. I'm also firming up to an oppose in respect of of NuclearWarfare's proposed blurb simply because that would be highlighting News International phone hacking scandal for a second time in nine days. I would suggest getting Les Hinton properly updated and leading with the individuals instead, but adding Hinton at this stage still needs more evidence of consensus. Finally, I also note that neither were at News Corp itself but subsidiaries. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC).


 * The Les Hinton development is a big surprise, and makes it relevant to the US. There may be more to come. There will be adverts in all the newspapers this weekend with 'apologies to the nation' for what happened here. One thing, though - I wouldn't call this a 'political controversy'. It is more than just politics, as it involves an independent public inquiry headed by a judge, with wide-ranging powers, and it involves possible police corruption as well. As they say, this story has legs. Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is headline news in the non-Murdoch media in Australia. (Not so big in his papers, for some inexplicable reason.) Rupert has even apologised to his mum, who still lives here near Melbourne. Yes, he IS old, but she's 102! I'd be interested to know what she thought. News Corp has a big slice of the Oz media, so it matters. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely support the revised blurb, and I don't think it requires further discussion. Brooks' resignation was notable enough to post and Hinton's on top of that is even bigger news. This is MAJOR news worldwide and we ought to post this ASAP. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles both updated marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Does not require further discussion? Marking ready?  When it has already been pointed out that a last minute change to the blurb, after it had already been marked Ready once, is something that is clearly and uncategorically wrong? Again, neither of them were at News Corp. In any case, since when has one support and one oppose amounted to consensus here? Crispmuncher (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC).
 * You didn't oppose the new change; what you opposed was the original blurb as well, in which case there was overwhelming consensus to post.
 * The last minute change was made to reflect the clearly much more notable news that Hinton resigned. Given that the original blurb already has a consensus to post, and then we have another even more notable event on top of that, there is little need for another exhaustive discussion.
 * In any case, clearly there's more than one person supporting the update here. Eraserhead was the one who marked ready, not me, and I'd like to note that he and I has barely agreed on anything during my short history of contributing to ITN discussions.Batjik Syutfu (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please-read my original comments: there is no point engaging in straw man arguments when what I wrote is still on this very page. I did not call the original blurb one way or another but was explicitly against the revised one. Who decided this is "clearly much more notable"? You?  Why do we even bother with these discussions then - we can just wait to see what you think.  The Hinton story got on ITN with minimal scrutiny by hanging on the coat tails of another story and changing its scope completely right at the last minute.  It also does not change the fact the blurb posted was factually incorrect.  That alone is evidence that it did not receive sufficient scrutiny. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Posted bump with the Hinton developments. ƒ ox   09:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

[Closed] Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2 Opens World Wide

 * Oppose Not news. It's expected, and it really has no significance in society beyond its role as entertainment.
 * => Neutral, in consideration of the record-breaking gross. I personally don't believe breaking a box office record is a reason to post, but I can see why some would. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support final movie in a massive series of worldwide notability. Clearly vastly worthy of posting. Don't really see how you can justify not posting it (same as the above story really). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The final movie in an 8-movie series in one of the most dominant franchises in decades.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The end of Era, No sequels, remakes, or reboots will be made for decades... if ever. $2 billion grossed for just the movies and cultural icon to a generation. (Bit biased here since its my generation) The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I try not to make accusation of US bias, although I am aware that many do, but this is a very crass example of such a bias in proposal.  It has been released in (according to its article here) Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, UK, Puerto Rico and "several other countries" before its release in the US, but we are expected to make a headline out of its US release???  Kevin McE (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Our article says it was released world wide on July 15, I have rephrased the blurb appropriatelyThe Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We can mend the blurb to reflect on the worldwide release, but it's no one's fault that it wasn't nominated two days ago. It's not US bias... well, maybe the blurb. I support posting the release in general, in any case, as it's the closing chapter in the highest-grossing film series of all time -- not adjusted for inflation of course. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  17:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I agree that talking about the American release only is folly but why not just change the blurb to the film's release--period? Honesly... Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

oppose if no major records are broken...support otherwise. simple as that -- Ashish-g55 17:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The movie has already broken one record, although I'm not sure how significant it is: It's made the most money ever in midnight ticket sales, $43.5 million or so, if Warner Bros is to believed. source Again, I'm not sure how significant it is in the long run or if it merits a posting on ITN, but seeing as how the timer has been red for like a day and a half... -- Ghost Stalker  (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 17:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment We put up a blurb noting the release of the final book when it came out under the argument that the Harry Potter series is a cultural phenomenon and therefore the end of the series is a major deal. To any comments that claimed we were advertising a product, the reply was that an item on ITN was not going to convince anyone to go out and buy a book. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 18:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose unless it breaks a major record. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose a movie opening woop-dee. didnt [ost titatnic that was highexst grossing.Lihaas (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unless, as MG says, it breaks some sort of box-office record. And it's technically old news, since it was first released two days ago.  Night  w   20:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it did for opening night tickets sales it shattered the previous midnight showing by getting 43 million where the previous was 30 million The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a major record. I was thinking total revenue or total audience. How widespread are midnight openings anyway? Isn't that a fairly recent thing? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a major record, and it's one record that is broken pretty much once every two months... Maddox (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose this is cheap news, even by 'entertainment news' standards. Yes, it's a "blockbuster" movie, but in the grand scheme of things it's an utterly irrelevant event. Unless it tops Avatar, no way.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 03:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Harry Potter is one of the most notable book series in the history of the world ever. The only books I would be confident to say outsold it are the Bible and the Koran and shit that's it. Its clearly vastly more notable than the 25th bomb in Pakistan to kill 50 people this year which would get posted without question.
 * This is the final movie made of the series, which as well as being one of the most popular book series it is one of the biggest cultural phenomenons of the past 20 years, it is therefore clearly vastly notable and vastly worthy of posting. We may as well give up on ITN completely if it isn't going to get stuff like this right.
 * Given all that marking [Ready], both articles look decent enough. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: No way in hell can we post this and not be accused of promoting the film(s). ƒ ox   08:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you oppose the completion of the Sistine Chapel on the grounds that we shouldn't be promoting the Catholic Church? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very funny. You can't, in your right mind, expect Wikipedia to retain any neutrality by posting "XYZ film is opening today", especially one like this. ƒ ox   09:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - it isn't just "any film". -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor would anybody be convinced to go watch it just by seeing it here.  Grsz <b style="color:red;">11</b> 02:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is just a film opening, if it ends up setting some box office record then I may consider support at that point. Since a significant number of Oppose's also removing ready as it is not. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  08:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The opposes are all utterly invalid as they totally fail to address the fact that Harry Potter is one of the biggest cultural phenomenons of the past 20 years. Trying to claim that the final movie of almost certainly the biggest non-religious book series ever isn't notable enough for ITN is like arguing that water isn't wet.
 * The other reasons for opposing probably down to it being made by a corporation. Given outside of North Korea we live in a capitalist world companies are going to do notable things from time to time, and opposing them all is ridiculous. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * all of that is in your opinion. You added "[Ready]" first, I then removed it, please leave it to someone else to re-added it after they have assessed it. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  09:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Name a bigger cultural event of the past 20 years. Name a non-religous book that's sold more copies. None of what I've said is really opinion. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A Tale of Two Cities, The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit... ƒ ox   09:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC) I'd be pretty interested to see if we posted The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King's opening.  ƒ ox   09:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is however the best selling series of all time - selling 450 million copies across the series. And if we didn't post Lord of the Rings final movie we also fail to understand culture. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You .. don't understand how this might be seen as an advert for the film? ƒ ox   09:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We live in a capitalist society, get over it. And lets not forget the 8000 news stories about this on Google News. That's insane. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's called PR. The marketing for this film will infect the media, that's just what happens. Listen, I'll be happy to post about this if and when it gets Oscars, breaks records... but not when it's opening. ƒ ox   09:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Any event of any significance has PR, for example the Beijing Shanghai railway certainly did. What counts is that its getting massive media coverage now, and that its one of the biggest cultural events of the past 20 years, and is the final movie of the biggest selling book series ever. According to the Wikipedia article the first book additionally has sold over 100 million copies, which puts it up there with the Lord of the Rings etc - unfortunately it isn't sourced - but if the series has sold 450 million its certainly plausible. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye, the first book. Which one's this film based on..? No amount of "but we posted..." is going to change my mind here. ƒ ox   09:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But this is the last movie in the series, which is the biggest selling book series of all time. Arguing that a book only released in 2007 has to beat the Tale of Two Cities which has been out for 150 years in sales to be notable is absurd. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Um, guys... This is going to break the worldwide opening weekend record, the opening weekend record in the US and Canada, and the opening day record in the US and Canada. However we need to wait until after the weekend when this is officially confirmed. Theleftorium (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Now that is something I could see myself supporting. It actually achieving something. Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  10:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why wait? The only good reason to do so is to make ITN publish news late, which is hardly a good thing. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, is it a good idea to post estimates? I'm not sure... Theleftorium (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Its the final movie of the biggest selling book series ever published. Its hardly going to be a flop. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm saying. The blurb should be something like "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2, the final film installment of the popular book series, breaks the worldwide opening weekend record and the US and Canada opening weekend record" (or something similiar). We probably shouldn't post that until the numbers have been confirmed on monday? Theleftorium (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need to post the record for the movie. Posting Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2, the final film installment of the best selling book series ever opens worldwide. is clearly basically as notable as a cultural event can possibly be. I cannot fathom how anyone can consider this item worthy of opposing as it stands unless they have been living under a rock since 1997.
 * I mean Jesus Christ I probably won't even go and see this movie at all, but I can see that the final movie of a half billion selling book series is kinda going to be notable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the record confirmed? I'd support that also. Still opposed to just mentioning that it came out.  Night  w   12:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On what grounds are you opposing it? WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't really enough. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering it's over the weekend, the earliest possible date for confirmation is the Monday. Although we'll likely have a pretty good idea by Sunday. ƒ ox   12:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The record that its the biggest selling book series ever is confirmed yes. The inability of people here to judge a notable event in any other area than bombs going off is utterly disgusting, and a disgrace to the effort put in to make the section functional. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of editing Wikipedia means that people are inevitably going to disagree with you about what is important and what is not. You might not agree, but it is entirely valid to say think any number of these things:
 * The posting of the movie releases as opposed to the book releases is not the same thing in terms of significance.
 * Therefore, the book records should not have an impact on whether we post the movie or not.
 * We would be better off linking it on the Main Page during the Oscars.
 * We should only post the Harry Potter movies, or any movie, if and when they shatter a major record along the lines of Avatar.
 * I sense you're getting a little frustrated, and I'm going to ask that you step back and smell the roses a bit before you begin violating WP:NPA. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't the final movie you'd have more of a point, but it isn't and this one has got 32000 Google News hits as well. All of them ultimately come down to a total aversion to posting any kind of cultural event. Even ones which are clear cultural phenomenons.
 * If we aren't going to post Potter today I don't see honestly how one can view the section as worthwhile. There is no point in ITN if all it can manage to do is post bombs. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The film has now shattered the opening day record in the US/Canada with over $92 million (way above expectations). See. That's 20 million more than the previous record! Opening weekend record is locked now. Theleftorium (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we get that nominated in a new post under today's date, please? That's worth supporting, and this nomination has run its course. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll have to wait until Sunday because that's when we get the opening weekend estimates, both for US/Canada and worldwide. Theleftorium (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose current blurb ("film is released"). Oppose proposed blurb ("film breks opening record"), since these are not notable record. If, and only if it surpasses Avatar, I would support any mention of it in ITN. Clearly "in this date" material to me. Maddox (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a notable record? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. It's the most notable record after total domestic gross and total worldwide gross. No film will ever surpass Avatar, by the way. Theleftorium (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just FYI: 226k hits at Harry Potter yesterday, 207k hits for the film and 162k for the film series. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eraserhead, could you refrain from hounding everyone who !votes oppose? They're entitled to their opinions. At the moment it looks like you're on some sort of crusade to get this posted. If and when this breaks a major record (opening weekend revenue seems likely), it should be renominated, and I imagine will gain consensus easily. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 23:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say I share Eraserhead's frustration here. Yes people are entitled to their own opinions but when people argue 'opening record--woopdee' with no care as to whether our readers are interested in it is distressing.  The article has 200k views--that's very strong reader interest.  This is the end of a fantasy franchise which began 14 years ago with the publication of the first HP novel--it's not just any movie.  There seems to be a paranoia against posting 'commercial stories' which I can't understand.  Wikipedia pages are not advertisements; they are written from NPOV and they often contain criticism of the article's subject.  I can't understand why people think the Wikipedia's main page's content should be dictated by misguided fears that we might be promoting a film.  Eraserhead and other editors here aren't arguing out of COI.  Fisnally, the same story is being covered by all sorts of mainstream media outlets--are the BBC, the Guardian, and NPR being paid off by Rowling to increase movie sales?--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support now. The opening raised the record for biggest "domestic" (USA+Canada) box office day from $72,703,754 to $92,100,000. World wide numbers are harder to collect and compare but it's also a huge international success and probably had the biggest world wide day on July 15. I get 17400 Google News hits on "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" in the last 24 hours. The opening of a huge film is the big news. By the time opening weekend is calculated it is already smaller news, and it takes weeks or months after that to compete for biggest total. Ending the highest-grossing film series is also important. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support posting now. This is notable. Period. Anybody arguing otherwise is either kidding themselves, or just stupid.  Grsz <b style="color:red;">11</b> 01:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, tending to oppose Anything that attracts "votes" like that ^ is problematical. Wikipedia needs to have some standards. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not really a vote, but okay.  Grsz <b style="color:red;">11</b> 02:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, meh. Just meh. I spent nearly the entirety of the last three days at a college orientation (Boomer!) where it seems like this was one of the hot topics of conversation, so I apologize if I'm a little burnt out on this. I love this series and its accomplishments are certainly noteworthy, but honestly, I don't consider it "news" in the strictest sense. I'm fine if it goes up and I'm fine if it doesn't. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 03:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Kidnapped Estonian cyclists released

 * weak support if updated. beleive weposted the kidnappings, so the release should follow. were also over 24 hours with a red warning aboveLihaas (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We're over 24 hours with a red warning is not a good argument for posting anything; and if you did use that as a criteria, surely that would count in the above nomination regarding Rebekah Brooks. More proof of disruption... For the record, we did not post the kidnapping. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * my opinion not uours. your disrptuion as an attack rather than a support provides NOTHING. i dont brooks is as worthy see above first__) if you want to use that arguement than about half the arguemnts here "per above dont mean crap all!!! dont tell me about hypfrisyLihaas (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lihaas, it would be much easier for all of us if you ran a spell-check on your comments before posting. They require significant effort to decipher. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Former Argentine officers are convicted of torture and murder

 * Oppose. This is domestic news in my opinion. The officers themselves are not notable in their own right, they have been convicted according to local laws. That's something very different from e.g. a highly notable person like Ratko Mladic being convicted by an international tribunal. Mocctur (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mocctur. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

9/11 phone hacking investigation to start
Possibly to replace the current phone hacking blurb but this starting a new investigation into hacking on 9/11 victims seems highly notable in its own right. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Investigations can be started at the drop of a hat. If there are criminal charges, that's another matter. Would prefer to wait for those, if they actually end up happening. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Overall, this is one of those huge stories that is always developing more and more. We simply can't post every new development, so we should only stick to major ones, such as (as NW said) criminal charges, etc.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 23:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Lost rainbow toad rediscovered

 * Support. I was thinking about nominating this, a species thought extinct seems like a ITN worthy item. I think the article - Ansonia latidisca - needs some work first though. - <font color="Purple" face="Arial">JuneGloom  <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman">Talk  19:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Meh. Definitely interesting, but it wasn't 'thought extinct', and its conservation status is only 'endangered'. It was just "lost". I have absolutely no idea how significant a rediscovery of a "lost species" is, so I'm opposing based on the fact that it doesn't seem to be a major event in the grand scheme of things.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 23:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support seems like an interesting animal and animals don't get rediscovered that often, besides the timer is red. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Off beat story that's still of interest. Especially given how long it's been since it's been seen. RxS (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Unusual and interesting science story. We often post the discovery of new species (at least of large animals), and rediscovering one which hadn't been seen for so long seems comparable. Article is short, but passes the criteria. Marking as ready. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article's not great, but this is an under-represented topic and something a bit different, and we need to post something, so posted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Not to be rude, but I can't fathom how we deliberated for forty hours and the only article we posted happens to have two relevant sentences. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Temporarily removing. There are only 2 paragraphs, each of which is not even 5 sentences long! I'm very willing to repost when the article is expanded more.  Spencer T♦ C 02:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 paras of 5 sentences works on the VAST majority of ITN articles. get consensus befoer unilateral censorshioLihaas (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless properly updated. The article (not just the update, the whole article) would have to be 2.5x expanded to even qualify for DYK; I see no reason why ITN should adopt looser standards than DYK. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please check and restore if it is ok now I have expanded it and added more references. Sadly, because I was planning to improve it for DYK but you guys saw it first.   Sharktopus  <sup style="color:black;">talk  23:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose the current version as well. The relevant part is still far too short. The articles cited are fairly long and detailed, so I see no reason why it can't be updated further more. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  19:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

New record in Sumo

 * While an interesting story, this goes under sport statistics in my opinion and I am not in favour of those. The article is in a pretty good shape, though. --Tone 15:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT AS A record first.Lihaas (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Tone. "Interesting" or "record" sports stats are like once-in-a-lifetime astronomical occurrences - there's simply that many of them that they are common when considered collectively.  The vast majority are completely non-notable and only the most exceptional gain widespread attention.  I don't see this as being one of those cases.  Crispmuncher (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Oppose. Previous consensus has been almost uniformly opposed to stories based on sports statistics only, and I don't see any reason to change that. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Explosions in Abadan, Turkmenistan

 * Nom. Breaking story. Explosions originally began on July 7 (see e.g. Telegraph.co.uk), but are still not under control according to opposition groups, and death toll is rising. --bender235 (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Breaking story... from a week ago? --  tariq abjotu  18:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Breaking" in the sense that it was originally thought to be a fireworks depot, not an arms dump (Turkmenistan government still claims it is), and the death toll was originally thought to be no higher than 15, but since yesterday opposition groups report more than 1,300 deaths. --bender235 (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. If it is only being reported now we could not have known last week. There's a big difference between -15 and 1,300+. -- can  dle • wicke  18:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose wishy washy deals no surety as to whqatis hapeenins g . opp grouos just want to oppose govt action anywhere,Lihaas (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty safe this isn't a story made up by the Turkmeni opposition. At least in my eyes this doesn't look like a fireworks warehouse. BTW: were you typing with your feet, or what? --bender235 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, though the blurb should be cleaned up a bit (i.e. no "possibles"). However, over 1,000 deaths is astounding and definitely significant.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 23:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support very large number of deaths. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This seems to be a significant event, but the section at its current state consists of two sentences with little more information than the blurb; and there seems to be significant controversy over the death toll. Will support if some reliable sources can back this up. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A number of German media outlets picked the story up (Tagesschau, Zeit), but they're only relying on the sources mentioned above. --bender235 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm concerned at the lack of confirmation from major Western news agencies. Is there convincing evidence for that number of deaths? If so it would be clearly notable, but at present how is anyone to know? Also, the article is nowhere near sufficient. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan joins UN
Sorry if I haven't formatted this properly or if I haven't followed some sort of procedure; I hardly ever venture over this way, and consent to any changes necessary. A new country officially coming into being struck me as being main page worthy. —WFC— 18:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: The country's coming into being appeared in the ITN section last week. -- can  dle • wicke  18:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose If this were a country like Switzerland joining after years of being a neutral country, or a country like Taiwan being given a seat, I'd support. But I don't see anything special here. Hot Stop (t) 19:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm inclined to oppose on the grounds that we posted it last week. On the other hand the article did get massive hits last week (260k) so possibly it is worth posting again. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose It would only be worth posting it again if South Sudan refused to join the UN. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose South Sudan joins African Union, South Sudan joins IOC, South Sudan joins Arab League, etc. etc. All of them would happen only for one reason: South Sudan is a new country. This is expected and is not news. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is just the business of forming a new State, the news was the creation, and that was posted. Mtking (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is simply another element of statehood. What's the real difference between this and e.g. the country starting to issue passports, printing its own currency, forming bilateral diplomatic relations, or even getting its own dialing code?  Ultimately these are all natural (and to a greater or lesser extent inevitable) consequences of the story we have already reported. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Support Perhaps a futile support, but joining UN is a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Joining the UN is indeed a Very Big Thing, and if a country was doing so after a period of years outside the organisation, I would support. But we featured the independence last week. This is just part of the independence process, not a major new shift in foreign policy. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Somalia drought

