Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 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.

Hugo Chávez health issue

 * Oppose for now. Cancer is not exactly a death sentence these days. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Egyptian revolution



 * At least 66 people are injured in violent clashes between protesters and security forces in Cairo's Tahrir Square. (Al Jazeera) (McClatchy via Sacramento Bee)
 * Support - as nominator. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - major news.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. More than 1,036 people injured actually. This seems a significant enough development for Egypt as it has not been in the news as much as Libya or Syria recently. -- can  dle • wicke  22:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So we need a blurb and the article needs a lil updating. Also managed to find 3 photos on injured protesters during the event; 1)File:Treating an injured man in Tahrir during the June 28.jpg 2)File:Injured Protester near Tahrir Square during the June 28.jpg 3)File:Protester Waleed during the June 28.jpg 4)File:Braving Tear Gas near the AUC during the June 28.jpg. We can use anyone you see fit -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose civil unrest is rampant, the article says that authorities confronted "5,000 rock-throwing protesters in central Cairo late Tuesday" yet the article on the revolution itself had 3 categories on how peaceful it all was/is until I removed those (now obviously) inaccurate POV categories. Apart from the mundanity of revolutionaries finding out that the new boss is same as the old boss, these articles are not in good shape for the update proposed until the POV is totally removed (a few category deletions is nothing but a start of chipping away at it). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since, the proponent of this ITN has a POV he wants us to push for him - that this revolution is non-violent, he replaced the categories - so if nothing violent occurs there, there's no news and WP is not a propaganda tool. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Support -- 41.130.237.176 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose and dispute the ready designation. A big protest for sure, but nothing that's qualitatively different than what's happened in the past and no indication that anything significant will result. Also, the updated section reads like a news report. Posting this would treat ITN like a headline news service. RxS (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not ready; it is still in categories that extol its non-violence, contrary to the news item that we are debating; it needs updating if this is news at all. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Whitey Bulger

 * Number 3 longest serving member of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives is arrested last week and is being arraigned in Massachusetts. Major crime figure.  All over the news for the past week or so.  -- Jayron  32  17:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been posted on ITN recently. -- can  dle • wicke  17:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Scratch this then.  I musta missed that one.  Never mind.  -- Jayron  32  17:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] (re-nomination) Wedding of Albert II, Prince of Monaco, and Charlene Wittstock

 * The Wedding of Albert II, Prince of Monaco, and Charlene Wittstock will take place at the Prince's Palace in Monaco on July 1 and July 2.
 * And corrected the dates this time;P--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Support obviously, The Monarchy there is head of state. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - as nominator.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Support per above. This wedding appears to be on time. -- can  dle • wicke  17:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I might be jumping to conclusions here but my gut instinct is Strong oppose. This is the mere wedding of the Prince of Monaco, not a new head of state.  Monaco is a micro-state mainly significant has a gambling and tax haven--it barely qualifies as a sovereign state.  I see this as equal in significance to the marriage of a powerful CEO, which wouldn't be considered.  Also I don't see any mention of this on teh BBC and it would appear that this is a more significant story.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support the most glamorous and the richest country in the world, and the Grimaldi dynasty runs the principality since 1297. Crnorizec (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Love a good royal wedding. - JuneGloom  Talk  21:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - A wedding in a high profile monarchy. Also agree with various points from above, mostly with the rich old dynasty point. Rain the One  BAM 22:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - A wedding in of a head of state. Mtking (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Wedding of a head of state. Yk3 talk ~ contrib 05:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Royal Wedding involving a reigning monarch should be an ITN/R item. Far more notability than someone who isn't even next in line to he throne enjoying a beano abroad at the taxpayer's expense. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support First marriage of the reigning monarch of a famed, if tiny, nation. And, to User:Johnsemlak, Yes, you're jumping to conclusions, jumping straight over the last sixty years.  Albert's father, Prince Rainier, brought extraordinary economic growth to Monaco; while gambling accounted for more than 95 percent of the country's revenues in the first half of the last century, Rainier expanded the country's economy to where, at his death in 2005, gambling accounted for only three percent of revenues.  Vatican City is pretty small too, but if the Pope got married, we'd post it. ;)  Abrazame (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Abrazame--thanks for the response; most other people didn't bother and just posted 'support--big wedding' or something. My concerns are somewhat allayed but I'll note that the significance attached to Rainier doesn't extend to Albert.  I take your point about the expansion of Monaco's economy (though I still believe it's primarily known as a tax haven and gambling resort).  But Monaco remains a semi-independent country with no military to speak of and no currency (ok, lots of countries use the Euro but the Monaco simply use it as an attachment of France, not as an independent member of the Eurozone).  So I'm not entirely in agreement that Albert's status as head of state grants him any automatic ITN status.  Another concern I had is that there's an article on this wedding but Rainier's wedding with Grace Kelley, surely much more notable, doesn't have an article. That smacks of WP:RECENTISM.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It probably is recentism, but there's nothing stopping you from writing an article on that wedding. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe its time to post it now.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