 * We need an article first. Mocctur (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This was previously discussed Hot Stop (t) 23:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I still cannot believe you compared it to Texas. But beside that, I'd only support when some significant event occurs (like an announcement by the UN for humanitarian aid or something), as the drought is no longer recent news for ITN standards. Article is at 2011 Horn of Africa drought. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  01:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I have expanded the article, but need help doing this. As for a particular event for the blurb, here's my try: "United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls on countries worldwide to urgently support the work of UN agencies in the Horn of Africa drought." This happened yesterday and is a pretty significant statement. It's on headline news worldwide, and I suspect is how the nominator and many people have heard of the news recently. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples of headlines about this event from the past few days (various languages):123456. While the drought itself has been reported for a few weeks, the many recent developments have led to a great deal of attention in the last few days. Definitely suitable for ITN. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if mentioned the whole Horn of Africa. Somalia lonely is only a part of the damaged region.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if the blurb is changed to reflect that the news isn't Ban Ki-moon's 'calls', it's that "Some 10 million people are said to be affected by the Horn of Africa's worst drought in 60 years."  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 23:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Article looks good. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I was going to post this but I'm not comfortable with the state of the article. RxS (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I expanded it a bit more with new updates. It seems like a fairly decent-sized article now. Batjik Syutfu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

Not ready. Article is too short imo, and much of what is there is padding. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just expanded the article. It is now, by my count, around twenty times longer than the frog article you just posted. Can we post this now? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] News Corp kills BskyB bid

 * Support This story has been the #1 news story in the UK for a week, the USA for the last couple of days, and today much of the English speaking world. It's now conspicuous by its absence from the main page. Fig (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS wikilink "hacking controversy" to News_of_the_World_phone_hacking_affair in the blurb Fig (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Support top story on the BBC earlier today, which warranted a special banner. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment what is the article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was intentionally vague at nomination, mostly to get the ball rolling as articles are updated - blurbs can be tweaked as things evolve. I suspect BSkyB is the main bold article for this one.  It's debatable whether the update criteria are satisfied: the coverage of today's events is probably insufficient but in the wider context we have a solid and well referenced couple of paragraphs of events over the last couple of days as they relate specifically to the proposed blurb. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I've tightened up the blurb and got 4 sentences on the latest incident as well as a significant amount of further background. Marking [Ready] given the lack of opposition. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support.per Eraserhead--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting. It's a bump, but it seems to be of global interest given the consensus. (This does however mean we've put two up in a very short space of time...) ƒ ox   22:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a huge fan of this, but I suppose it provides a nice contrast to the rest of the articles on ITN: terrorist attack, assasination, explosion, naval disaster, and...netball. I will look forward to see how this posting of "Murdoch backs down from making a business deal under political pressure" will compare with the eventual ITN discussion of "US Government decides not to hit its debt ceiling" (hopefully it's that discussion, and not "well, the entire global economy is screwed now"). <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is why minority topics are given preferential treatment - to throw a bit of variety into the mix. "Shit happened, x dead", "Major cock-up, y dead", "Monumental incompetence, z dead" gets a bit samey after a while.  I'm the first to oppose too easy a ride for any story here, but if the whole format gets too dry and predictable, posting only stories that fit some criterion that would ultimately prove very narrow, then we quickly lose interest and with it front page status. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

[Posted] Blasts in Mumbai

 * Support but wait to post let's let details begin shaking out. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The blasts seem to have been of low intensity and don't appear to have caused casualties. Mar4d (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Might change to 'support' when more details arrive. Mar4d (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, in light of recent developments. Mar4d (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, news may be updated later, but should be on main page as fast as possible.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support when the articles been expanded to at least the minimum quality. It's not close at this point, right now it reads like a news flash. RxS (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support once article meets minimum standards. The location and the potential to cause a nuclear war makes them notable enough IMO. Already fingers are being pointed at Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence on various Indian news channels.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * potential for nuclear war???? i was willing ot go to kulfi centre right now as i write. (liquor store closed though...oitherwise i could have got pics for the WP page.)Lihaas (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as soon as the article is in decent shape. This is making news everywhere. So far we have 10 confirmed casualties. @Wikireader41: I haven't heard ISI being referred to in NDTV, IBN or Times Now although LeT and the IM have been named by the media (not the police) as prime suspects - the Mumbai police officer who spoke to the media just a while ago confirmed 3 IEDs and said they are collecting forensic evidencce. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I think it was on Sahara Samay. IM is considered to have strong ties to ISI by many in India and elsewhere just like LeT.  Obviously this is media speculation but many people believe that. Especially in light of where the investigation of 2008 Mumbai attacks went.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support when the article has been reasonably expanded. Mocctur (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Actually is it clear that it was an attack? Or was it accidental explosions? – ∃  <font face="verdana" color="green">Aditya  <font face="verdana" color="green">7   ¦  16:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Home Ministry confirms terrorist attack.  Lynch 7  16:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Post. Article looks adequate and will surely be expanded further.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, its in a decent enough shape and we can always flesh it out as more details come to light. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * no biggie, we have it all the time and there arent even the nakabandis on the road. Sure Haji Ali may be closed but thats not barometer. the club was open and EMPTY. lets see if we have a bandh tomorrowLihaas (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It seems to be very well covered, since I've heard it many times today. In addition, the bomb blasts are not as such common as we should post them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thue | talk 18:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Egypt

 * Comment Egypt is still on the section currently. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At the bottom. It would naturally replace itself. :-) -- can  dle • wicke  01:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when updated: Yesterday there was a big protest, the SCAF made a statement regarding the ongoing sit-in that made the protesters even more angry. Another huge protest is gonna take place this Friday were demands might be getting rid of the SCAF. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. We're getting to the point where we're posting every development in Egypt. If events warrant, we can put a sticky up but we can't track all these new developments on ITN. RxS (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per RxS. Mocctur (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Wait until Friday. There will be more newsworthy material by then. --Sherif9282 (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A first ever

 * Willing to support provided that Richard Parks get some clean up and Explorers Grand Slam has some expansion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Funny emphasis in this item. It took me a long way into this before I found out what it was actually about. I first saw something about Wales, then rugby union, all more likely to encourage many readers to stop reading. I suggest we change the blurb to something like.... "Explorers Grand Slam achieved in a single calendar year for the first time by former Wales rugby union international Richard Parks." It puts the emphasis on this achievement, rather than earlier achievements. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ? -- can  dle • wicke  00:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be better. A) We all know that Scots and Welshmen who do well in sport are "British", but they're "Scottish" or "Welsh" when they lose! ;) And B) his rugby playing isn't really relevant to this feat. The article needs work, anyway. This Grand Slam thing isn't covered in any great detail. Probably because you'd have to be insane to want to do that... HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose A remarkable personal achievement, but hardly news. And even as a piece of trivia this is getting very little coverage (8 articles on Google News is all I can find). Batjik Syutfu (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The blurb is really misleading, lol. I'm neutral for this, since I would rather see something like another calendar year Golden Slam in tennis, and not mountain climbing. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  04:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support on the conditions of TRA and Candlewicke.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 09:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * support as a firstt, should thr article be adequately updated.Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, while this is rather impressive, it falls into the "sports trivia" category. Why is it particularly important that he did it within a single calendar year? Many others did this, although it took them longer. And this formulation may be inaccurate, as he begun in December 2010. --Tone 12:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, sports trivia. Thue | talk 13:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Trivia of low notability. A Google news search of "Richard Parks" in the last week gives 7 relevant results: 3 from the same Welsh site, 1 other Welsh hit, 1 from BBC and a single German. Several people have climbed the Seven Summits in less than 7 months but I guess most climbers are uninterested in the Poles. "Explorers Grand Slam" is a cool sounding name but a think few people care about this combination. And there is no competition like much better known Grand Slams so doing it in a calendar year sounds more like a question of spending the time and money than doing something others couldn't have done. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for similar reasons to PrimeHunter hints at. I question how widely regarded this particular "grand slam" is.  It strikes me as the kind of thing a single person can advance in a magazine article or whatever, and then is completely ignored until someone does it. when all of a sudden it's hugely significant.  The more artificial the criteria the less notable the achievement.  In this case in this case we have an achievement of questionable notability to begin with that to become a "first" has to be done within a year.  Presumably that isn't good enough so it needs to be further narrowed down to a calendar year.  Each time the scope is narrowed down the story becomes less and less notable. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Oppose per PrimeHunter, Crispmuncher et al. Mocctur (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Neptune

 * It's an interesting fact, but I'm not sure it's ITN material. It would've been cool to have it as the FA today, but I guess it's already appeared on the main page (Neutral fyi). Hot Stop (c) 18:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 150+ years for 1 year, wow! im so young. definate support. can you imagine when im a rockign teen ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Highly interesting, and there is only a small number of planets in our Solar System. Mocctur (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would this not be more appropriate for OTD? Somehow... ? --Tone 19:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - definitely a highly interesting event. If not ITN material, I would strongly recommend that this be put in at OTD.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. So it's been around the Sun once since humans discovered it. So what? It has been doing do for millions of years beforehand, and will do so for millions to come. What relevance does the coincidence of orbital phase with the time when humans first detected it have to anything? It's just a form of anniversary, no more deserving of a space on ITN than any other anniversary (whether based on Earth years or Neptunian years). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Classic "On This Day" anniversary page selection. Also per our own astro-chemist Modest Genius The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this really isn't ITN material, so I've made the edit request at selected anniversaries.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 20:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DYK candidate instead?  Night  w   05:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is a very cool factoid, and it should be on the front page in some form. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  21:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment It's sad that the world no longer cares about astronomy. It's what led us to the moon on the first place. I think it's because most of the population now lives in overlit cities and can no longer see the stars. Pity. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Space exploration took us to the Moon, which is NOT astronomy. Besides, astronomy gets more stories on ITN than, say, chemistry or physics. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. ITN is too Milky Way centric. ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, In fact its too local as it fails to have galactic importance. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a Solar System item, which will have no impact at all on the Milky Way. Or on ULAS J1120+0641. ;) <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I seriously considered nominating this myself but ultimately decided against it. It is notable enough in my view but the problem is the update: what new can we say?  Most news reports I looked at used it as a frame story for reviewing the progress of scientific understanding: there are no actual events of note and anything we wedge in to satisfy short-term update criteria will eventually be bounced out on recentism grounds.  Remember that ITN is not (nor is it intended to be) a news source and does cover any story purely on its own merits, no matter how significant or interesting.  Rather, its raison d'être is to highlight new or updated content.  In the absence of substantive new content there is nothing to consider regardless of the intrinsic merits of the story. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a little different and it's so far away. It is also unlikely to happen again this century (unless something even more significant and ITNworthy happens to cause it to do so). -- can  dle • wicke  00:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting item, but I can't see how an event like this gets more than a single sentence in the article. The event doesn't deserve more than a single sentence, and that would fail ITN update criteria. (And no, a full paragraph with quotes commemorating Galle and information about celebrations wouldn't really add to the article either). So I'm forced to weak oppose.  Spencer T♦ C 01:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I feel that there are far too few science-related articles on ITN, but this seems to me completely trivial. Would be more willing to support if someone can find actual responses to this event, e.g. some scientists decide to hold a celebration or a talk. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, basically per Batjik Syutfu. I also would like to see more Science stories in ITN, but this one does not really cut it - there is no scientific discovery or advance documented here, or a record/observation of a previously unknown/unseen cosmological event. Nsk92 (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

News International Hacking Scandal

 * Oppose for now. It's still just The Guardian reporting that The Sun and The Sunday Times are implicated (plus statements by MPs and the ex-PM, which will always happen). Without any further steps (shuttering of papers, firing of staff/management, criminal charges, etc.), it is my opinion that is is premature to post this. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 13:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure your information is up to date? News of the World did shut down after 168 years in print. The parent company News Corporation lost US$7 billion (15%) in market value in four trading days. (Bloomberg) —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 18:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And we already posted that. I assume NW is of the (very reasonable) opinion that it would take another significant development in the story for it to be posted again. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I must have missed that news item. Carry on, then. This isn't the ITN candidate you're looking for. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 19:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per NW. Mocctur (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose until there are significant new developments, which there almost certainly will be.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I actually do think that there have been significant developments since the closure of News of the World, just that they have been happening with such frequency that it's hard to pinpoint some exact watershed moments. For example, it's certainly notable that the Murdochs have been called to testify before the Parliament; and its borderline-noteworthy as well that Gordon Brown made such strong accusations against the newspapers. This should be on ITN somehow, but perhaps with a different blurb. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Ahmad Wali Karzai

 * Support when updated: Big news; Taliban claiming Ahmad Wali Karzai death as big achievement. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. An important person, who has regularly been mentioned in western news. Thue | talk 10:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article needs some work first. At the moment, it's just about controversies about him, not about his life and work. --Tone 11:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And the death section needs more references. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose How about let's reserve death notices on ITN to folks that more than a handful of readers may have heard of? Merely "notable" deaths can be listed on the Recent Deaths page.212.139.252.232 (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is the relatively unknown brother of a President (of a small country) really important enough? We just decided not to post the death of Betty Ford. The article is short and with very few interwikis (3, Ford's article had ten times more). Mocctur (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. This is the kind of death we should be posting: it was unexpected, in that he was assassinated (something that doesn't happen ever so often), the deceased was active when he died and it seems he's a notable politician in his own right, not just as the half-brother of the president. None of that could really be said of Betty Ford, even though she was better known. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose Article is in terrible shape for a Biography.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when updated. Front page news for many newspapers and online news sites as of now. . "The head of Kandahar's provincial council and one of the most powerful strongmen in Afghanistan" according to The Telegraph. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  16:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, really not important person. -  Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  17:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on his death being front page news around the world, you mean? Obviously someone of no importance at all. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And he was consistently described as one of the most powerful people in Afghanistan.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Major news topic, significant assassination.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support in principle as the death has obvious and significant effects on current events. It would be helpful for the biography to be more of a biography though. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not so concerned about the article any more. I've added a brief section to the article on his political career. Otherwise, all his obituaries are focusing on corruption allegations and CIA connections, so it's not unreasonable that our article gives those two matters significant weight as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. All the news-coverage uniformly describes him as a prominent and controversial political figure in Afghanistan (to quote BBC, "A high-profile half-brother of Afghan President ") who played a crucial role in Afghanistan's security system . His assassination is significant in several ways: is a high-profile victory for the Taliban and it will also likely to have serious effect on the security situation in the country. As NPR puts it "The assassination of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's influential brother leaves a power vacuum in the country's south just as stability seemed to be returning in the region that once served as the Taliban capital". The article seems to be in reasonable shape now. Nsk92 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Despite claims of this being major news all over the world, it doesn't seem to have reached Australia. Why should that matter, you ask? Well, Australia is at war in Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed. No plans to withdraw troops. We regularly get news from there, but not this time. I wonder why? HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cough! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Don't know how well you know our papers, but I really didn't expect that paper to cover it. It's our local tabloid. The broadsheet in town hasn't mentioned it in the headlines. Oh well, the media does its own thing. And you will note that I wasn't opposing this. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ABC, The Age and the SMH seem to be covering it, though how much coverage they're giving it compared to other things, I don't know. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I've seen this everywhere today. He seems to be a significant enough figure on his own, isn't very old and isn't somebody's wife. -- can  dle • wicke  00:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support important casualty in a war that seems to be heating up.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Cyprus explosion

 * Sounds promising. I'd likely support, but I would have to see the article first. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when there is an adequate article. Mocctur (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if an adequate article exists. Hot Stop (c) 18:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if an article comes about.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Working on it. Evangelos Florakis Navy Base explosion. Might take me a couple of hours to flesh it out. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to disappear, but the article is good enough to be posted now, imo. It could use a map and an infobox if anybody fancies helping out. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Posted. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support considering what it has led to - thousands of people marching on the Presidential Palace, police firing tear gas, the media calling it a "crime" and the perpetrators "criminals", and demonstrators tying a banner to the palace gates stating "Christofias is a murderer and must go to jail". Plus the country's "worst peacetime military accident". -- can  dle • wicke  00:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Kalka Mail Accident
54 people have been killed in a train crash in India. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources, article? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. The article would be Kalka Mail Accident.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Train accident with 35 dead. We just decided not to post the Hewa Bora Airways Flight 952 accident with 127 dead. Mocctur (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please quit being WP:POINTy. The accident had 70 deaths and, as I said below, some contributors will flat out oppose aviation accidents as a whole; the reason why it was probably struck down. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop making false allegations. I opposed the Hewa Bora Airways Flight 952 accident, and I'm going to continue opposing non-notable train and aviation accidents. The article, which is also merely a stub, does not support your claim of 70 dead and said 35 dead at the time I wrote my comment. The only argument I've seen in this discussion for posting this is "Significant death toll". The other discussion established that a death toll of 127 was not in itself significant enough. There's nothing special about the train accident, it was not a terrorist attack or unique in any way. Incidents with death tolls like this happen regularly across the world. Mocctur (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "The accident" referred to the Hewa Bora accident, which you wrongly and repeatedly referred to as having caused 127 deaths, when in fact it caused 70 deaths. An accident does not have to be "unique". An accident is an accident. The fact that an accident is different than another accident does not make it suddenly notable. I also agree that terrorist attacks are very notable, but that does not mean that we should be completely ignorant of every other major accident in the world. Terrorist attacks are not as commonplace as you seem to think. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  01:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At the time we discussed the aviation accident, the article said 127 dead, and that was the number used in the discussion as well. So the discussion determined that a death toll of 127 dead was not enough in itself. If the death toll has changed afterwards, it only makes the accident even less notable than assumed previously. It doesn't change the fact that a death toll of 127 was not found to be significant enough in itself. Where did I say terrorist attacks are "commonplace"? They belong on the main page exactly because they are not commonplace. 155,000 people or so die each day. Mocctur (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise that the discussion used the wrong numbers (which is odd, because news reports at that time were reporting "50 to 127 deaths"). I'm not making any claim as to the notability of that particular accident, just over the use of the bad data in your argument (an IP was the first to point this out below). But yes, I misinterpreted your view on terrorist attacks. However, your "155,000 people or so die each day" argument is very lacking. It's not even an argument. It's like saying that the September 11th attacks are not notable because "152,000 other people died that day" or "98% of the people who died that day did not die at the WTC". So what? There was a collective loss of life at one specific moment which makes it tragic and notable in both the 9/11 attacks and the Kalka Mail accident. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 11 September was a highly spectacular terrorist attack. The Kalka Mail accident was a traffic accident. While traffic accidents are tragic, there are thousands of traffic accidents every day. The death toll of this particular traffic accident was higher than most traffic accidents, but not spectacularly higher, and there were no other spectacular circumstances, it was only an accident, initially with 35 reported deaths. There is also a difference between a few thousand and 35 or 68 deaths. 11 September has had a huge impact on political developments globally. Is the Kalka Mail accident likely to have an impact on anything? Mocctur (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that my main point is not to compare 9/11 to the Kalka Mail accident (which really serves no purpose). I'm using 9/11 to show you how lacking "155,000 other people died that day" is as an argument to further your point. Something you haven't addressed. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  21:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop trolling. You know very well what he is trying to say. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  01:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree anyone was trolling. I do see his point regarding the 155,000 argument, but this is not my main reason for opposing this, rather the lack of impact the incident is likely to have and the lack of spectacular circumstances; it was not that unusual from a global perspective and will probably not have any significant impact even in India. If it, for example, had some serious political impact (e.g., the responsible government minister resigning, the company dissolved (News of the World)) etc., that would be a different matter. I supported posting the blasts in Mumbai with less casualties because this was an unusual incident. Similarly, 11 September was important because it was so unusual and because of the huge potential and actual impact the incident had. Mocctur (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. I'm of the opinion the things like this should only posted when there's something especially significant about them, for example being one of the most deadly in a country's history. I'd be willing to support if this developed into something more, but at the minute, it doesn't seem to be having much effect beyond the local area. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Significant death toll; the opposition against publishing the Hewa Bora Airways incident, which left 127 people dead is absolutely baseless too. Mar4d (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Around 155,000 people die per day. I can't see why a train accident is somehow more spectacular than the numerous other kinds of deaths that occur every day for various reasons. If it's intentional (i.e. massacre or terrorist attack), then yes, it would be notable. This on the other hand seems like pure bad luck. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are we now opposing content that we've always posted? Is this an attempt to completely destroy the section? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * and may I point out natural disasters are also "pure bad luck" in most instances. we have generally posted those also.  The toll now is at 80 dead and > 350 injured in the "worst disaster in India in years".(Reuters)--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any natural disasters with less than 100 people dead (and little material damage) posted on ITN. If there were any, I'd have opposed them too.
 * Frankly, Eraserhead, I don't appreciate the personal attacks. Can we assume good faith and agree that there are valid grounds for opposing opinions here? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Come on guys, get a grip. Train accidents do not happen every day. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral. We have to come to an agreement about the ITN criteria. If we posted the Slovak bus accident with 12 dead, then an Indian train with 35 is definitely a go. However, I'd skip both as they do not bear any implications for the wider community, and even less significance for Wikipedia. Crnorizec (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * International (or wide) significance is not a criteri a on. Significance for Wikipedia isn't one either. I agree, though, that the criteria need to be less vague. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  01:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction: significance is not a criterion. ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :P <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  04:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand we need to post at least 2 items a day so we probably shouldn't be too fussy about what goes up. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no rule that if we post a 12-death accident in one country, we have to post a 35-death accident in another. ITN is not a measure of items' importance. Its main purpose is to feature quality newly updated content. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Serious train accident with considerable international press coverage. Owen (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite my reservations on significance grounds, there seems to be something of a consensus here. However, the article is still too short, imo. The only thing worse (again, imo) than ITN being stale is ITN linking to articles that don't give the reader any more information than they could have got from the blurb. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose At the risk of complicating this, there's several reason why I'd oppose this. First, as mentioned elsewhere the article is no where near the state it needs to be for the front page. In addition, I have the same opinion here as I did on the Hewa Bora Airways Flight 952 nomination. I don't think our readers will be looking for information on this topic, it's a little headline news newsy, and I don't see any possibility that it's a significant enough story to support expansion into an in-depth article. As I said on Flight 952, if there's something about this that sets it apart from a headline news type of listing I'd reconsider. RxS (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Bulgaria (ship)
100 people are missing after a ship capsizes in Tatarstan, Russia.- Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  19:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not sufficiently important (we did not post Hewa Bora Airways Flight 952 with 127 dead), not many readers of the English Wikipedia will be looking for information on this. Also, the article is a stub. Mocctur (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * how is that a stub? And the death toll is not the most important criteria for accidents.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫  Share– a–  Power[citation needed] 09:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe because it was an extremely short article at the time I wrote my comment? Mocctur (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support when updated large amount of casualties. Mocctur's argument that English readers will not be looking for information on this is not credible as English-language bias in ITN has never been allowed. The article leaves some to be desired, but when/if it is updated I think this is important enough to be posted. Not everyday does a ship carrying 100 people sink. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 20:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you think 100 people missing in Tatarstan would be sufficiently notable, when 127 dead people in Africa are not? Mocctur (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Death toll is not the determining factor in posting an item. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * --Diego Grez (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That template needs to go to TfD.  Night  w   08:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You just said above "I'm of the opinion the things like this should only posted when there's something especially significant about them, for example being one of the most deadly in a country's history". What's so special about 100 people missing in an incident like this and why is this likely to be a major issue outside the region/country in question, and to our readers? If around 100 people died (or as missing) in Tatarstan (and I've not seen any significant global news coverage), I'd say it's roughly of similar importance as the Hewa Bora Airways Flight 952 accident. Mocctur (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hewa Bora 70 dead not 127 --93.137.150.76 (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Support. Death toll will increase in several hours. The 110 bodies already found, but not extracted yet. The tragedy is very unlike to Europe, should be added to mainpage. I haven't expand the stab when the mass-media reports was self-cintradictory. . --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ ( see also: ә? Ә!) 08:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mocctur  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 16:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indian train crash is much more notable? It is rather usual for India, and the last major river shipwreck occured 30 years ago!--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ ( see also: ә? Ә!) 17:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can not agree more, Untifler.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫  Share– a–  Power[citation needed] 09:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Support This is worst accident in 3 decades hence it makes it rare. does not happen too often in this part of the world. Quite a lot dead too. Article also looks decent now, i see updates and refs. -- Ashish-g55 22:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Olegwiki (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Same reason as the train accident above. Also, article needs an update. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. According to WSJ, this was Russia's "worst marine accident in 25 years." Apart from the significant death toll (which is likely to rise even further), it is already clear that this accident will have political ramifications in Russia and has put considerable pressure on the government. A major riverboat catastrophe is also a pretty unusual event for Europe and the world in general, much more rare than major plane and train crashes. Nsk92 (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Nsk92 and the fact that the death toll could climb. Tragic accident. Also I'd like to repeat the fact that the Hewa Bora crash had 70 deaths, not 127. Besides, ITN seems to hate any aviation accident where not everyone dies. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support; over a hundred people believed dead makes this a major incident, quite uncommon. I've expanded the article to the point where I think it's okay to get posted. C628 (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, suggested blurb:  C628 (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Note that the article's numbers were last updated a few hours after the incident, two days ago. If no English-speaking contributor cares, then I doubt it meets the important criteria. Mamyles (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support - A day of mourning has been declared in Russia. More people died than in the recent air crash near Petrozavodsk and that air crach was in ITN!
 * Planning to post soon. Can you suggest a good blurb? A sinking of the ship leaves x people dead or missing? --Tone 07:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

'''129 people are feared dead after the sinking of cruise ship Bulgaria in Tatarstan, Russia on the Volga River. Olegwiki (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support with that blurb. Very important; I red above, it was the worst accident in 3 decades (!) and big news corage. Also it is not a stub; it's minimum a start article...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫  Share– a–  Power[citation needed] 09:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a stub when originally proposed. It has since been improved. Mocctur (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] World Netball Championships

 * Support: As nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The game was remarkably close, too. – H T  D  16:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not a major sport in the world. No major world interest at all. I havent heard anything about it for example in any of the national news outlets.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's ITNR. Take it up there if you want to oppose on grounds of interest. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe Netball was added in the very early days of the ITNR page and was put in as an attempt to get more women's sports.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per BabbaQ- no major world interest at all, and I would certainly dispute its inclusion at ITNR in the first place.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 17:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BabbaQ --Wikireader41 (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support because including it would give us something to hold up as a counterexample everytime people oppose an American sport. -- Jayron  32  19:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * and you hope that would make a difference to people who oppose American sports nominations ;)--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per BabbaQ and for the exact same reason as cited by Jayron32. The vast majority of the readers are not interested in sports at all, sports items posted here should at the very least be of supreme importance in the sports world and widely known internationally. Sports only played in certain countries don't belong here. Mocctur (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only a major sport in very small corners of the world -- I believe every single team in the tournament is a Commonwealth country. The national broadcaster of the country at the head of the Commonwealth doesn't seem to care. Despite what ITN/R says, ITN/R shouldn't bind us to support events. ITN/R is a much-less trafficked forum than this. Consensus here should drive ITN/R, not the other way around. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The same kind of traffic stats would apply to talk pages of most policies on WP. should we ignore those also ;)--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably :) --Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support It's ITNR. Yes, I've made multiple support posts, entirely to balance the stupid, misplaced Oppose posts. (Can people not read?) This is my genuine Support post, for the obvious reason that it's ITNR. Take it up there if you want to oppose on grounds of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Er how many supports are you planning to cast HiLo48. I can already see 5 here.  we should probably start a discussion to remove this from ITN/R--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the extra supports with this edit as they are a clear violation of WP:POINT. I'll leave a note on HiLo48's talk page asking him not to do this again, and discussion of this should probably go there, not here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would have helped if people had actually read the reason for my multiple supports. They were to balance the multiple Opposes from editors who chose to ignore a very wise post above from Strange Passerby about this event being ITN/R. While those Opposes are still here, anyone looking at this topic will see an unethically unbalanced "vote". HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support It is a ITNR say no more. Mtking (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unsure - It is ITNR, but I must confess I'd never read the full list at In the news/Recurring items before. Has anyone actually noted what percentage of the ITN items are ITNR over the course of, say, four years or so? I'd support this, but there may also be arguments for pruning ITNR. For now, I'd say let this one go up, but then convene a discussion to prune some of the items from ITNR. Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BabbaQ -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm sorry, but don't we have ITN/R for a reason? It's already been accepted as important, so unless someone is opposing on grounds of article quality or lack of update I think, as the template says, challenges should go to the ITN/R talk page. Marking as ready.  Night  w   22:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You would be forgetting WP:IAR. Clearly more discussion is needed here. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also consider that WP:ITN/R (the page) was created in February 2008. I don't know if the list existed earlier, but it seems that this is the first time netball has come up as an ITN/R candidate (World Championships every four years). If ITR/R was really automatic, there would be no need to post here. My suspicion is that each ITN/R candidate still has to pass through here at least once before it can become an automatic addition, and if there is unexpected opposition the right thing to do is stop and discuss. Does anyone know if the 2007 result was posted? Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of ITNR is to have a list of items that have previously demonstrated their importance via consensus. The idea is that if the item is on ITNR, the discussion here doesn't have to show consensus to post--it's already been demonstrated.  In practice and ITN item simply needs to be nominated and so long as there's a sufficient update there's no need for support !votes.  However, consensus can change.  Opposing an ITNR item isn't invalid, but it would be up to the opposers to demonstrate that consensus is for the item to NOT be posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Night w, are you going to ignore the fact that there is no consensus for posting this non major sport event story?. Clearly there is need for more discussions and opinions before even thinking about posting this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - the previous discussion for including Netball appears to be here (in the ITN/R talk page archives). It might be worth those waving ITN/R around to look at some of those past discussions. It might also be an idea for items that are there but that have not been included before to be discussed in advance before something like this happens again. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outside the arguments that the Netball isnt "big" internationally and it is ITN/R, The articles are subpar thus are no prepared for ITN. The New Zealand teams doesn't seem to have an article. The Australian team and the 2011 World Netball Championships are filled with tables but hardly any prose are in either. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose but only based on article quality, as above. 2011 World Netball Championships doesn't have much in the way of text, at least not compared to the amount of tables/lists and the Australia team article is more or less junk, there's not even a text update, not to mention the lack of prose and references. Were these issues to be addressed, I'd have no opinion on the matter. C628 (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Article does not meet update requirements. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * obvious opposes are not noted here they need to be on TINR talk. when the article is updated it will and shoul dbe posted.Lihaas (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added some prose to the final section. Let me know if/how much more needs to be done. On a side note it is a popular sport with well over 20 million people playing in more than 70 countries (although admittedly it is dominated at an international level by two countries). It is predominately played by women and predominately played outside of the US, which may explain why it is not receiving much coverage. If we want to counteract systemic bias on Wikipedia then having this article on in the news is as good a way as any. Also it is the major championship for this sport (basically the world cup) and only occurs once every four year, so is hardly going to flood ITN. AIR corn (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has indeed been improved. I'd say to meet ITN standards it should have at least a full paragraph (with three references) on the final.  I've gone ahead and separated the text on the final into its own paragraph but it needs a wee bit more expansion.  Even some of the most notable sporting events posted here, like the Super Bowl, are not posted until there's a prose update on the final so we're certainly not picking on Netball in that regard :).--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Super what? ;) Added some more and a couple of refs. Hope it doesn't read too much like a commentary. AIR corn (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly now the update is sufficient. It's ITNR, and IMO the opposition here isn't sufficient at the moment to overturn its ITN status, so I will mark it 'READY'.  And thanks for the contribution.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Grr, I've rethought it and given the amount of opposition (excluding opposition based on the update), marking it ready may be premature and could be come an issue of debate in and of itself. I'll remove the 'ready' tag, though I still believe the article is ready for the reasons I stated above.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. ITNR, and to counter the opposes above. Clearly, if we seek to redress the balance between men's sport and women's sport, this is a prime example we should use to do so. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted The majority of supports here fail to address the notability of this event (which is questionable, to say the least), and were this item not on ITN/R, this would have about a snowball's chance in hell of making it on the Main Page. But, therein lies the point: ITN/R is just another useless page if people say it can be ignored and if people don't maintain it. If this item should be taken off ITN/R (and, frankly, I believe it should), that should be done first. But, as with any item on ITN/R (in order to avoid pointless debates like those that happen around the Super Bowl), provided the update is in order, the item should be posted. No amount of oppose here would have stopped me from posting it. Now, someone please get (consensus to get) this item off ITN/R, so it can be removed from the Main Page. --  tariq abjotu  12:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * still that would be for NEXT year not this.Lihaas (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok so you basically ignoring the will of the majority here Tariqabjotu and simply posting it no matter what. Then why are we having ITN disucssions if it doesnt matter what the users think?. Ridiculous.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an wp:ITN/R item. If you don't think it belongs start a discussion about removal. Otherwise, as I said in another thread...it doesn't make much sense to make an ITNR item go through a consensus check everytime it's nominated. RxS (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items; please participate. Mocctur (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on guys, this is a quadrennial event. It's not as if we'd be updated annually on the latest netball tournament we haven't heard of. We'd only have one netball blurb for four years. At most it'll stay there for 10 days. 10 days in a span of 4 years ain't that bad. – H T  D  15:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring consensus? Really? Isn't this the fundamental purpose of WP:NOTBURO? "While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute ... Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." I'm fairly surprised by Tariqabjotu's position, as I thought every editor on Wikipedia knew that written rules never trump consensus. Saying, "it's written down at ITNR, if you don't like it, propose to remove it from that page" is nothing but bureaucratic bull. Very, very poor show.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 16:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody ignored consensus. ITNR items have already gained consensus. Consensus against posting ITNR items needs to be really strong otherwise it will get posted. And judging by conversation above that is exactly what happened. -- Ashish-g55 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ITNR items have already gained consensus So? WP:CCC. Consensus needs to be strong? According to the posting admin, this was a snowball clause situation, so I don't know where the hell you're getting the impression that it isn't a strong consensus.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I dont think this is a notable major sport as well, but I agree that if its in ITN/R then its notability is not open to debate here - the only ground you can challenge it on is that it has not been updated. If there is a consensus that this should not be in ITN main page, then the said consensus needs to be demonstrated at ITN/R and it should be removed from the ITN/R list. The ITN/R is there for a reason - to avoid discussions on notability every time a recurring event happens. So why dont all of you guys who feel so strongly head over there and make sure you dont have to discuss this during the next World Netball Championships. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * +1. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "...dont have to discuss this during the next World Netball Championships" 4 years from now :P – H T  D  18:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support removing (aka oppose) there is no consensus to post. Just because some people made a list of supposedly infallible items years back doesn't mean we can't use common sense. Hot Stop (c) 18:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ITNR events get discussed on the ITNR talk page. That has always been enforced recently to avoid the candidates page becoming totally messed up. If you oppose please take the discussion to that talk page. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this whole episode has demonstrated that the concept of WP:ITN/R can violate WP:CCC (consensus can change) if it is not applied with common sense. What we have here is a consensus among only three people, and dating from 2007, over-riding a current and active consensus, among a greater number of editors, being formed in 2011. If you stop and think about it, that can't be right. I understand that WP:ITN/R was intended to avoid arguments like this, but it was most certainly not intended to allow a years-old consensus to over-ride a current consensus (or lack of consensus). At the very least, this shows that the less frequent items on ITN/R (remember that this is the first time netball has come up) should be debated every year (say), so that the consensus is at least more reccent than 3 or 4 years (in the case of quadrennial competitions). I'm tempted to mark WP:ITN/R as invalid until a new discussion decides whether any of the events there truly have current consensus, rather than an old and possibly outdated consensus. Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. This episode shows that WP:ITNR should be like WP:OUTCOMES - a convenient catalogue of usual outcomes of discussions, but by no means a binding consensus on the community. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will strongly oppose removal even though i did not support/oppose the item. Once posted things should not be removed unless there is a very strong reasoning behind it. This was still ITNR and if you want to quote WP:CCC then do it on ITNR and have it removed for next time. -- Ashish-g55 22:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the current ITNR discussion doesn't appear to be reaching a consensus to remove, then support ex post facto. – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where you get the idea that there needs to be a "very strong reasoning" is beyond me. All we need is a consensus, and we have one.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose What's Netball?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per HTD. -- can  dle • wicke  00:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Super Rugby
This appears to be worse than GAA events -- only >2k views during the final? Heineken Cup is just as bad, too. – H T  D  10:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the article for the 2010 version. It wasn't even nominated, despite ITNR status.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are sure? The final section has prose so it must've been nominated or else that was all for naught (if you're into shiney ITN medal/icons)... – H T  D  15:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find it here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would've been an easy ITN blurb for whoever wrote the prose. :P – H T  D  16:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's how it looked on June 1, three days after the final. No prose update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah well... maybe the person wrote it weeks/months after the final. Must've been a lot of motivation lol. Anyway, as this is an ITNR item, I won't oppose, but the lack of page views, ergo, interest, seems to be the problem. – H T  D  16:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 FIFA Women's World Cup

 * Germany loses in the quarter final of the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup making it the first time ever that the team fail to make it to the semifinal. It was the first losing match for Germany in the FIFA Women's World Cup since 1999. Germany lost 0-1 against Japan on overtime in the FIFA Women's World Cup hosted by Germany itself. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - as nom, historic event in womens football as Germany is a superpower which is expected to atleast make the final in each tournament.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support seems reasonable to cover women's football as well as men's football, even though the latter is more high profile. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree we should cover more women sports, put this was one of (I assume) four quarter finals. Mtking (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would we really be posting the result of a quarter final match, even at the men's world cup? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was similar story yes with historic significance for the sport. Unfortunatly its still a bit of "women sports arent important" bias here.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Wait till the final. Mtking (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an historic event beyond this tournament itself in history, Germany hasnt lost a World Cup match since 1999 and it is the first time ever that they misses the semifinals. Historic event for womens football.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose the current blurb. Try again with the final; what matters is who wins, not what stage their opponents went out. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that 'first losing match for Germany in the FIFA Women's World Cup since 1999' in the blurb in fact means that they didn't lose during the 2003 and 2007 tournaments (6 games in each), and in their first three games of this one. That's 15 games unbeaten, including games against such footballing powerhouses (sarcasm warning) as Japan, Canada and North Korea. Whilst certainly an achievement, that's not as impressive as the nomination made it sound. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The three countries you mentioned there are perfectly respectable opponents in Women's football. The fact that their men's teams are weak (although Japan is on the up) shouldn't be confused with their women's prowess.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FIFA Women's World Rankings: Germany #2, Japan #4, Canada #6, North Korea #8. These four teams are women's football powerhouses. – H T  D  13:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, though note that there are only 25 ranked teams. But that means Germany weren't even the world number 1... <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article only lists the Top 25 (as it should) -- there are 126 ranked teams, and while Germany wasn't the #1, they were only one of two nations to be the #1 team and they were the current defending champs. – H T  D  18:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose No doubt Germany not making the semi-finals on its home turf is significant within the context of the tournament. But I struggle to see how anything other than the tournament's winner is so significant as to be ITN worthy. It's not getting much international coverage. It's a very minor "headline" on BBC Football. Same goes for ESPN Soccernet. The lack of headline coverage even in international football media is fairly telling. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Switching to Oppose I don't think this is exciting enough to warrant additional coverage beyond the final of the tournament. Its not India vs Pakistan in the Cricket World cup. I will support the final however. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so you basically changing your stance according to the majority instead of having your own opinion. Just pointing out no criticism.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not yet Post a link to an excellent article on the whole tournament once it's over, obviously highlighting Germany's demise as one of the surprises. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not only at this stage, but real doubts about scale of event being adequate for ITN. Apart from the matches involving the hosts, average attendance is 20,700, and stadia are only 70-80% full, even with tickets available from €10, which is about the price of entrance to level 6 matches in England.  While it would be good to be able to feature more women's sport, it is not for us to give sports a profile that they do not have in the news, or among the paying public.  Kevin McE (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Most sports at the last Olympics were very poorly attended. Will we stop mentioning them too? HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Average attendance of 20000 isn't that unremarkable. Some of the matches have been over 70000.  You can't compare it to a league match, where every match is a home match for one of the teams.  Men's world cup matches often don't sell out.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The final result of the tournament is justifiably an INTR item.  However this strikes me as sports stat trivia - every tournament has similar records broken, particularly when the tournament is of as comparatively recent origins as the women's world cup. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Oppose. Just what is significant here? A team lost a quarter final. Get over it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I find this an interesting nomination as it at least provokes some discussion on the relative notability of women's sports, which rarely even get discussed here, let alone posted. Ultimately I feel that we have a pretty consistent policy of waiting until the final to post the results of sports tournaments barring exceptional circumstances and I don't see that here.  It's not as if they went out in the first round.  There are a number of possible analogies to men's sports.  One could argue that this compares to Brazil losing in the quarterfinal in 2006, after having made the final in three straight world cups; however I don't think it was regarded as particularly notable outside of the context of the tournament.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not significant "in the grand scheme of things." Mocctur (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Death of Facundo Cabral
Well known singer in Latin America. Famous for No soy de aquí ni soy de allá, and was named Messenger of Peace by UNESCO in 1996. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would support if the article was in better shape... But at the moment, it needs lots of work first. --Tone 19:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was considering nominating this myself, then I saw the article. It needs serious work.  Lots of POV; It needs references.  I don't know how notable Cabral is, but the fact that he was shot in Guatemala (outside his home country) certainly adds his death's notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I fail to see how this guy is more notable than Betty Ford. Hot Stop (c) 05:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he was shot dead while on a tour; that's very different from dying of old age.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And his fame was based on his own achievements, rather than the misadventures of his spouses ex-boss and lending his name to institutions built on the expertise of others. Kevin McE (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * support as notable law and order problem in guat./hond. less covered region + red timer + though wed need a good articleLihaas (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Insufficient stature. Mocctur (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate on this baseless and opinion-driven claim. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  16:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Only 8 interwikis (a tell-tale sign of him not being terribly important), I've not seen any significant coverage of his death in English language newspapers, the article is fairly short and in a poor shape with several maintenance tags, lots of unsourced material and only four references, there is no separate article on his death, the bio article does not in any way demonstrate that he is sufficiently important for being posted on the main page ("Argentine singer and songwriter" [...] "enjoyed popularity in his home country during the early 1980s"), and quite frankly, I've never heard of him; he's no Michael Jackson. We just decided not to post Betty Ford (30 interwikis and much longer and better article, and more extensive English language media coverage), as pointed out. Mocctur (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How many interwikis should an article get? Betty Ford has more than 10 (got lazy counting). And this guy's article has been viewed 269k+ times in the Spanish Wikipedia. That would've been in the top 40 most viewed articles there (In this list, the 34th most-viewed article had 271612 views in that month. – H T  D  16:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that, but i guessed that its his opinion/view that hes entitled too???Lihaas (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone is entitled to an opinion, but it would be nice to have people back them up. We can't see inside their heads. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  18:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Important figure, and not dying of old age. Thue | talk 11:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Article had been viewed 269k+ times in the Spanish Wikipedia. That's like 1 million in the English Wikipedia (also viewed 50k+ times at en.wp). – H T  D  15:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per insufficient notability for the front page, as well as state of article. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support a million views seems worthy of posting, we shouldn't be complaining just because he's Spanish. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Organized killing of a well-known figure, considerable public attention. Owen (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. "One of Latin America's most beloved singers", fans in mourning, unexpected death, his own tribute concert, 3 days of mourning declared by the Guatemalan president, music recorded in several languages, continuing media coverage in the days that follow actual event, 2 arrests made. -- can  dle • wicke  00:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 2011 Egyptian revolution



 * Support as nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Article has been updated. The blurb can be changed if necessary. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 *  Oppose wait and see. So someone made a new Facebook page? Seriously though, I don't think a protest of this scale in the Middle East is significant enough "in the grand scheme of things". If it develops into something more than a Facebook page and a few thousand protesters, then maybe. Also, more coverage of the demonstration in question would be needed. Mocctur (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has not been updated yet; Im working on it. If you opened any of the sources, you would have known that hundreds of thousands of people protested in Tahrir while millions elsewhere in Egypt. Also today is the second day of the sit-in and major strikes that has started since friday :-) PS: The picture was taken on the 8th of July -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera just says "thousands". Which source says hundreds of thousands? Mocctur (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here Al-Ahram
 * support when updated definately in the news and its an extension of the revolution (2.0 as you internet kids call it ;)). could be the ouster of 2 regimes ina year.Lihaas (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there any objection? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait for more coverage elsewhere. – H T  D  10:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Like more news coverage or more support or what exactly? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted No opposes really given; event was fairly well-publicized; article substantially updated (well above ITN minimums); no post in forty hours. --  tariq abjotu  22:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not an event of any significance to Wikipedia, as it does not mark the start, progress, or end of anything. Besides the domestic political relevance, the fact that big number of people have walked for an N-th time on the squares of Egypt is meaningless to the wider community and to the cause of Wikipedia. As much as we all may sympathize with the quest for democracy and social reforms in Egypt, we can not treat every single event in that process as a top news. This is why this nomination has received very low interest, and posting just because "there is not opposition", and only two supporting votes, is not exactly a consensus. Crnorizec (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the SCAF seems to disagree with you; They just agreed to some of the protesters demands . I nominated it to be in the news 2 days ago and you are the first person to oppose it. If people opposed it, Im sure they would have said so. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support post as per the posting admin.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Betty Ford dies
Oppose. Wives of politicians are not sufficiently important—she never held any office in her own right. (would we include the death of the wife of a former President of France, Italy or some other European country, or for that sake, India, China or Brazil?). Mocctur (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And in the cases of France or Italy, which wife, and why stop with wives? I wouldn't dream of posting the passing of a wife of an ex-Prime Minister of my country. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ITN is so US Centric, while the United States are duking it out whether LGBTIQ community has the right to marry. ... India has had their big legal case on Monkey Marriage. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But isn't she the patron saint of winos and people who have developed other psychological dependencies or addictions? ;-) -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * gotta go through the beatification first... and those after biopic on her own life The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And back here in little old, irrelevant Australia, our present PM doesn't have a wife. She doesn't have a husband either, but we do have a first bloke, who is, fortunately for him, still very much alive. Do you reckon he'd crack a mention here if he carked it? I guess many of us are highlighting that this would be a bad case of applying US values and centrism to ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Those who say she's "just the wife of a president" were too lazy to read the news articles or the article here.  Grsz <b style="color:red;">11</b> 03:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Grsz. Most of the comments so far have nothing to do with the subject of the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The blurb says "First Lady of the United States". We have, logically enough, responded to that. Why should we assume the article has a different emphasis? HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Try actually reading the article, not just the blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Try fixing the blurb, and admitting error, and finding some manners. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All you had to do was read the lede. This is a no-brain support, based on her impact on global society (not just US at all).  Grsz <b style="color:red;">11</b> 03:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All you had to do was write a better blurb. You see, that's still a US-centrism problem, with Americans assuming that it's enough to mention first lady status to get our positive attention. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the original blurb didn't assert her notability; but it's not unreasonable to expect people to at least have a look at the relevant article before passing judgement. As mentioned above, one only needed to read the lede.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ONE ONLY NEEDED TO FIX THE BLURB, rather than argue!!! I tried, and succeeded! It really wasn't too hard. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable and important ITN-worthy blurb. Big news around the globe.  Clinic named after her is notable in its own right.  (And to some of our opposers, for what it's worth I was a harsh critic of her husband for his pardon of Richard Nixon.)  Jus  da  fax   03:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Support There, I've fixed the blurb. Much less US-centric now and actually justifies this item. HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how "Co-founder of the Betty Ford Clinic" makes her sufficiently notable for the main page. She's the wife of a politician who was the co-founder of a hospital. That's all fine, but she's not globally important. Mocctur (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * She was the wife of a president (saying politician is a clever way to belittle her) who's death is being reported worldwide. Hot Stop (c) 04:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Silly, silly, silly. Especially because of the bad original blurb, that argument will get you nowhere. Stick to her non-wifely achievements and you will have a much stronger case! HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose even with the new wording (which is better) this is still two US-centric, HiLo48 point about the wife of any past PM or president outside the US would not get a mention does it for me. Mtking (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Not of serious international importance. Owen (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To both of you: if the wife of a non-US head of state got as much coverage on her passing, I assume it'd get supported. And as for it not being of int'l importance, that's not a criteria (int'l interest is a criteria, which the sources I provided account for). Hot Stop (c) 04:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Very little coverage internationally, contrary to claims above. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that a ITN critria? RxS (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, but it contradicts what some supporters have said above.
 * Here are the criteria for deaths. Either she must have been in a high-ranking office of power, or she was an important figure in her field of expertise, or her death has a major international impact. Which one exactly do you think she fulfill? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an outrageous claim to say it isn't getting coverage abroad. In addition to the stories above, she's already on the German, Spanish, anf Norse wikipedia front pages (under recent death sections). As an aside some of those sites are much cooler looking. Hot Stop (c) 04:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely support her being on the Recent Deaths section if we have one. Meanwhile, tell me exactly which criterion she fulfills for the ITN section. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the page for Google News French. You won't be able to find any mention of Betty Ford anywhere in the front page. In fact, you have to search for it and then only four articles will turn up, two from Canada and one from Switzerland. The claim that this is worldwide news is simply false. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "International coverage" doesn't mean coverage in every country in the world. It's been established that this is getting coverage abroad. As for which ITN deaths criteria she meets, as teh founder of the Betty Ford Clinic, she may meet #2.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I only used the French news as an example; she is not on German-language or Italian-language news either. Just because Al Jazeera wrote an article about it doesn't mean it's big news worldwide. As for the criteria, she has to be an important figure in her field of expertise. Co-founding a hospital using her fame is a great deed, but it has nothing to do with expertise, and it really is nowhere as important as thousands of similar acts that happen every day. How many hospitals are there in the world? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

To refute "Very little coverage internationally, contrary to claims above" I offer Al Jazeera BBC Reuters The Sydney Morning Herald... need I go on? The statement is invalid. Jus da  fax   05:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I said very little, not none. About 1,000 articles are published every minute in the world online, and having four of them about one person's death in one day does not make it among the most important news in the world. Go to Google Italy, Google French or Google German. You will find about three to four times as many articles about the latest Ford vehicle than her death. The little international coverage she has received is simply not a valid reason for appearing on ITN. You'd have more credibility if you cited her acts for breast cancer awareness. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's some more...there's no strict need for widespread international coverage here but this story is getting it none the less. RxS (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, a couple of articles is nowhere near widespread international coverage. The latest Ford vehicle has gotten at least 100 articles in German alone. If you insist on going through the international coverage route, then come back with that many articles about Ford's death in German. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not insisting on it, my first comment was basically pointing out that widespread international coverage isn't a ITN criteria. You think it's important so I'm pointing out that there is indeed widespread international coverage. The fact that some other topic has more widespread international coverage doesn't disqualify this nomination. wp:Otherstuffexists etc...RxS (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. I was assuming that we can all agree that the latest Ford vehicle does not have widespread international coverage (I haven't even heard of it before I googled for Ford). And yet there are more articles about it than Betty Ford's death. That says something. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, a couple of articles is nowhere near widespread international coverage. The latest Ford vehicle has gotten at least 100 articles in German alone. If you insist on going through the international coverage route, then come back with that many articles about Ford's death in German. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Her death has gotten well more than a couple of articles internationally. Since when is '100 articles in German' a benchmark of significance at ITN? (I'm currently getting [64).  You're greatly exaggerating in saying the latest Ford model is getting 4 times more coverage 1.--[[User:Johnsemlak|Johnsemlak]] (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Obvious Support (1) First Lady (2) Breast cancer awareness (3) Betty Ford Clinic. Note that none of the "not of serious importance" crowd is saying he hasn't heard of her, just that's she's only a Merican. μηδείς (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Support High profile figure that our readers will be interested in. Certainly known for more than her husband (as other have pointed out). Opposers that base their arguments soley on the fact that her husband was president are missing the point a little, she accomplished a lot outside of that part of her life. RxS (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, please drop that first one. (Or move it to the end.) I am supporting this now, but it seems that some of you Americans will never get it. Stick to the arguments that have a chance of working internationally. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious Support Arguably more well-known than her husband. The Betty Ford clinic is notable in its own right. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  05:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What was she known for before Gerald Ford became a successful politician? I'm sympathetic of what she did, but she is no Hillary Clinton; the only reason she got famous was because she was the wife of a notable politician who later became president. Using the fame of your family members to do something is not on its own notable, even though I very much appreciate her acts. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What does it matter how she was able to accomplish so many things? The fact is that she did. RxS (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I restate the ITN deaths criteria: "The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such." Fame is not expertise. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious oppose per precedence. not intl significant and large amount of WP english readers are outside the US.Lihaas (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Very well known, connected to well known organizations. She was well more then just the wife of a president. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose She was one of very many people involved in the foundation of a 100 bed medical centre, and lent her name to that institution. Do those proposing the inclusion really think that she set this place up single handedly: she gave it some publicity, some impetus and some money, but no medical expertise, by no means enough funding for it to become entirely a charitable organisation, no contribution to whatever status it might or might not now have as a centre of excellence.  There are untold clinics of similar size in the world: this might be better known than most (but not than all: will all the co-founders of the Priory centre be ITNworthy?  My local hospital is several times bigger: the bureaucrats involved in setting that up should be a shoe-in), but not essentially different.  So we have the widow of an accidental and unelected president, who had some role in the foundation of a small medical institution that has gained fame disproportional to its importance because of celebrity culture.  Kevin McE (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Update please The Betty Ford article has one sentence on her death. This needs more than that. --  tariq abjotu  10:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Kevin and per precedent. The fact that I've never heard of her aside, her article doesn't substantiate much notability except by association.  Night  w   11:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support given large amount of international coverage of her death. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The clinic may be notable in its own right, but it's unlikely it would have been so had she not been first lady or the wife of another important politician. But more importantly, she was 93. As sad as it is that she's died, a death at 93 is far from unexpected, and the article says she was far from being in perfect health, and her death doesn't appear to be having a significant impact on current events. Whether The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such is open for debate, but that would be the only criterion she met if consensus judges that she was. This, although sad, just isn't that significant. If she was still first lady, I'd support, and I'd probably support if she was still an active public figure, but she wasn't. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral I've gone both ways on this and in the end I'm uncertain.  I find HJ Mitchell's view above close to on the money for me.  Though I would add that in addition to the clinic she was notable on several other fronts.  I actually found her most interesting for the remarkably liberal stances she took publicly (and aggressively) on numerous social issues that went against the Republican Party.  The lede section of the article cites historians who rank her as the second most important First Lady of the United States in the last 60 years (though I imagine Hillary Clinton will be reassessed as time passes).  The US First Lady is a position of importance unique to the US I think--I don't believe the spouses of heads of state get the level of media attention, or influence, that the U.S. First Lady does.  I would rank the US First Lady in importance as similar ot a very high-level British royal.  Betty Ford inherited a position of significant power and was able to have a significant impact.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I'll have to be neutral in this case as well. Being First Lady is not enough, I agree, while all her awareness work is significant. Actually, all has been said here already, not much to add... --Tone 13:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: (1) lack of international notability - there may have been a few news articles but no headlines; (2) HJ Mitchell's reasons. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - while this is covered nationally, I don't think it is worthy. It is not unexpected and she did not do anything new recently. Mamyles (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HJ Mitchell a few points above: death not unexpected, has no impact on current events. More significant than most first ladies, but still not significant enough for ITN. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This woman is only famous because of who her husband was. Her own achievements were minor at best. Not significant enough to meet our death criteria. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We posted the death of Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu who was "considered" the first lady of South Vietnam because she influenced their fashion. Opposes here are completely based on wishing to counter a perceived US-centrism, and are frankling complete bullshit.  Grsz <b style="color:red;">11</b> 02:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have opposed that too, if I had been involved in the discussion. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Such a silly post is tempting me to swing my vote away again. My earlier opposition had nothing to do with US-centrism (bad as it is here at times, usually due to ignorance). It was the fact that the blurb gave her claim to fame as simply being first lady. (Until I fixed it!) That's clearly not enough. And either you're far too young or haven't actually read Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu. (A bit silly, since you're using it as justification for your position.) She had a massive influence on the politics of Vietnam, pushing legislation of her own interest on many occasions. She just about ran the country at times. Much more than a typical American first lady. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First Ladies in presidential systems seem to have a bigger profile than their parliamentary counterparts. I'd argue the first ladies in Latin America are more well known in their respective countries than the wife of prime ministers. (Evita, anyone?) So the U.S.-Australia comparison doesn't really hold. – H T  D  03:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Evita? Also, like Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu, far more involved in her country's politics than Betty Ford ever was. Bad examples folks. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Evita Peron. You know, Madonna starred on her biopic? (And why is that disambiguated? ugh). The point still stands on the US-Aussie comparison doesn't hold. Ngo Dinh Nhu and Evita may be have been more influential than Ford, but simply dismissing Ford and comparing her to wives of prime ministers is gross oversimplification. – H T  D  03:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @HiLo48:I doubt he was talking to you specifically, other opposes here are based on an illusionary US-centric posting history here. RxS (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then he should have used more cautious language than "Opposes here are completely based on..." Nah. Typical post of a paranoid American attacking any foreigner who dares to suggest that other perspectives are possible. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hilo48, your racist anti-Americanism is getting tiring.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not anti-American in the slightest. I love many things about the country and its people. But I have trouble with uninformed paranoia. Wise Americans should be proud enough to not need to be that way. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * another paranoid American; you Americans will never get it. That's just from this conversation.  If 'American' were substituted with 'Jewish' there would be no argument.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Read them IN CONTEXT and my reasons for such language will be clear. I will attack poor logic and posts based on unacceptably poor knowledge no matter who they're from. Let's return to discussing the topic now please. HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I won't return to the topic. Did you just call me a paranoid American? RxS (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ??? Um, no. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then it was directed at Grsz 11 or HTD, in any case it's completely inappropriate. RxS (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't even recall who it was directed at, but I can recall getting sick of some American editors here accusing non-Americans of being anti-American or calling "US-centrism", when in fact what they were doing was suggesting that being a first lady alone did not make someone notable. This was made worse in this particular thread by an appalling start where the blurb originally claimed notability for Betty Ford purely on the basis of being a first lady. It was never going to be enough. In support of the claim, I ended up expanding the blurb (because nobody else would), to give Betty a chance of being noted here. Several editors behaved as if they believed that Americans were somehow being attacked when others suggested that being a first lady (in America maybe) is simply not enough for being listed here. That's what I described as paranoia. America is a great country. Being offended by a suggestion that American first ladies aren't all that notable globally is just a tad over-sensitive, and quite unnecessary. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Why was this discussion collapsed? Betty Ford was famous both for being quite an atypical First Lady and for the Betty Ford Clinic. I don't think that the age at which she died is relevant - what should matter is her notability - and I believe that anti-American bias demonstrated by quite a few of the opposes above should be discounted. Note that pagesviews for the Betty Ford article show 234K views on July 9. By comparison, the space shuttle article, STS-135, even though it is currently listed on main page, got 41K views on July 8 and 27K views on July 9. While pageviews aren't everything, they do indicate a degree of interest and importance that WP readers attach to a particular item and should be taken into account. Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some people here, particularly those who cite US-centrism as a reason to oppose, also won't accept those view stats. Heck Casey Anthony trial got one million and that is no closer than this on getting posted. – H T  D  14:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to this counter, Casey Anthony got only 180K on the peak day (July 5, the day of the verdict), comapred to 234K for Betty Ford. IMO, pageviews stats are one factor (but not the only factor) to consider in such cases. I opposed inclusion of the Casey Anthony article into ITN because, in my view, the other factors were not present in that case - there were no inherent reasons, apart from the tabloid hype, for the story's importance. The Betty Ford case is different. She is popular not just because she was the First Lady, but because she was quite unusual and atypical in her role as the First Lady, in that she was an active and outspoken advocate for various controversial political causes while being the First Lady (such as her support for the Equal Rights amendment and for abortion rights). In this way she considerably influenced the public policy and public debate in her own right. She also made significant public impact for her work on the Betty Ford clinic. Such factors were absent in the Casey Anthony case. Nsk92 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Try Death of Caylee Anthony as that was the original title before it was moved. That registered 1 million hits. A redirect getting 250k "views" is a significant achievement in the lonely world of redirects.
 * I tried doing a head count -- valid oppose: 10, explicitly U.S. biaz oppose: 2, support: 7. Didn't include the neutrals or those that didn't put (strong) support/oppose words at the beginning. – H T  D  15:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * well since its not a vote head count doesnt matter either. In any case from beginning there was never really any consensus to post. Its way too late now anyways. -- Ashish-g55 16:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why's it too late? It's newer than at least four of the items currently on the template. Hot Stop (c) 16:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Has any of the opposes been discredited? It's futile engaging the opposes anyway especially in blurbs relating to the U.S. The opposes seem convincing though, unlike the Casey Anthony one (such as it being a "domestic" issue has been thoroughly discredited after links of coverage outside the U.S.). – H T  D  16:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Bersih rally, Malaysia
Hundreds of thousands of people are expected in a rare protest in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, today. The comprehensive article explains just how significant this is and what it is all about. I don't propose putting it up now -- let's wait a few hours to see how many people turn out (it'll just be starting as I write). But it would be good to get an "in principle" feel for support/oppose and some attention to the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if it as big as expected Malaysia has serious free speech issues.The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, switched from oppose. Definitely becoming notable. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if it is as big as expected. The article looks good. Mocctur (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if something big happens. As above & nominator. — Yk3 talk ~ contrib 03:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Something big will definitely happen... knowing Malaysian police. =) <font color="#8000FF">Bejinhan <font color="#FF00FF">talks   04:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 441 arrests and it's not even lunchtime! --Mkativerata (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Let's get it up asap.  Night  w   05:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Surgeons Perform World’s First Synthetic Organ Transplant
I don't have time to format this properly but it looks huge.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support major breakthrough in organ transplant. Crnorizec (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I tried writing a blurb. I guess it is hardly a transplant if there isn't a donor...? Is transplanted the right word? Thue | talk 19:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Implant? Replacement? HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll need more of an update. Apart from the fluff, the current update is basically that it happened, but nothing else. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * comment: I think a more appropriate article to update would be Organ Transplantation. Crnorizec (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. The Vertebrate trachea article is tagged for lack of sources.  However, Organ Transplantation has no mention of this operation.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Agree with Mitchell. The article needs more material on this and it also needs to demonstrate the significance of it in terms comprehensible to the non-specialist readers. Mocctur (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * you dont need to oppose for update... it wont go up without it. if anything put conditional support if you see merit in putting this up but article still needs update. you opposed below for similar reason, in future please avoid it. -- Ashish-g55 00:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The word is implant, not transplant. This is a little more significant than that of an ear Pinna which happened a few years back. Obvious support unless you are in favor of throat cancer. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Check the definitions at implant and transplant. It reads like a transplant to me, since it is biological (implants are not), and the raw material originally taken from the patient's own body. I had written implant first in the blurb, but changed it to transplant later. Thue | talk 10:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the literature, it's always transplant. Narayanese (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support if something is sufficiently updated. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hewa Bora Airways Flight 952
Support - 2nd worst accident in Congo - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  18:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Support major commercial airline crash with significant casualties--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently 127 deaths now. Regardless, the article needs work. More information on the accident, as and when it becomes available, is needed and I left a tag.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose as long as there is no suitable article. Mocctur (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you on about?! The nonminated article is the "suitable article". StrPby (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article needs more work, as pointed out. Mocctur (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's gradually getting better, but it still lacks enough detail to post. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support 127 dead, high death toll. --Kslotte (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is a little thin for starters, and there isn't a great probability that the subject will support a great deal of expansion. In addition, this is one of those hard newsy kinds of stories that I don't think have a regular place at ITN, I don't believe a significant number of our readers will be looking to access information about this story. If there's something about this crash that sets it apart and has some sort of affect on commercial aviation  I'd reconsider...RxS (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that aircrashes aren't guaranteed an appearance on ITN. Given the limited info that comes out of that part of the world, the article is in fairly good shape. At the time it occurred (and currently) it's the second deadliest to have occurred in the DRC. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I agree with RxS. Mamyles (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree as well.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support No valid reason has been given as to why this isn't notable news. 127 is a high death toll and deserves mention. Mar4d (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The death toll is 74. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  01:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] STS-135

 * Certainly ITN worthy, but let's wait until the shuttle actually launches before posting this item. Nsk92 (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support obviously. We should also have a separate news item featuring the Space Shuttle retirement article once the shuttle lands. Thue | talk 13:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy support per above, also supporting posting the event at T-0:00 of exact second of the launch. Historic event, definite ITN:R . ~ AH1 (discuss!) 15:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment personally I do not support this as an exception to ITN/R, since in this case it is clearly the landing that will be the historical element book-ending the the Space Shuttle project. However, I realise that I'm going to be in the minority there.  Definite oppose to too speedy a post - zero time means zero updates after all, and that is something that ITN/R does not short circuit. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Speedy support per above, also the count down has started. in will lunch in 30 seconds -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Shuttle lifted off more than 30 seconds ago! ~ AH1 (discuss!) 15:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but over twenty minutes after takeoff we have had zero in the way of a substantive update. All we have so far is changes in tense of old content.  That does not fulfil our minimum update citeria. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Support A historic event. Please post ASAP. --hydrox (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please update the article with information about the launch first. The usual minimum is five sentences of prose and three references. At the moment the only information about the launch is a line in a table. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. What information can there be about a launch to cover five sentences? Core temperatures? Maximum velocity? I think we can make exceptions. The article is in a great shape and the lead sentence tells the reader it has launched. Its purpose, its goals, and literally every other aspect of the shuttle is there. Could we please post this? It's been under an hour now. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  16:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's all kinds of stuff that could be posted in due time. Reaction to the launch, it reaching orbit successfully, new references. The fact that no fresh information is not available now does not mean that it will not be in the future. Rememebr the core purpose of ITN - to point users to newly updated content pertinent to what is in the news. It is has never been intended to be a news source in itself. There is little substantive new content yet and few additional references showing that it is even in the news. I am not disputing that it is, but the refs are what show that to be the case as per WP:V. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Go to any news site, and you'll find a report which says more than just 'it launched'. For a start, an explanation of the unscheduled hold at -31 seconds, and the clearing of the weather which had earlier made the launch look unlikely, should be added. I'm sure there are also various reaction statements that could be quoted. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Really surprised when I checked Wikipedia just now that the last ever shuttle launch wasn't mentioned on the main page. This and the independence of South Sudan are today's pre-eminent historical events (and I'd put South Sudan first by the way). I always remember Wikipedia being much more clued up about science and technology than the ignorant mass media, so what's happened? 82.32.186.24 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Absurd that this is not on the Main Page. Glacial pace on posting this story is inexplicable and inexcusable. Post the dang thing!  Jus  da  fax   17:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * POST NOW. I've added another sentence and some references.  The 5 sentence update is not a minimum; the criteria at WP:ITN says that 5 sentences is more than sufficient.  I normally prefer a better update myself but given the strong consensus here and the historic nature of this moment, let's go ahead and post it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is minimally updated. Not much, but just about enough for our purposes. Marking ready. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think more than one section is updated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Attention administrators, we have a go for posting (can't resist).--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 18:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the grammar of current blurb is incorrect, it should be "Space Shuttle Atlantis is launched from Kennedy Space Center ..." (see STS-133's ITN nomination: In_the_news/Candidates/February_2011)  <font style="color:#000;"> Kenrick <font style="color:#f00;"> Talk   12:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The blurb is always in present tense. – H  T  D  13:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Is launched" would be present perfect tense, which is acceptable, but I think "launches" is fine and doesn't need changing. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing into "is launced" will change it into passive sentence.  <font style="color:#000;"> Kenrick <font style="color:#f00;"> Talk   15:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Quote from In the news/Candidates/February_2011 by User:Tony1:
 * Before STS-133 news posted.

Support—But "is launched from" is the right grammar. Launch is transitive. Tony  (talk)  04:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * After posted: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenrick95 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's REALLY annoying: I bothered to correct the bad grammar, yet you post it up regardless. So I've looked it up in my online dictionary, which confirms what I said. Transitive. Can you tell me what the shuttle is launching then? Another shuttle?
 * launch 1 |lôn ch; län ch |
 * verb [ trans. ]
 * 1 set (a boat) in motion by pushing it or allowing it to roll into the water : the town's lifeboat was launched to rescue the fishermen.
 * • set (a newly built ship or boat) afloat for the first time, typically as part of an official ceremony : King Gustav II Adolph of Sweden launched a huge new warship.
 * • send (a missile, satellite, or spacecraft) on its course or into orbit : they launched two Scud missiles.
 * • [ trans. ] hurl (something) forcefully : she launched a tortoiseshell comb.
 * • [with adverbial of direction ] ( launch oneself) (of a person) make a sudden energetic movement : I launched myself out of bed.
 * • utter (criticism or a threat) vehemently : scores of customers launched a volley of complaints.
 * 2 start or set in motion (an activity or enterprise) : she was launching a campaign against ugly architecture.
 * • introduce (a new product or publication) to the public for the first time : the company has launched a software package specifically for the legal sector.
 * It's embarrassing on the main page. Not happy. Tony   (talk)  10:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] South Sudanese independence

 * Can we use "state" at the end, and link to sovereign state or List of sovereign states?  Night  w   11:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly ITN worthy, but we should wait until 21:00UTC today before posting. I also think that either of "country" or "state" is better than "nation" for the blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support - definitly for ITN. huge historic news.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, also support changing "nation" to "state". Batjik Syutfu (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * obvious it should be ITNR. though remove "becoming the worlds newest nation" that pretty ovbv ious too. maybe wikilink secession?Lihaas (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Republic of South Sudan secedes from Sudan, becoming the world's newest sovereign state. ? Fixman (talk!) 21:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support but I think be need to wait until mid-night for this one. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Internationally-recognized new independant countries are a rare occurrence. The last one was Montenegro IIRC. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 15:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't you forgetting Serbia and, arguably, Kosovo, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia? Fixman (talk!) 21:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Creation of a new country is a significant event. <font color="#EEBB80">Dough <font color="#EEBB80">48 <font color="#EEBB80">72  15:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support but I question the assertion this is an ITNR item. The only possible criteria I could see is the succession of head of state but that seems to be pushing credibility. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Strong support. An obvious one - it will be major worldwide news tomorrow, and it's only the third new state created this century (the others being Timor-Leste in 2002 and Montenegro in 2006 - clearly a very significant event. Prioryman (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - but also agree that waiting until the declaration occurs is prudent.  Jus  da  fax   17:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I suggest that "sovereign state" be used instead of just "state". --~ Knowzilla  <sup style="font-size:x-small;">(Talk)  18:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - The split occurred at 22:00 BST. Therefore, it's ready to go. --Marianian(talk) 21:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)}}
 * Obvious Support, but I feel the blurb could and should be a little longer. What about,


 * Posted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

MENA sticky
Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain still in the news. calls for a million man march in Cairo today. and also calls to continue democracy protests oin Morocco despite referendum.Lihaas (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Lihaas makes a good case plus I got photos to back it up   -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What major new developments have there been? If there is a notable large march in Cairo, that should be nominated as a normal item. Otherwise I see no reason for another sticky - the last one was removed for good reasons. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Grand Rapids, Michigan shooting spree

 * I appreciate that this probably leads headlines in the US, but it's not something remotely ITN-worthy. Shooting sprees are common globally; that one particular one (almost always in the Western world) is picked up on by news media doesn't mean we need to give it coverage. Oppose. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For reference, the 2011 Tucson shooting and Alphen aan den Rijn shopping mall shooting both made ITN, and they were similar to what happened in Grand Rapids. <font color="#EEBB80">Dough <font color="#EEBB80">48 <font color="#EEBB80">72  05:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And, for reference, I also opposed Alphen aan den Rijn. I would've supported Tucson because of Gabby Giffords, personally. Circumstances matter. And this shooting has nothing outstandingly newsworthy about it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, same reason as Strange Passerby. At this moment there is very little international coverage. I've checked French and Chinese news sources and neither of the country's media seems to consider this remotely close to being headline material. The 2011 Tuscon shooting, in contrast, did gain international attention very quickly. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably because the story wasn't quite there yet. Not everyone jumps on it straight away. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tragic, but not really notable in the grand scheme of things. Doubt it will get much international coverage. Grand  master  ka  06:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support shit its on the front page of Xinhua. That well known American news source. Guess which other story I saw on the front page of Xinhua while I was looking Casey Anthony - several days after the event. There really is a lot of whining opposes going on at the moment. Its vastly reducing our flow and makes the section untenable. Editors who continually oppose every item nominated are basically being disruptive. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that being on Xinhua.net = automatic ITN. There are literally dozens of articles on Xinhua at any moment. Here are a few examples: Harry Potter premiere held in London, U.S. obesity epidemic continues unabated...Do you think all these should be put on ITN?
 * Also, I don't have any empirical data here, but I highly doubt that the "flow" of news items onto the ITN has decreased in the past few years. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: I checked the main version (i.e. simplified Chinese) of xinhua.net and the news about the shooting is nowhere near the headlines. It is in fact the 12th news item in the "international news" section. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. US domestic news. Mocctur (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you making an argument that you've already lost before you even made it? Its being covered by the Chinese state media thus refuting your point completely. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still primarily domestic news. Lots of people get killed around the world every day; such an incident is not really significant "in the grand scheme of things". Mocctur (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't normally make the front page of Xinhua. And plenty of things we post aren't "significant in the grand scheme of things". -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't trust a source published by the Communist Party of China. Mocctur (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you trust the specific writing of Xinhua is irrelevant, the sheer fact that they are covering it proves that its internationally notable. Clearly they meet the reliable source criteria as they are used by other reliable sources all the time. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose An American gets a gun and shoots people. What's special about that? HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Any shooting spree with more than six deaths is usually ITN material, while there was a police standoff and hostage crisis involved. We almost posted the Discovery channel hostage incident a year back. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 15:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose only on the condition that WP:ITN doesn't report any more suicide bombings with casualties less than 100 people, bearing in mind that "international significance" is not a criterion for inclusion.--WaltCip (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] News of the World to close

 * Support, high-circulation (CNN says highest, we don't even rank it) English-language newspaper brought down by a giant scandal. --Golbez (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: before the Americocentric brigade come in, this is the second highest circulating newspaper in Britain (after its sister paper), and the scandal is front-page news in America. Sceptre (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support. I saw this coming, and it wasn't a matter of if, but when. The magazine is 170 years old and plummeted in light of the scandal, which was very highly publicised around the world. Large repercussions as per nom, seeing as News Corporation is a huge company. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  16:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support the last time a national newspaper closed in the UK was in 1995, the fact that it's a very large newspaper and is closing because of a major scandal makes it even more significant. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 16:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually that isn't true - the Daily Sport closed just over three months ago, not that I think the whole "last time" thing is a particularly significant point to make. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments: The article has to be updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, but wait until Sunday when the final edition of the paper appears. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Suport, but wait - I am in agreement with Mjroots to wait until Sunday. Given the economic incentives and questionable character(s) involved, let's see if anything develops further.   Jus  da  fax   17:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, a significant story both in the UK and for a global media company. Bob talk 17:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Wide in impact and coverage. Wow. Severe repercussions were the only logical conclusion to this affair. Why did they do it? <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   18:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support we can always post it again on Sunday. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, major scandal and the end of the UK's highest-circulation newspaper. I'm happy for this to be posted either immediately or on Sunday. The former would be better from a timeliness standpoint, but the latter would allow the article to be further improved first. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This has a clear consensus and I think the article is ok to go up. I'm tempted to phrase the blurb in the passive voice, as the sources differ between whether News Corp or News International announced the closure, and because who announced it really isn't important. How about:
 * The closure of News of the World is announced, following ongoing allegations of phone hacking by the newspaper.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Definitely, per above.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as previous respondents. I see no reason to wait til Sunday and indeed it would be undesirable to do so.  ITN reflects items that are in the news, not things we believe may be regarded as historical events. It's in the news now so why wait? Crispmuncher (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Posted the above blurb but please suggest any changes that might improve it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * suggestion to amend wondering if the wording might be tweaked to something like "The closure of News of the World is announced amid allegations that the British newspaper engaged in phone hacking, police bribery and a cover up". The story is also developing to draw and implicate a wider group than just the notw which might be looked at too, but I'll just offer the above as my suggestion for now.--Joopercoopers (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

UN calls for two trillion dollars to avert 'global catastrophe'

 * Oppose "According to the study, $1.9 trillion per year will be needed over the next 40 years for incremental investments in green technologies, and at least $1.1 trillion of that will need to be made in developing countries to meet increasing food and energy demands." What's the major news here? That humanity is approaching a carrying capacity quite rapidly? That isn't really ITN-worthy news. Google News puts the number of articles reporting on this at ~20. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The news is that the United Nations is endorsing a two trillion dollar push toward green technologies to avert major planetary catastrophe. Didn't you read the blurb? That's plenty notable in my view. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  15:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - What's news is that the UN and its Secretary General are saying so bluntly. Of course, a story about the UN urgently noting the need to avert planetary catastrophe may not sell as many newspapers as the latest sensational murder trial.  But this story is in the news and it could be considered of importance, in my view.  Jus  da  fax   12:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose the UN is calling for spending more money. So what? I would support if a country or countries actually backed the initiative, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Hot Stop (c) 15:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose; nothing groundbreaking and no new factual/scientific breakthroughs on the issue. Juliancolton (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support a significant announcement by a significant organization. How to actually accomplish it is different chapter. --Kslotte (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The UN regularly makes calls for various good causes, and those calls are just as regularly mostly ignored by the public, the newsmedia and the politicians. Unless there is an indication of this particular story taking off (e.g. extensive international newscoverage or the political leaders actually acting on this plea by the UN), this item does not belong in the ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless that money is actually pledged. 'Calls for' isn't enough here, serious as the problem is (but then that's been known for decades). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing groundbreaking, as noted. Mocctur (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No real action yet. UN has been involved in this for years. The IPCC won a Nobel Prize, this doesn't compare. — Yk3 talk ~ contrib 10:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

[Too late] Norway–Russia border

 * Support. It's not too often now-a-days that international borders change. In this case, of course, it is just the settlement of a never-agreed-before sea border, but still - the sea border line will now be shown differently on Russian (and, presumably, Norwegian) maps from how it has been shown before. -- Vmenkov (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support border disputes are highly notable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose, first off, the article is totally unsuited for being featured on the main page (it's a stub). Secondly, this treaty has been known for a year, and enters force as scheduled, nothing groundbreaking in that. It's not a real (land) border dispute, but a dispute over the marine border in some faraway place. Mocctur (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the WP:STUB tag. It clearly is not a stub anymore.  The article isn't long but it certainly is long enough to feature on the front page.  The update could be a bit more substantial though.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the article is clearly a stub, it's less than one page of text. The material on the marine border and the treaty from last year, which is the issue here, makes up only one short section. This is in no way sufficient for the main page, in order to be main page material the article would need significant expansion (10 times longer?), including significant expansion on the treaty in question (there is not a separate article on the treaty, just a short article on the Norway–Russia border. Most of the article's contents deal with the land border and are unrelated to the issue being discussed here.). Mocctur (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A WP:STUB is an article containing only a few sentences of text. 'One full page of text' is far more than needed for the article to not be a stub.  Heck, new articles for ITN only require three paragraphs. Also, saying the article needs to be expanded 10 times longer is waaaaaaay over ITN standards.  Again, three paragraphs is considered sufficient.  The article here is well over that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a stub as far as ITN is concerned, and it's a stub because it's very, very lacking. There are less then ten sentences on this not-so-new treaty from last year. The rest of the contents have little (actually nothing) to do with neither the marine border nor the treaty. Three paragraphs are certainly not enough for an article to be featured on the main page. If there was an existing, in-depth article on the marine border and/or treaty in question, that would be a different matter. Most articles featured on the main page are indeed roughly ten times longer. Mocctur (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For someone who had had no contributions to this page until 5 July, you claim to know a lot about what is "a stub as far as ITN is concerned". As far as ITN is concerned, this article isn't a stub — 24 January 2011 Iraq bombings is shorter than this and was posted, because it met the requirements. If it meets the update requirements and has the support, it'll be posted. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Of interest and significant news. Jus  da  fax   01:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article needs more work on the section of the sea boarder, may be some art work. Having explained the two parties negotiating positions, no indication of the outcome is given. Mtking (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * obvious support coming into force of an international treaty, particularly to resolve an intl dispute. It should be ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support'. An economically significant treaty which ends a 44-year old border dispute. It will make it possible to exploit huge oil and gas deposits in the area. I have added more content to the article. A map about the new border would be great to have. The border could be simply drawn on this map - any volunteers? Nanobear (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above. The article has been improved, the event is significant. Grey  Hood   Talk  08:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support event of big importance-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫  Share– a–  Power[citation needed] 11:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The marine border section does need a map, to be in balance with the other maps in the article. I did find it really confusing at first look. And, linking directly to section to clearify.


 * It's too late to post this; the oldest item on ITN now is from July 8. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Death of Mani Kaul

 * Support pending expansionCan some one with Knowledge on Bollywood expand the article? I would like to support this but the article could use some work. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Death is of little international interest. Article is in terrible shape.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 02:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Swarm. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 02:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose insufficient stature. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose--based on the current state of the article. His entire career is summed up in 6 short paragraphs, 2 of which are only one sentence.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not widely known, article too short. Mocctur (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hardly even see any national coverage on this on any of the news channels amidst all the temple treasure, corruption and doping news reports. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Death of Cy Twombly

 * Oppose. Tragic, but he was 83 and, according to the article He died in Rome after being hospitalized for several days, and had cancer for many years. Not exactly a household name and not a sudden or unexpected death, so not suitable for ITN. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per HJ. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose insufficient stature. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Insufficient stature, as noted. Mocctur (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang
As it says in the instructions at the top of this page, ''Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot, creating them manually breaks this process.'' The last time someone did this it made a complete mess of the page. The correct place for this nomination would be WP:ITN/FE (where it has already been nominated); however for the moment I'll move it down to July 5 until the bot has been through. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The host city will be announced tomorrow. As far as I remember, we post such announcements. Provided the article update and other regular stuff... --Tone 20:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and will draw plenty of interest. Contingent on an update of course. RxS (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly notable and timely. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Reoccurring event. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   23:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't on WP:ITNR, although it probably should be. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support once city is announced. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 00:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --  Zanimum (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Share– a– Power[citation needed] 10:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --  As nominator in WP:ITN/FE. Maybe Pyeongchang if they are elected needs improvement.Hektor (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

2018 Winter Olympics doesn't seem to mention that South Korea won the bidding process. The timer's red, so it would be nice to get this posted, but wee need an update. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now it does mention South Korea won the bid. Grey  Hood   Talk  17:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per TRA. Crnorizec (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. The article needs quite a bit more work, but we haven't posted an update to ITN in quite some time. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's the update here?--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Red Sea boat fire and sinking

 * Support when we have an adequate article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Will help out as much as I can with updates tomorrow if an article is started. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   01:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question - Were they really illegal immigrants? All of them? Are we sure? Racists in my country love to rebadge asylum seekers as illegal immigrants. They didn't actually arrive anywhere, so calling them immigrants seems doubtful anyway. We can't ask them or read their minds. Best be certain here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If we ever get to posting this, it's probably best to simply say 'migrants'. I believe the BBC used that term.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose No article, and probably (sad to say) not a lot of ongoing interest. ITN is not a headline news service and all that... RxS (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Watch for developments this has potential to develop into a sorta-fleshed stand-alone article. – H T  D  14:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it not normal to name an article about a ship sinking after the name of the ship (which I'd have to look up), rather than the place it happened?--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Casey Anthony

 * Support I was reading about this on the BBC today, seems like a very high profile story with very high interest. Yes its overblown media hype, yes its "not notable" blah blah blah, but it is certainly of interest to our readers. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here we go! :) Seriously though, 147.5 views on the day of the closing arguments, God knows how many people would go there now. – H T  D  18:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article with three cleanup tags is not appropriate for the Main page. Even if this was not the case, the DSK story has bigger coverage and international significance as well, while the latter is not the case here. 147.5 k views or not. It's just a proof that people are able to get to the article even if it is not featured on the Main page. --Tone 19:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not all or nothing here. If there'll be half a million page views today, there's a strong case for this to be included. If it's less than 250k, not so much, and if less than 100k, close to nil. – H T  D  20:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now as the article contains several tags as mentioned above. -- can  dle • wicke  20:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Even if this article were an FA, I don't think I would feel comfortable supporting. This is simply an offshoot of missing white woman syndrome; I don't see any reason for us to promote that. Yes, I read Eraserhead1's argument; I simply disagree entirely. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing to add to NW. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I support this, it is current, but it will interest many readers and get them hooked. It is notable, watch any news station or any news website. It's not that hard.  JoeGazz  ▲ 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * God No! The media created and perpetuated this spectacle. This not Micheal Jackson, OJ Simpson, or other notable figures. This poor BLP1E woman who obviously has serious issues not the least of which that of Media howling for blood. Lets not further her suffering. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also the article is terrible shape! Full of and other problem tags. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This has been called numerous times the biggest televised murder trial since OJ Simpson, and it has received attention from all over the world. Certainly notable and certainly of interest to readers. I don't see any problem with promoting a concept that NW fabricated.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 21:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Something that I fabricated? How long have you been on Wikipedia? By now, you surely know what a wikilink is, right? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Who? HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should limit ITM items to only those you've heard of? RxS (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Definitely not. Equally, we should ignore claims of the form "certainly of interest to readers". This "news" is tabloid sensationalism. The arguments in support are on the same level. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it has had 147,500 views today its obviously of interest to readers. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tabloid media gets big ratings too. Doesn't make it newsworthy. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Being discussed internationally by reliable sources does though. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Than why did you have a one word oppose comment consisting of "who?". And by the way, topics "of interest to readers"  is the reason why ITN exists. We are here to provide articles on topics people are interested and  that are both updated and in the news. I have no idea why that concept is so hard to remember... RxS (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. This is tabloid fodder, and an item of little encyclopaedic or enduring interest which will be forgotten in a few years time. Page view statistics are irrelevant, since popularity does not indicate importance. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds similar to the OJ Simpson case, which shit, is still being discussed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No its not, OJ Simpson was notable as football player before and after the case. This woman was not notable before the case and few will be discuss the case in months time. Media frenzy does not mean it is ITN material. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody cares about OJ Simpson's football playing now, and they certainly never cared outside the US. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Big news (#2 story on BBC), although it looks like the article needs a very good polishing before we can post it. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  00:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The BBC tailor's its front page based on IP geolocation. Just because it's on the front page in your country does not mean it is anywhere else. Seen from South Africa (where I am currently) it's nowhere to be found on the front page, not even in the 'US & Canada' section. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's very good to know, thank you. I continue to support the inclusion of this item. It's not just the tabloids (though they've definitely had their sensationalist stories with this one). It's been all over cable news, national network news, and local network news here, as well as the mainstream papers. Perhaps the coverage internationally is more tabloid than mainstream. Here it's most definitely both. If anything, the entire case now speaks to the dangers of coming to premature conclusions, as most of the media, including mainstream media, seemed to decide the woman would be found guilty. This is more than just a story of a dead two year old. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - Has international notability. Tired of real news anyway. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   00:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, article is in deplorable shape. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Oppose, mostly per NW. This whole trial has been about the sensationalist media more than the case itself. Were this actually to hit the main page, we would be just as bad as they are. I get why people think it's notable or noteworthy, but last I checked we don't succumb to tabloid fodder on here. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 00:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Nowhere else in the world does a murder case get this much coverage. The fact that it's happened in the US and was covered by tabloids means that much of this global media coverage is simply hyped up and I'm not buying it. This is not ITN material. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In our place, the Vizconde massacre is in the news for 20 years now since it started in 1991. Twenty years. (The slow justice system also has to do with it, but still.) The U.S. is not the only place such events get coverage. As stated below, the Dutch politician was also posted with no opposition. If ITN only "temporarily" opposed that, why is it heavily, and with no good reason, opposing this one now? – H  T  D  05:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Or there's the Soham murders, which still provoke extremely strong feelings today though it doesn't get much worse than murdering defenceless 10-year-olds, or the Murder of Milly Dowler or any number of other sickening crimes that people commit. I'm not !voting either way, but just thought I'd point out it's not just the American press (or even just the tabloids) that get themselves worked up about horrible murders (particularly those of middle-class, young white women). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Yes, media frenzy, and it seems the sensationalist tabloid media got it wrong anyway, pre-convicting someone later found not guilty. Please let's not feed that frenzy. It should be beneath us. I can only suspect that those supporting this have been swept up in the frenzy, and can see no harm in it. Frenzy is not news! HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You already opposed once. I would kindly ask you to remove the oppose vote from your comment. Truthsort (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose ironically because it is in the news. All over the news. To the point of absurdity.--WaltCip (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As expected, a U.S.-centric item was bombarded by knee-jerk opposes. Where were you during the Dutch politician was adden in ITN? Doesn't mean that he's Dutch means it is more "international" which no longer is part our criteria. How about the Vizconde massacre? It's nomination only got one oppose, and "temporarily" if I may add. No one screamed "who?" there.
 * Seriously, U.S. items here aren't getting fair treatment. If this was an Irish girl we'd be screaming at the absence of admins.
 * One million views, that's more than the World Cup. It'll be an absolute travesty if the won't get posted unless someone comes up with a better reason why this should not be posted, aside from "who?", "it happened in the US", and "this is tabloid fodder" n(as it has been covered by serious media). – H T  D  03:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Media frenzies should be ignored wherever they're from. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't ignore media frenzies during sporting events or when they Dutch politician was acquitted. – H T  D  04:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is this Dutch politician you're obsessed with? HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. – H T  D  04:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ????? HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I can't help you (LOL). All I know was that Dutch guy was also acquitted and the ITN/C nomination was never opposed. You just gotta trust me on this lol – H T  D  04:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And the fact that I can't remember it nor you haven't screamed "Who?" at that nomination further reinforces my point. – H T  D  04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My reason for not commenting on this hypothetical Dutch politician is almost certainly that I missed seeing it when this page dropped off my Watchlist for a few days. I have no idea of the merits or otherwise of his case. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change things. That guy got a free pass. This one, because it originated in the U.S., doesn't. – H T  D  04:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My reasons have nothing to do with the country of origin. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. This case has been oversimplified as "tabloid fodder" when it isn't. – H T  D  05:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently HTD is referring to the Geert Wilders case. This was big news in the EU. The differences to this case are obvious: Geert Wilders is the leader of the third largest party in Holland, a member of the parliament and a well-recognized politician in Europe, and to some degree even worldwide. The general feeling was that the result of his trial had much wider political effects EU-wide than just dropping the criminal charges. This woman, meanwhile, is only known for being accused for the murder of her child. If you opposed the Geert Wilders nomination, why didn't you open your mouth back then? It is perfectly okay to comment on the nominations after their posting as well. --hydrox (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Irish Times or any of the sources listed above has the same track record as the National Enquirer.
 * Seriously, WP:NOTNEWS is the most misquoted policy, especially on AFDs. Not because it's in the news means you can invoke WP:NOTNEWS – H T  D  04:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What the more mainstream media is really covering here is the fact the sensationalist, tabloid media got it wrong when they created the earlier media frenzy about this case. Did the BBC report on the child's disapearance when it first happened? HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So there is coverage, yes? By mainstream media, yes? So what's keeping us from posting this? – H T  D  04:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the real news is that this was a misdirected media frenzy all along. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So your a media critic now? Eight hours after not having heard of the subject? RxS (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He has a point though. But doesn't change things. Can someone one brief me on the criteria that we use? I tried reading it but couldn't make sense of it. – H T  D  05:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I disagree, or at least find the point irrelevant. Media frenzy (whatever that means) can only survive when there's interest in the subject. I'm wondering why we feel like we need to filter what people read at ITN in terms of the seriousness of the subject. ITN criteria doesn't speak to media frenzys. RxS (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We gotta filter something though. My "personal ITNR" for potential ITN blurbs is that when it has more than 250k views (the number of views during the World Cup), that should be posted as long as the article is tidy and updated. Then I saw Jamie Lynn Spears page views when she announced that she was pregnant hovered around 300k so we should probably filter a little. Is this one of the times we should filter? No, as it has been covered by mainstream media, in depth. – H T  D  05:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, well... a mother allegedly abuses and then kills her daughter, is hauled through the courts and is found not guilty is, well, pretty sad, but unfortunately happens all over the world on a daily basis. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant media coverage worldwide. Nevard (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem we have is that the news today, widely reported in reliable sources, is that Casey Anthony has been found guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer, and nothing else. That is apparently major news because the tabloid media earlier effectively convicted her of murder. So, unfortunately, does our article. Now that she has been found not guilty of murder, a lot of that article can be seen as speculation, and possibly close to breaching our guidelines on WP:BLP. For example, why on earth mention garbage in the boot of her car that somebody thought smelt like a dead body? Given today's finding, the article is a disaster. HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that's something that can be remedied ("the article is a disaster") unlike the earlier point that you really can't do anything since it is the subject of the article. Well... it still is, but at least that can remedied. But we all know even if it's an FA (as stated by someone above), people would be still be opposing (LOL), so we'd need an admin that has the balls to post this once the article is cleaned up. – H T  D  05:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I still oppose it on the basis that the claimed major news coverage is actually coverage of the fact that someone has been found guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. That's NOT notable. It's ONLY notable because of an earlier media frenzy that did not involve reputable major news services. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not in the criteria, and whether or not mainstream media did not care about this in the early part of the case is immaterial. What matters if if it's getting coverage now and if people are interested now. We don't have to be philosophical about it. That's the concern of the pundits. – H T  D  05:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not understand as to how simply being a media frenzy disqualifies this on being placed on the front page. This has been building up since 2008 and the verdict made it even more notable. I would also like to comment that the article is in much better shape now. Truthsort (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And last I checked the BBC, New York Times and other sources listed above are fairly reputable. Hot Stop (c) 06:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support it's getting as much attention as the DSK saga. Why it's getting that attention isn't our concern. Hot Stop (c) 05:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking [Ready?], the article has now been cleaned up. The viewing figures are well over the point where the fact that its celebrity gossip counts against it, and it has been covered internationally by reliable sources. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Counting down before someone removes [Ready?] in 5... 4... 3... – H T  D  06:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for ignoring what I have posted. The attention it's getting from reliable sources is that someone was found guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. That's NOT notable.
 * Oh, and re the DSK comparisons (is he the mystical "Dutch politician"?), surely he had a more significant role in world affairs than Casey Anthony, i.e. already notable without tabloid attention. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, he's not DSK. Everyone knows who DSK is when he got arrested. Nobody seem to remember who this Dutch guy even after he was acquitted. – H T  D  06:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Geert Wilders is the Dutch politician. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * weeeeeeeeee – H T  D  06:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * HiLO48: The attention it's getting from reliable sources is that someone was found guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. That's NOT notable. The charges of lying to an officer are not the notable charges in this trial, it is the other three charges that are more significant and have shown to be notable enough to receive international coverage. Truthsort (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is that discussion. For the record I would say getting acquitted of murder is more notable than beating hate speech chargers, which apparently you don't agree with TS. Hot Stop (c) 06:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The part of the comment I wrote in italics came from HiLo48 and if you see the part not in italics, that is my comment respoonding to him and arguing that this case is notable. Not sure you saw but I am the nominator of this. Truthsort (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice that there was zero opposition on that one too. Imagine if that was a U.S. politician who died that came from Massachusetts who was an assassinated president's brother.
 * Hey can someone look at what's trending in Ireland on Twitter... – H T  D  06:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * People get acquitted of murder quite often around the world, and, quite rightly, most cases don't appear here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But a murder trial in Orlando usually doesn't trend in Ireland on Twitter, right? – H T  D  06:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And get international coverage around the world? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Screw international coverage. If it trended in Ireland it's something. :P – H T  D  06:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys really do struggle to get your heads around the two levels of activity here. First we had sensationalist tabloid media frenzy creating an expectation of an exciting murder trial with all sorts of soapie style action (something not relevant to ITN, or it would already have been here), then we had responsible journals reporting a not guilty verdict, reporting only made necessary by the earlier tripe. What the responsible journals have reported is not notable news. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The media in Malaysia and China don't have to follow a US tabloid frenzy... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone in the U.S. who usually supports news items solely on the basis of the amount of coverage, I feel obliged to morally oppose adding this per most of the opposes above. Grand  master  ka  07:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't mind U.S.-centric items from time to time, and I occasionally enjoy reading tabloids, but I will have to agree with HiLo48. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Millions of people are following this story in America, Europe and Asia- yet it's dismissed as "U.S.-centric" and "media frenzy"? God forbid there's a royal wedding or a former crown prince dies, but actual international news? Hell no. Why would we post that shit? A Habsburg has died! Maybe someday we'll actually post news according to its professional coverage, rather than relying on a few people with nothing better to do than to declare what is and isn't important in the news. I doubt it though.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The stated goal of WP:ITN is to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest.  The view statistics of the article, combined with the worldwide mainstream media coverage, demonstrate that this story is of wide interest.  It should not be the job of ITN editors to decide what our readers should be interested in.  I sympathize with Hilo's concern about the way this story has been reported in the media and how the woman has been convicted by said media, but ultimately, ITN is not an online newspaper and does not have to follow, or be judged by, the same ethical standards that news sources do.  The main concern is--is the article up to date and in good shape, and does it pass concerns related to WP:BLP?  If it does, I'm fine with it.  As there appears to be a consensus that the article is indeed in good shape, I'll go ahead and mark this ready, despite the opposition.  As always, an admin will ultimately have to decide on this one.  Regarding two specific objections: a) Missing white woman syndrome-- I always cringe at this objection.  It's  basically playing the race card.  It has dubious academic credibility. (the WP article does not cite a single academic source)  It also implies that if the victim were non-white it would be notable.  Obviously, the case shouldn't be more notable because of someone's race.  However, I have no objection to a story being more notable because the victim was a young girl.  A young girl is the most helpless of victims and there's nothing immoral IMO that such a murder generates greater sympathy. b) 'Tabloid fodder'--Frankly, we crossed that line when we posted not only the royal wedding but the engagement as well.  I realize that for many people the wedding of a future head of state is not 'tabloid fodder' but I guess one man's tabloid fodder is another man's serious news story.  True crime is a topic of very wide interest and also a subject of serious study.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And exactly what "true crime" do we have here? Making a false statement to police? Murder has not been proven, except in the sad minds of the manipulated tabloid audience. HiLo48 (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The victim was found dead in a plastic bag with her mouth duct-taped; it goes beyond reasonable doubt that some crime was committed by someone. True crime does not necessarily refer to solved crimes with the criminal convicted; it refers to the investigation and possible trial as well, which there certainly was.  Many people are just as fanscinated by unsolved murders (e.g. the Whitechapel murders) as they are by ones resulting in a conviction.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not ready. In case this gets posted it will immediately get pulled because of a clear lack of consensus. And pulling items is not something we want on ITN. (I opposed posting the royal engagement as well but this story is far less relevant in the wider picture). What would make it relevant would be triggering changes in the law of something of that scale. --Tone 12:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The now multiple, then reverted declarations of Ready on this topic weaken the the case even more. On each occasion it has been done while ignoring valid criticism. More like bullying than discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, marking [Ready?] when there is no consensus makes little sense, therefore I removed it. And however I look at the case, I cannot see a consensus here. --Tone 12:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was unclear. I support your removal action. It's the unjustified, unilateral action that led you to it that's the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood, I just wanted to make it clearer. --Tone 13:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I marked it 'ready', as I stated above, because I felt there was a consensus that at least the article was updated; I conceded there was opposition but it's not a !vote. Marking it ready doesn't put it on the front page.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose This has had too much publicity IMO and is serving more as entertainment for the media and U.S. rather than having a significant impact globally.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support (not that it means too much now) - we're not some sort of tabloid-battling force, it's not as though us posting this is tantamount to "becoming one of them" or whatever the reason is for people opposing this. Listen. I don't like US-centric stuff on ITN, but this is certainly an exception. The fact that it's been floating about globally as well as across the states is proof it's at least remotely interesting to a wide audience, and that is what we're for - showing off stuff that's in the news. Whether or not a tabloid or three have also been reporting on it is none of our concern. 狐 Déan rolla bairille!   18:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Worldwide coverage and widespread interest around the world for this mind-bending case stranger than fiction. And with a surprise ending to boot. To all who claim this is sensationalism: you're idiots. This was not some ordinary murder trial. If it was, it would not have captivated people at the level it has captivated. People simply do not get this interested for murder trials.
 * And yes, it has been highly publicised. Does that make it any less notable? Hell no! It makes it MORE notable for the reason I just stated. The opponents here who make you think the opposite are simply hardcore non-conformists who simply hate anything mainstream, and are using ITN as a medium to express this. We saw it with the Charlie Sheen affair, with the Lindsey Lohan sentencing (which I opposed as well, FWIW), and anything after the 15th nomination for the Arab Spring. These people seem to want to look better and more sophisticated than everyone else, claiming that these types of stories are just "tabloid fodder" and are therefore meaningless. But get this: they then turn around and oppose any death not sensational enough for their standards!
 * I'm sorry if this looks like a personal attack, but it's extremely ignorant and it had to be said. It's disrupting the process here at ITN and it's the main reason this section is dying slowly out of existence. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we are posting a hell of a lot more content now than we were before and there have been substantial improvements - in June we posted 54 items, or one every 13.3 hours on average, between the 24th October and the 25th January only 100 items were posted which is a rate of one every 20.6 hours. I agree though about there being some issues, such as the way this has been discussed still remaining. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking [Ready?] given the strong arguments at the bottom. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose (already !voted) Newsworthiness and significance are both factors for ITN. This has none of the latter. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just re-read ITN's purpose. I don't see significance mentioned anywhere in that. Additionally you can't !vote twice. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - forgot I weighed in here. "Significance" has it's own heading under "Criteria" on the ITN page. In any case, editors are entitled to take their own view on what they consider ITN's purpose should be - that's why things get resolved by consensus on this page. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the first sentence of the criteria.  Night  w   20:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * strong support - the biggest trial since OJ simpson, and the sentence itself makes it itn news.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a local news story in significance only, no matter what the trainwreck aspect of it. 21:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Local story? have you been sleeping in the woods for the last month or so? haha.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like I have to say it again. It's been tabloid trash for most of its life, much like the love lives of footballers and movie stars. Quality sources got involved for the trial, at which someone was found guilty of lying to police. I really didn't think that two stage process was too complicated, but it clearly is for some. Not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Per Johnsemlak. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Johnsemlak made the most constructive comment in the conversation so far. The purpose of the WP:ITN section is: a. "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" / b. "To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events" / c. "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them" / d. "To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource". This was obviously big news worldwide, as nobody expected a verdict of "not guilty."  Thus, it fulfills a, globally. Wikipedia article is extensive, and although it had some tags this was, and is, receiving so much visibility even without ITN, that  article is already up to standards (kudos to contributors). Fulfills b & d. I conclude with: we shouldn't too much select stories based on our own likings here (notable/not notable, yellow/white press), as ITN is not part of the encyclopedia content, but a web portal for users and editors to find current content. Sometimes enough press is just enough, even if it's yellow. --hydrox (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason "nobody expected the not guilty verdict" was because of the earlier "who's kissing who in Hollywood" type coverage from the tabloid press, stuff that would be unacceptable here now. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This wouldn't have been that significant without the "not guilty" verdict. Another pathetic criminal sent to prison, who cares? This is a very interesting case from the legal perspective as well. I had never heard of this case before opening the local newspaper this morning, several thousand kilometers away. Actually, the "not guilty" verdict makes this case so peculiar, that it is easily of random interest to the readers. I feel like it fits all the four purposes of the ITN now. --hydrox (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - After a careful re-reading of the criteria outlined in the 'Significance' section (italics are mine) at WP:ITN:
 * "Unlike the TFA and Did you know sections of the Main Page, ITN rejects items deemed trivial. The criterion was previously written as "a story of international importance or interest". This standard is highly subjective and the focus of much of the disagreement over particular candidates. The most common form of opposition on this ground is that the news is "too local" and not of interest to people in the commenter's country of origin."  (End ITN quote)  Please note that I do not Oppose because this is a USA-centric story, but because the story is trivial compared to our standards.  I am unswayed by arguments that the story is famous for being famous, while at the same time I find I'm unmoved by many of the opposes which seem to be WP:DONTLIKEIT... indeed, I am dismayed by what I view as the low quality of reasoning on both sides.  Jus  da  fax   02:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * While I remain in support of the nomination, I accept this as a valid objection, as I can see how someone may view this as 'trivial'.
 * That said, I find that criterion somewhat troubling. The term 'trivial' is, in addition to being rather subjective in application, is mildly derogatory and IMO an unhelpful descriptor of ITN criteria, particularly with no examples given.  I think we can all agree that we want to exclude 'trivial' events from ITN, but getting everyone to agree on what is trivial is a common source of debate on this forum.  In this example, we have an otherwise non-notable event that has been given extensive news coverage and notoriety--and in the opinion of many editors here--notability.  In many ways here we are debating, not for the first time, whether a human interest story is suitable for ITN.  One could compare this story to the recent Strauss-khan case, where person was charged of a crime, subjected to intense media scrutiny, and then relieved of all or most of the charges.  One example is 'automatically' notable because the person was notable in their own right, or a least in charge of a very notable organization.  The other person had no such notability, the kind of 'ordinary' person unworthy of their own Wikipedia article; and yet the trial has captured the interest of many people for whatever reason.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Johnsemlak, for the obliging manner in which you term my objection as "valid" which I take as quite a compliment, given that such acknowledgment is rare from a !vote at odds with one's own on this page. In fact, yours was the opinion that resolved me to refresh my understanding of the actual criteron at ITN.  Regarding your last sentence, my personal views of the international media are, or should be, beyond the scope of this discussion, leaving us to debate, as you note, what we find to be "trivia."  I agree that it may not be the the best operative word as ITN policy, but at the moment it is what we have.   Jus  da  fax   07:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * strong oppose there are large amount of interesting cases that get a lot of worldwide media attention. atleast at minimum ITN should focus on cases in highest courts such as supreme court... which may in some way change the law of a country. this case does nothing to anyone. yes its a sad crime by whoever committed it but not for ITN -- Ashish-g55 02:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting way to look at it but I think there are other ways a trial can be notable besides being in a high-level court. The article asserts the case broke new ground in forensic science which is a notable aspect.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * but will this be posted as legal item or scientific item? i would support if idea behind it was new forensic science techniques or something similar but i dont think thats what others are looking for here... -- Ashish-g55 11:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Ordinarily I believe that we should largely defer to the judgement of reliable sources about notability and significance of particular events - and there is certainly plenty of coverage here. However, for ITN inclusion one does need to draw the line somewhere: there needs to be at least some inherent significance and importance, based on our own subjective judgement, for a particular event to be listed as an ITN item. For example, the murder of Matthew Shepard and the trial of his killers significantly advanced gay rights debate in the U.S. and resulted in much new hate crime legislation. The O.J. trial became a significant moment in terms of the race relations in the U.S. In the case of Casey Anthony's trial I just don't see any inherent significance - no political or social or international importance of any kind, as far as I can tell. Just a sad story overblown by tabloidish U.S. media for no rational reason. Deserves an article on WP but not inclusion in the ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. US domestic news, not significant. Mocctur (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - Same as what many users have said above. Tabloid material, no international significance at all. I don't care if this case gets as many hits as Britney Spear's latest single, it is not encyclopaedic material. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

African drought

 * Support, notable. A separate article, however, would be wellcome.Olegwiki (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, drought cannot be the focus article. Support in principle. --Tone 12:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't be sensationalist with nominations. Section title "At least 9 million people" and drought as the target article? What? Are we in a game of charades? What's next, a death of a VIP in San Marino and we'd have "history" as the target article with the matching "An entire country mourns" as the section title? I know selling an ITN blurb and its corresponding cute little notices on user talk pages are really sought after by some of the people here (probably the Wikicup or something) as if they're FAs, but this is bordering on being sad and pathetic. – H T  D  12:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Horn of Africa was what I intended actually. I should have checked again after I saved. I'm not sure it's much better either but I couldn't find anything else. Maybe someone else can. And yes, at least 9 million people. The source says at least 9 million. I don't think there is any other way of saying that apart from saying that it is at least 9 million people. It isn't often that a nomination is made involving 9 million people. On the other hand, the blurb says "millions of people" but that seems a bit vague. I'm sorry to have made a nomination at all if it is considered "sad and pathetic" by some, any or all. -- can  dle • wicke  13:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From the Horn of Africa article: "Drought is a predictable event in the Horn of Africa's semi-arid and arid climate"... it loses notability if this is the target article, but a separate one would be better.  Spencer T♦ C 00:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose there's a massive drought in Texas too. That would never make it. Hot Stop (c) 13:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support noone's going to die in the Texas drought as everyone there is rich enough to buy food from elsewhere. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support If an updated article/section can be worked out. I'm not sure the target section in the blurb focuses enough on the point the blurb is trying to make. RxS (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose We're not crusaders for under-reported news stories; we actually want to present an encyclopedia article for the headline. No decent article content covers this thing whatsoever.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 08:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Strauss-Kahn indictment to be withdrawn
Crnorizec (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. Now the prosecutors are withdrawing the charges. Crnorizec (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support internationally significant person and highly publicized charge. Watch out for Tristane Banon.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Just as the arrest and charges were significant, the withdrawal of the charges is just as significant in this long-running saga, and it is most definitely "in the news". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now: "An unnamed senior investigator said the eventual dismissal of charges was "a certainty", according to the New York Post"&mdash; I agree that the conclusion of this incident should be covered but lets wait till it is official. jorgenev 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support because WP jumped the gun by announcing mere charges, journalistic ethics require us to tell the rest of the story. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense whatsoever. An allegation is not news; official legal proceedings are. --Golbez (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when officially withdrawn - And I'd support mention of new charges, if they are filed in France.  Jus  da  fax   18:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong oppose because we don't post things on ITN on the basis of comments by an "an unnamed senior investigator" Have our verifiability standards fallen this low, people? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per Mkativerata. -- can  dle • wicke  20:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Mkativerata who almost took the words right out of my mouth. Even if this was attributed the comments of a single individual outside of court do not amount to a formal dropping of the charges.  Without attribution this is altgoether more speculative still.  Let's wait for this to happen instead of crytal ball gazing and reporting what might happen, shall we? Crispmuncher (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Oppose as premature. Wait until it's official. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  00:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Zine El Abidine Ben Ali convicted and sentenced

 * Are we going to post him everytime he gets convicted for something? :D He is not going to serve his time anyway. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. As long as this is in absentia, it does not contribute much to the overall story. --Tone 19:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as the article and section is in good shape. beleive we posted Mubarak and Ben Ali's precedent is arguably more improtant.
 * Mark ready?Lihaas (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

At least 88 resignations

 * Comment: Article should be Telangana movement in this case, specifically the April-July 2011 section, which has a three-sentence update. However the article is in poor shape in terms of the prose. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  01:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if/when the new state is created. This would be an important event in India. --Tone 19:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Important political development. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * support the concept as important to have such a large chunk of empty seats, hjowevber the article is horris and need some organisationLihaas (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Otto von Habsburg
Support as nom - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  10:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. A highly influential figure in post-WWI Europe. Article needs updating though .  Night  w   10:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Very important royal and political figure of the 20th century. We usually omit posting deaths of royal members, but this one should be excluded by the virtue that von Habsburg pretended the throne almost 40 years, afterwards was active in politics and received highly notable acknowledgements.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support A crown prince pretender 1921–1958 and a Member of European Parliament 1979–1999 (and as such one of the most senior members of the said body), multiple honours and a seemingly noted and active European political figure. None of these would probably alone merit ITN, but together they just might. --hydrox (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support though I think we should mention his time spent as an MEP. Hot Stop (c) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Hydrox. -- can  dle • wicke  15:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not sure of his significance, being from across the pond and all. But the article is certainly not well referenced enough to be featured on the main page in the absence of significant news (not just his death). <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More references added. Update done.  Night  w   03:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose non notable death of a notable royal.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If a "wow" factor is required to publish deaths on ITN, you might as well abolish the death criteria completely. This is a very lacking argument that has been gaining much usage recently, and I cringe every time I see it used. Who care if the death is notable? What's notable here is that this "notable" person is no longer physically able to contribute to society in the way that rendered him notable in the first place! <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  01:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * His death is extremely notable, a one-in-a-century, and I figure we will soon have a separate article on his burial. His mother received a state burial worthy of an Empress (she was one). Mocctur (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not such a groundbreakingly notable life as should warrant posting his death at such an old age. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose He was 98. People do tend to die when they're 98, and I don't see what makes him so important that we should post his hardly surprising death. C628 (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter how old he was? A person's inherent notability isn't subject to age. Are you saying that if he was 34 and died from a drug overdose rather than old age his death would automatically be more notable?  Night  w   02:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @NightW and Eric Leb--ITN traditionally considers deaths due to old age to be less significant than deaths of people who were still active in their careers. One of the factors is whether the death has an impact on current events.  Many people don't want ITN to be an obituary section.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet we seem to automatically post the deaths of former heads of state no matter how old. We've somehow come to believe that the deaths of these people are inherently notable yet those of others, even those that were perhaps more influential in there time, are not. Seems a bit of a narrow-minded tradition, don't you think?  Night  w   03:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I consider the tradition narrow minded; however it surely can have exceptions, as Doktorb points out below. Support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. Otto von Habsburg has been a hugely influential political figure since the 1930s. He is the former Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary, one of the world's maybe five great powers in its time, which ceased to exist almost hundred years ago. Otto was destined to become the Emperor. He was later (1961) offered the Crown of Spain, but turned it down. His political role in many of the countries of former Austria-Hungary for many decades cannot be underestimated. If anyone is worthy of inclusion on the main page, it's Otto. He's like a person from a different century altogether, it's almost like Napoleon dying—the man was exiled in 1918! If Bill Clinton died, it would not be nearly as important. Mocctur (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support As per night. Spongie555 (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Normally, I'd be meh about something like this but he was last of the Habsburg line, which is a big deal. And just to comment on the whole expected death/old age thing. I don't get that at all, ITN exists to provide access to Wikipedia articles that documents items in the news. Whether someone is old or not doesn't make any difference if people are interested in the deceased. It's not logical at all...RxS (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly.  Night  w   03:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I fully understand why people are opposing, given that precedent suggests that it would not be front page material. However, exceptions come along to prove rules, do they not, and this is on exception. Given the historic importance of a) this man specifically, and b) his family and genealogical line, it would be highly unusual for Wikipedia to consider his death not to be notable. I can only think of the death of the current Windsor line as a contemporary example, albeit slightly different in context. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The death section should be expanded further. Standard obit details such as 'survived by 22 grandchildren' aren't notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen the deaths of much less notable people on the front page, including American TV hosts. Otto von Habsburg is a one in a century kind of person, there will not be any similar cases for the next hundred years. Mocctur (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One More Thing This has no place on Wiki, I know, but it made me laugh. Otto von Hasburg was in an office in the Berlayamont building during one of the World Cups, and a young Eurocrat, not knowing who he was, tried to strike up conversation by asking, “Did you see the Austria Hungary match last night?”

“No,” replied His Highness, “Who were we playing?” doktorb wordsdeeds 08:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As it was he was the record-holder of being pretender-reversionary claimant to a monarchy; had things gone differently he would have been the longest-serving monarch - 89 years is unlikely to be improved upon in a #very# long time; UK Prince Charles is now the current holder of the 'reversionary royal' claim. 94.195.193.37 (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

[Ready] 3rd bombing in the Arab Gas Pipeline this year

 * Support: as nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as the pipeline has been shut down and it is an international incident. -- can  dle • wicke  15:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support. This is getting boring. Grey  Hood   Talk  16:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No significant major coverage about its impact. If it's the third such bombing, surely this is more routine than not now, and there's no real story here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * support good updae on the article.Lihaas (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

EuroBasket Women 2011

 * Support Of course. Looks like you beat me up in nominating it. The conclusion of the strongest continental championship in women's basketball is worth posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is no more WP:ITNR than the WNBA championship is. Which is to say, it isn't. I'm inclined to oppose unless we get a particularly good, prose-filled article written within the next couple of days. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support news coverage, page view, notability.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Share– a– Power[citation needed] 12:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've updated the section about the final inserting some prose to report the timeline of the game with additional information for the both teams.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the most important international competitions in women's basketball, a big sport in Europe. Article has been sufficiently updated with prose. Nanobear (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not sure how much interest there is among our readers, and the article is in terrible shape. It's all tables and lists with very little actual prose content. And there's one sentence about the final that I can see. RxS (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a situation seems normal for sports articles. And actually there are three paragraphs about the final down the page. As far as I remember, this volume of prose was just enough to be posted on ITN few months ago. Grey  Hood   Talk  18:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've expanded intro a bit, so that there would be less confusion about whether and where the article was updated. Grey  Hood   Talk  19:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should modify the wording in the blurb to include both, the main article and the section about the final. Sounds better to me something like:
 * --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed the blurb according to your proposal, however if someone feels it is overlinked feel free to amend, of course. Grey  Hood   Talk  20:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh... 5,000 people watched in an arena with the capacity of 13,800? I don't think people here would like to post any event from this list save for the NBA, NHL and Euroleague. zzzz – H T  D  22:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that we didn't post the 2010 Fiba Woman's World Championship.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't think the guys here would post the Olympics (this is a qualifying tournament to that) either. – H T  D  10:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the World Championships also are some kind of qualifying tournaments, so should we post every Olympic competition alone?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * World Championships are not "some kind of a qualifying tournaments" as it already is the world championship so it won't make sense for a world championship to be a qualifying tournament, although in FIBA's case the world champions qualify for the next Olympics, while the Olympic gold medalists qualify for the next world championship (think of it in the old FIFA World Cup format where the defending champion doesn't have to qualify).
 * And Olympic basketball would never be posted as long as the USA wins -- we'd settle for the next best thing, the Worlds, where the best players didn't play the last time around, but that was also laughingly opposed.
 * So we're stuck in a situation for basketball where the top international tournament where the best players play (the Olympics) won't be posted at the ITN, but the next best thing (the Worlds, in theory these two are equal) is posted with some opposition, and we post the EuroBasket (for men), an intercontinental championship that doubles qualifying tournament where oddly, the tournament where this year's champions go won't be posted (2012 Olympics). Almost the same situation for the distaff side, although it's worse as no tournaments are to be posted. – H T  D  15:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article has almost no text, and the event is not very important. Mocctur (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Thai general election, 2011
Need update, though. Blurb: Further note: Preu Thai has won 249 seats -- they need 251 enough seats for an outright majority. – H T  D  13:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Pheu Thai Party led by Yingluck Shinawatra wins a landslide majority in the Thai general election, against the Democrat Party led by Abhisit Vejjajiva.
 * I took liberty to tweak the blurb a bit. --125.25.128.206 (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno what's the benefit of adding "incumbent" as it's understood that by stating that he is Prime Minister that he is the incumbent. – H T  D  17:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note WP:ITNR item – notability can be assumed established unless contradicted. --hydrox (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. A very important election, particularly given its decisive outcome and the fact that Vejjajiva conceded Yingluck Shinawatra's victory.. So it looks like this election will result in resolving the long-standing political stalemate in Thailand. However, the article Thai general election does need to be properly updated first, before this entry can be posted. After it is updated, I believe that a speedy posting will be in order. Nsk92 (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - reoccurring. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   15:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --bender235 (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yesss indeed. Red shirts rule! (modified blurb)-- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. There are so many things that were notable about these elections that unfortuately can't really be summed-up in one sentence. Failing that, can we at least mention that this is the country's first female prime minister? I hate that we just rehash the result and fail to mention what's notable about it.  Night  w   08:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest blurb: Pheu Thai win majority in the 2011 Thai general election, with its leader Yingluck Shinawatra becoming the first female prime minister. --hydrox (talk)
 * Support Article looks ready. --hydrox (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

[Pulled] STL arrest warrants

 * Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Objections to what? No-one has made a case for posting this. Kevin McE (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what exactly you mean, but I take that as a sort of "no comment", unless you are actually saying this nomination is somehow invalid. If no one else objects, I am going to post in a few hours since it is getting old already (June 30). The article is fairly extensive, and although it has one tag it doesn't appear to be a serious issue. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At first glance, this looks interesting, but who are the subjects of these warrants? If they're top brass whose loss would seriously hurt Hezbollah, I'd supportm but a little more information would be nice. Also, which part of the STL article has been updated? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The updated section is Special_Tribunal_for_Lebanon. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The update looks decent and if these are, as the article says, the first arrest warrants against Hezbollah members, I'd say that's pretty significant. A blurb along the lines of Hezbollah rejects the first arrest warrants ever issued for four of its members would probably be better, but support. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait.. where did you get all that "first arrest warrants" stuff? These are the first arrest warrants issued by the STL, a UN-backed criminal court investigating the death of former MP of Lebanon operating within the framework of Lebanese law but based in Hague, but definitely not the first arrest warrants against members of Hezbollah as an organization. --hydrox (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting topic, article is in great shape. RxS (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose two votes vs. many questions is hardly a consensus, and the article is a mess... I have to side with all the concerns raised in the discussion above. Crnorizec (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is a bit messy, I agree. I did not vote as nominator because I was hoping for 3rd opinion to help form my own opinion, and I was quite surprised that it got posted so fast actually (which, BTW, is good practice for less controversial, less complicated topics). Secondly, the blurb was hardly discussed at all. I would have preferred my original blurb that was purposely worded in the most neutral way, just stating the obvious fact recognized by all parties, while Hezbollah's position to "reject" arrest warrants is hardly well-received by the international community (terrorist organization according to US, UK, Israel, but not EU). Though, now that its been posted on the Main page for several hours, changing it serves no point, but I would kind of suggest letting this item go without faint of heart as soon as new materials become available. --hydrox (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pulled. The event your original blurb describes actually happened on June 30; that is already too old now, which is why I had to reword it. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, I do not agree that it "got posted so fast". It took more than 24 hours since your nomination. Perhaps we should wait for a week then? Please notice how often ITN gets criticized for being stagnant. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Wimbledon

 * Support: As nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Tone 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please go to Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news to explain the inconsistency between how we wrote names in this blurb.--Avala (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No.1
Tomorrow Djokovic assumes the No.1 position so the blurb should then be updated to include this information. Any objections?--Avala (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Changes in rankings are not automatically ITNworthy, that change in rank was not dependent on him wining this event, and the blurb would become too long.  Kevin McE (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye
Klitschko won with a unanimous points victory. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  07:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article needs an update on the fight itself. Otherwise Support, as the fight seems to have unified all or most of the heavyweight titles, [POV]although these days the heavyweight division has about as much legitimacy as George W Bush's election in 2000[/POV]. --Johnsemlak (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per its special significance as a match that led to the unification of the titles.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Grey  Hood   Talk  13:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per previous; important boxing match. --hydrox (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article isn't really fit to be on the main page. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo and Serbia

 * might be interesting with a Djokovic result tonight..Lihaas (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The blurb seems awfully vague. Is there anything specific and of significance that can be mentioned in the blurb itself?--WaltCip (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - political progress in the conflict. itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it's a modest step in a long-term conflict. Serbian officials still publicly discuss about splitting of Kosovo, so this agreement is with limited political implications. Crnorizec (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Itamar Franco, former President of Brazil, dies

 * Comment I'm pretty new here at wp.en - first blurb I nominate - but I have some experience at wp.pt. I don't believe the death of a former president is something this wikipedia will see diferently than we do there. Since he "was in a high-ranking office of power, and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region", being the president who launched the "Plano Real" in 1994, and stabilized a economy, ending a instability that begun in 1986, I think we should include him in the ITN. Brazilian real has been the currency since then - Between 1986 and 1994 the country had four different currencies, and inflation rates changed from one hour to the other. Franco and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Minister of Economy at the time and the president who followed him, changed that. This was announced about ten minutes ago, so I will update the nomination with sources from other countries as they appear - Maddox (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support sounds significant, and he's the president of a major country. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I usually oppose deaths, but I'll give this one in principle support: he was the President of a large and significant country for a reasonable period and he was politically active at the time of his death. The article isn't perfect -- there are some unsourced sections -- but I think it is ok enough to post. There's little obvious POV.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Death of a president. Brazil is a big country. South America doesn't appear on ITN enough. -- can  dle • wicke  23:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus seven days of mourning and his body to lie in state. -- can  dle • wicke  23:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The death section needs some more prose. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All the details surrounding his death are there. What else should be included? Maddox (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Expanded a bit more. Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Illinois abolishes the death penalty

 * The U.S state of Illinois abolish the death penalty effectivly shutting down its death row unit, with the governor of the state commuting the sentences of the 15 men on death row to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Illinois is a well known state, and abolition of the death penalty is a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support good news. Ranked 5th by population. Chicago one of the biggest cities in the USA. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Share– a– Power[citation needed] 12:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose the state's had a moratorium since 2000 so this realistically changes nothing. Maybe if a state like Texas or Florida we could post it. Hot Stop (c) 13:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment needs an article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 *  Weak support Oppose per lack of coverage even in Illinois (16:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)). I was going to give stronger support, since abolition of the death penalty would seem fairly significant and capital punishment is permanently the subject of heated debate, both within the US and globally (or at least within what we call the "developed world"). Given there's been a moratorium for some 11 years, the effect isn't as significant, but I think the signing of a complete abolition into law is still pretty significant. The as-yet-non-existent-Capital punishment in Illinois or Capital punishment in the United States would seem like good places for an update. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, capital punishment is NOT permanently the subject of heated debate within most of the "developed world". Most of the developed world abandoned capital punishment long ago and the issue has faded from significance in most countries. This is an American issue, only relevant to the rest of the "developed world" in the way it might affect the image of the USA in the rest of that "developed world". Personally, I doubt that most of it will notice. I'm in no position to judge how significant it is within the USA. I'll leave that to the locals. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I would support this if only there were a more reasonable background to do so. But since it is valid only to a federal subject in a country with 37 others out of 50 tolerating the death penalty, I don't think that it'll quicken the abolishment on a higher level.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose on timeliness grounds. Quinn signed the bill eliminating the death penalty in Illinois in March and commuted all outstanding death sentences at the same time. The fact that abolition takes effect today is not news. The Fox News story cited above describes this non-event the same way a lot of the press coverage does: "quiet". If we were going to cover this, we should have done so in March.--Chaser2 (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose As a person residing in Illinois, this hasn't even made the local papers. I would be curious to see if it's been given any international attention. 75% of the states still have the death penalty, and there is also a federal death penalty valid in all states. However, as the United States is one of very few "first world" countries to still have a death penalty, there might be more international reaction than local reaction. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  18:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barely even news in Illinois (check out the online Chicago Tribune, for example). The more significant Illinois developments have already occurred. While I'm not alleging anyone here is motivated by POV, trumping up, on the main page, fairly insignificant "milestones" in abolishing the death penalty risks creating that appearance. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support on notability considerations, however, I don't see a substantive enough update anywhere, and indeed adding sufficient coverage to either article linked would probably be disproportionate in context. Therefore in the absence of a more specific article it has to be an oppose. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it doesn't appear to be featured in the local media according to the above and because other parts of the country are still killing. -- can  dle • wicke  23:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Padmanabhaswamy Temple treasure

 * Support billions of rupees is a lot of money and the treasure is supposed to be worth over $500 million. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Highly interesting item, treasure is always interesting. People will read this, and it's a pretty good article. Per nom, nice change of topic. Looks well updated, at least within in spirit if not letter (and it might meet the letter also) RxS (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I used to think that treasure is found only in the movies; this deserves to be in ITN. However, it would be good if we get an actual figure (however rough). Billions of rupees is kinda vague. This would be a nice change from the politics.  Lynch 7  15:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Per MikeLynch. Good point. Maybe we could delay until we have a final estimate. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ALT: Treasure worth ₹100,000 crore (US$22.4 billion) is found at Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerela, India. (Source: Deccan Herald, Google Calculator) Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer the alt blurb significantly, marking [Ready] as the article is suitably updated. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Any other sources (preferably the well-known, highbrow, reputable type) for the figure. I can live with using Google for the conversion to USDs (that'll be rounded for the blurb anyway), but if that were in an article about this find, I'd be happier. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How 'bout The Economic Times. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great. But what does "unofficial estimate" mean? Does it mean they haven't finished the inventory or that it's just guesswork? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We could go for the BBC estimate of 2500 crore Rupees, and say "at least" so say  -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments: It appears that the updated section has several issues. I removed [Ready]. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed most of them. It should be ready now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it that Euro is used as a comparison? On the English Wikipedia, the USD or even British pound would be much better choices. Vrinan (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, some English-language countries use the Euro (Ireland, Malta), but I agree that USD would be better. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good post. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sudanese Army invades Libya

 * Any thoughts? --BorgQueen (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Google news searching Sudan and Libya isn't giving me very much right now. Wait till we see if the media makes a big deal out of this / if initial reporting is accurate? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that. I think the media doesn't know what to make of it. I will take care of updating the article if there is a development. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   06:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - If media mentions it big within the next 24 hours.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. One country invading another country is a significant development. -- can  dle • wicke  23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Wimbledon Championships - Women's Finals

 * Support: As nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I gave conditional support last time round on the proviso that it wasn't then bumped when the men's result was known.  It was.  That has the effect of prolonging the entry's feature on ITN, and given ITNR items receive less scrutiny in the first place, and there is at least some sentiment there is too much sport on there already, I would prefer waiting until the conclusion rather than have this lingering around at the expense of something else where there is a more substantial consensus.  ITNR tag removed since ITNR is very clear that interim results are not ITNR items.  Crispmuncher (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't want it bumped you have to do more than make a comment in the thread - discuss it on WT:ITN, its a legitimate point, but that's the home for it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominated event is a pre-approved recurring item, meaning it is considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN. If you wish to challenge the importance of the item that should be done so on the recurring items talk page.
 * Who wrote this? In any case, it clearly is not.  ITNR is very specific: the head of the sports section states "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the tournament or series".  The conclusion, not ongoing drips and drabs.  The pre-existing consensus is therefore against posting.  If you want to challenge that you take it up on WT but that is the situation as is exists now. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC).
 * The conclusion of the women's series is today, and the men's series is tomorrow. This wouldn't be "ongoing dribs and drabs" if this was posted before the end of the mens event and it means items get posted promptly as well - I have no issue with your idea that the item shouldn't be bumped after the mens event, and frankly I think its a good one, but the place to suggest it is WT:ITN - I will do so myself if you don't after this event is over. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not change it back to "no". If you want to challenge the importance of this, item that should be done so on the recurring items talk page. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support both - Reoccurring item. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   03:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * npo it is not an itnr nowr is there precedentl . AFTER the mens fnal then it gets posted.Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is ITNR, and should be posted after the Women's singles. However, after the result of the men's finals, the blurb should be updated to reflect both the results. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes agree with Avenue, like we did with Roland Garros.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Share– a– Power[citation needed] 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The precedent is that the winner of the women's final gets posted after the womens final if there is an update and that's what happened with the French open. If you guys wish to challenge that start at thread on WT:ITN. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It will be less than 10 seconds until it will be updated after the finish.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Share– a– Power[citation needed] 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support actually I wanted to put this, but you were faster... let's hope Sharapova wins :P!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Share– a– Power[citation needed] 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It doesn't do our readers any good to wait. Why purposefully wait a day to post an item? Post it, and update it with the mens final as it happens. To wait is to value bureaucracy over the needs of our readers. RxS (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Marking [Ready]. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Note to admins: possible images are this one or this one. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not ready, needs a 5 sentence/3 reference update. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There aren't three references or five sentences in the entire article. It's just a lot of pretty tables. This comes up quite often, and the best workaround seems to be to update the athlete's article (assuming it's in otherwise reasonable shape. NB: There is precedent for posting the women's ahead of the men's, but I don't see anything that obliges us to (ITN doesn't work by stare decisis). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added the refs. How about now? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we need prose and references. Unreferenced prose won't be posted and nor will referenced tables with no (or very little) prose, and since this article is about the entire women's singles tournament, I'd expect to see decent prose on the whole tournament as well as a paragraph about the final and the winner. Like I said, probably easier to update the player's article. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The player article is updated. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 WPA World Nine-ball Championship

 * Support: As nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Yukio Akakariyama needs to be created though. – H T  D  18:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, spelling for some of the names is a real pain in the ass. Such as for the champ, either its Akakariyama or Akagariyama (the official website uses both -- I think it's like the letters "k" and "g" sound alike Japanese like "r" and "l" but I may be wrong). Don't forget those Taiwanese whose names change depending on who organizes the event (Is it "Kuo" or "Ko"?), and if they defect to China. – H T  D  19:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How did this get on ITNR? 38 google news hits; 300 page views the day of the final.  The event that shall not be named is far more deserving than this.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the first time there had been a article on this on the week of the event, so people may not have known the article even existed (LOL). I was even more surprised that it got that enough page views. With that, I'm willing to wait on next year though before this gets to be posted. This is fairly a big sport in Taiwan and the Philippines, has a following in the U.S. and some parts of Europe. – H T  D  00:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Chilean student protests
This is being reported everywhere. Diego Grez (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. 80,000 is a lot, "biggest protests in 20 years", clashes with police, seems big enough for Chile, very few South American ITNs recently. -- can  dle • wicke  22:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support 80,000 is a pretty big number, and biggest protests since the fall of Pinochet makes them pretty notable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article isn't there yet. RxS (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article still needs a bit more work. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as per above previously said. Very huge number of protesters that hail it as the greatest in the previous 20 years is a big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: The article does not mention "80,000" anywhere. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to 100k here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Article appears ready, major protest. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 19:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're too late on this one. It was on 30 June, and the last posted item on the template is 1 July. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Strauss-Kahn released from home arrest

 * Comment What do you think? This is surely a surprising turn in the process, although nothing has been ruled yet. On the other hand, we prominently featured his arrest originally. --hydrox (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We have a general rule that we wait for the final verdict, which we admittedly chose not to follow at the time of the initial arrest.  I can understand that decision as a one off, but we don't then need a running commentary of this case in ITN.  I say we should now wait for the final verdict or (as is looking far more likely) the charges are formally dropped. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Support WP was quick to jump on the story of his arrest now make good when he's freed; this is big news in the US and France and no doubt elsewhere. The complete and utter vindication may yet await, but this allows him to run for president of France, which some believe the prevention of which was the whole impetus behind how he was publicly arrested. Very reminiscent of the Duke scandal, prosecutors taking high-profile targets accuse them of sex crimes vouching for the veracity of complaining witnesses and left holding the bag. Fair's fair; since we saw fit to sully the guy, now own up to our own rush to judgment and publish the favorable development. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How did we "sully his name"? We reported that he had been held without bail. That is a fact.  He has not been vindicated - that may come later: he is still facing these charges. It has no bearing on the French presidency since the next court date scheduled is after the deadline for him to put himself forward. Alleging some conspiracy based on groundless speculation is not what ITN is about. Of does it not matter if we really do sully the names of others? Crispmuncher (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Oppose for now, since the release from house arrest is less important than the final judgement. If he actually runs for president, or is declared not guilty, then it should of course be posted. Thue | talk 19:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No objections to that, but I am still concerned that we might have to wait months before a verdict, and even then there remains a possibility of an appeal. --hydrox (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that we posted the initial affair, we do have a moral obligation to post if the charges are dismissed, or the verdict in the event this goes to trial. I have no opinion as to the merits of posting this particular event. Cenarium (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe wikipedia has any "moral obligations" to Strauss-Kahn (or anyone else featured in ITN), since what was featured was based on reliable sources. What I do believe is that the veredict would be noteworthy. This release is by no means significant. Procedure isn't exceptional, and wikipedia's ITN is not a newspaper. In a similar situation, I've objected posting the request for a arrest warrant for Gaddafi in pt.wp for the same reason: it's procedure. Strong oppose. Maddox (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We do have a moral obligation towards living people, independently of sourcing. Cenarium (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but where have we broken our policies or assumed any responsibility to comment on any minor development in the case? All we have done so far is report the fact that he has been arrested and detained.  We made no inferences at the time - that is where BLP comes in.  Unless we have made some kind of factual error there is nothing to correct or clarify, particularly when there is little of substance here: once again he is still facing those charges and still may not leave the US. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Support this is a big enough story that it made the Economist as a "shit this is happening now and we don't have an article" section on the left hand side. Its therefore clearly highly notable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose (as I opposed the initial posting of his arrest as premature). The suggestion that we need to redress balance seems to assume that the reader is using this as his/her main or only news source.  Let's hope no-one does that....  Kevin McE (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support since we published the arrest, we must publish the release. It's a basic principle in news editing. Crnorizec (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a journalist but I'm not certain that such a principle exists throughout journalism. Certainly there's a principle that the media should correct errors if they have reported erroneously.  But if the media have accurately reported the facts previously, I assume they have the right to decide whether the release has appropriate news value.  In ANY case, ITN is not a news service.  ITN does not need to follow the same principles the news media do.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as this is both big news in the international media and an important follow-up to the original arrest story. Jus  da  fax   05:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this is BIG news, I think we'll be right back here with even bigger news in two weeks when the parties are back in court to discuss the future of the case. There is substantial talk that the charges will be dismissed or greatly reduced at that time. With that a possibility in the near future I think we're probably better off waiting until then to have another blurb on this case. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  06:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Changes to bail conditions are not ITN-worthy. He has not been "released". His bail conditions have been relaxed. He still can't travel outside the US. I agree with the commenter immediately above - the reportable news will presumably come shortly if prosecutors drop the charges.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another interesting twist. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 royal tour of Canada



 * Support, as nominator. As it is their first Royal tour, and 1,300 journalists are on the tour, it's an internationally watched event. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, as a Canadian. This is a really big deal here. It is the couple's first official tour outside of the UK and is talked about as being as important - if not moreso - than the first tour by Charles and Diana. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 01:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. We've posted the engagement and the wedding.  They are not heads of state (visits by actual heads of state are generally not posted).  There's no particular historical significance here.  And the article is a strong candidate for AfD IMO, as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Johnsemlak, I'm not sure what the story is here. I can see some circumstances where a head of state's tour somewhere might make it but not this. I'm not seeing any significance in this. RxS (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support We ignore Canada too much. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. per johsemlak. surely more interesting things happen in Canada.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Responding to those last TWO posts, yes, we need Canadian content, but not the visit of a couple of foreigners. HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While foreign residents, they are the future King and Queen of Canada. --  Zanimum (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Has anyone looked at the article? It's basically an itinerary of the trip which looks like it was copied from someone's day planner.  This article shouldn't exist. (though it has some nice pictures)  It will have zero significance in a year's time.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. When he's king, I'll support. Until then, it's not a significant event. That, and the fact that the article reads like tabloid gossip. Did you hear that "Catherine might wear 40 outfits on the trip?" It's in the lede.  Night  w   04:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cf. Barack Obama's visit to India, an article that was turned down at ITN and deleted aswell. This is the same, even less significant in terms of consequence.  Night  w   04:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note my comments to this point, further below. --  Zanimum (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose' - not significant enough an event, especially when there's a Royal Wedding taking place today. Mjroots (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No offence, but Monaco has 35,000 people, about 7% of the population of my suburban town, or less than 0.1% of Canada's population. Thus the first official tour of the future Queen of Canada seems important to slightly more people. Never mind that she'll be the future Queen of the Commonwealth, which Wikipedia lists as having a population of 2.1 Billion. --  Zanimum (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not visit by a head of state or a major official with real power. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 05:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't have real power, but their representative in Canada can and has recently shaped the course of democracy our country. --  Zanimum (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose – what if the couple visits the US, Australia, India, and all the Commonwealth countries, would they all be nominated for the main page? <b style="background:HotPink;color:white;">Sp33dyphil</b>  "Ad astra" 06:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they shouldn't. There have only been two tours of Canada in the last 60 years that would be front page:
 * Princess Elizabeth visited Canada and Washington DC in 1951, on behalf of her ailing father, her first official tour not as just a groupie for dad. In this tour, she basically was proving herself as someone able to take over the crown in the near future. This tour means the same for William and Catherine, in their first tour as a couple. With royalty's relevance being questioned, this tour is allowing William and his commoner bride a chance to prove themselves relevant to future generations of Canadian and Brits, and thus help ensure the continuance of constitution monarchy.
 * In 1982, for signing the Constitution Act.
 * Otherwise, none of the other royal tours would be of equal note. --  Zanimum (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason I gave when I nominated it for deletion that is Royals go on tours, that's part of the job spec. Wikipedia is not a news source, and this trip has no implications in significant changes in international relations, law, etc. and following on from the precedent listed above for Barack Obama's visit to India. Mtking (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose just because he is Obama and he is staying in a hotel doensn't make this all that notable. . Hot Stop (c) 15:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What does Obama have to do with it?--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Check the link. One of the two people to support this item opposed the previously mentioned Obama trip to India on those grounds. Hot Stop (c) 16:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Obama related items tend to get a lot of knee-jerk opposes.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ain't it astounding to see this article on the way of being kept while the Obama one was deleted? Teehee. – H T  D  19:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly the Obama article probably should have been kept as well, but I still think the argument that that makes it not notable for ITN is legitimate. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that Obama's deleted article is an irrelevant comparison to begin with, as the future of the United States being a federal presidential constitutional republic wasn't at stake, just trade. Ultimately, it's not too much of a stretch to say that the popularity of constitution monarchies are at stake with this tour, at least in the Commonwealth. --  Zanimum (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a Canadian. No, we don't feature the country very much, but this isn't really the event to do that with. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Would have been nice for Canada Day, but that was yesterday. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Revised blurb: Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and wife Catherine tour Canada on their first royal tour, attracting over 500,000 at one Canada Day event.