(withdrawn) Wedding of Albert II, Prince of Monaco, and Charlene Wittstock

 * The Wedding of Albert II, Prince of Monaco, and Charlene Wittstock will take place in Monaco on July 1 and July 2.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Im nominating this news now so a consensus can be reached before tomorrow on this.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose happened nearly a month ago according to the nom ;-) The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Today is the 30th and ITN doesn't go that far. -- can  dle • wicke  14:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * People here obviously didn't go to the article. LOL! – H T  D  14:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I noticed and gave BabbaQ poke about it.The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes nominators have to be careful hehe – H T  D  14:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oooooooops sorry guys. My mistake.. Its ofcourse july hehe.. Changed it.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn this one and re-nominated it for it to be fair.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed HTD and I should probably arrange a fish fry in your honor The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] World's longest cross-sea bridge opens

 * Support, clearly a notable infrastructure project. Thue | talk 11:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support Very important and a pure ITN item. We should post more such records as they occur.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * List of longest bridges is a bit of mess, is there a more specific list we can link to? The article on the bridge itself is reasonable, but I'd like to see a bit more substance (and certainly more than one source) before this is posted. Not often we get to post an engineering story... HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed the tag from the List of longest bridges in the world. Certainly there are few places that need more of clean-up, but the tag was very old and outdated and the article seems to have been improved significantly over time. Also I've added one more source and few more lines. Grey  Hood   Talk  15:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support clearly a notable achievement for the Chinese worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support notable project. Crnorizec (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment needs more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been expanded. Marking ready, if I get the procedure right. Grey  Hood   Talk  10:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 10:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Beijing–Shanghai High-Speed Railway opens
AFP,Wall Street Journal.

According to our article its due to open at 3pm Beijing time, or 07:00 UTC. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article is in decent shape; however, Beijing–Shanghai_High-Speed_Railway could use some references.  Spencer T♦ C 01:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is irrelevant as it isn't the section being targeted. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Didnt we just discuss this a couple months ago? When it was completed? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake it was the Kunming–Singapore Railway. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * On the fence Its not record breaking, New technological break throughs, nothing terribly special about it other than running between two major cities. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for probably being the biggest single transport infrastructure project since the Channel Tunnel. The longest high speed line ever opened in a single section etc. etc. In terms of long term usefulness given it links two cities of 20 million apiece (and Nangjing on the way has 8 million) its probably the most useful high-speed line opened since the Tōkaidō Shinkansen back in the 1960's. As its only open for services starting over a 13 hour period (given the 5 hour run) the Chinese are running nearly 7 trains an hour on the line, which is a huge number. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - A major step toward curbing pollution in the world worst polluter. Will some forward thinking people please construct something similar in the world's second worst polluter? Marcus Qwertyus   04:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - This is the most import HSR corridor in China. And I am currently waiting for the first train in Beijing South Station. I will update with photos on my Twitter. All my photos of this trip will be released in CC-BY. Feel free to use them here on Wikipedia as I am on my phone, not easy to upload them on the go. Python eggs (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given its about to open and its a minority topic marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 07:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Brighest Object in the Galaxy found yet.
Good News: According to an article in Nature a quasar has been declare the bightest object in the Galaxy. bad news: After reading Quasar I still have no idea what one is... The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As pointed out by following comments, this is the farthest and brightest observed astronomic body in the Universe, as opposed to our Galaxy. --hydrox (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support There's no update that I can detect yet, but this is an interesting story and the main quasar article is in decent shape. RxS (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Very interesting, notable, and a minority topic.--WaltCip (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Sounds well worthy of posting. The brightest object in the galaxy seems well worth posting. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the update? --BorgQueen (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Astrophysics are way out of my league, Does this thing deserves its own article? I really dont know... The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I put in a request at WP:RDS for some of our resident astrophysics experts to maybe pitch in and lend a hand in developing this. Any ideas on a Wikiproject we could notify as well?  -- Jayron  32  01:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I dropped a note for User:Modest Genius to visit, he has PhD in relatively the same topic area. MG edits have been sporadic recently so if any one else knows something please jump in. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. An important implication for the early universe. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 01:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Aghh! My eyes. Marcus Qwertyus   02:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Resident Anthropologist for drawing my attention to this. Some points:
 * 1) That's not in the galaxy. Not by a very long way. In fact the interesting bit is how far away it is (see below).
 * 2) Quasars are a form of active galactic nucleus, caused by a feeding supermassive black hole at the centre of another galaxy.
 * 3) The brightness of this quasar is nothing new. What is a record is its distance (measured by the redshift) - higher than any previously known quasar. Two galaxies and one gamma ray burst are the only objects known at higher redshifts.
 * 4) The quasar should probably have its own article, ULAS J1120+0641, as most record-breaking redshift objects do.
 * 5) This is a confirmed spectroscopic redshift, so it's a real measurement and not a candidate. Certainly meets my requirements for reliability in science stories.
 * 6) I support posting this. I've just finished a night of observing myself, so don't have the time to write an article now. I might be able to at some point in the next 48 hours. Modest Genius talk 02:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone at WP:RDS came up with another source, this Scientific American article, which is written in a more approachable manner. -- Jayron  32  02:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose pending urgent clarification. I admit I haven't gone through the linked articles in detail and at almost 4am local time it's far too late in the day to be doing that now, however, as Modest Genius points out, quasars are extragalactic objects.  As such the opening comments are clearly wide of the mark and mis-state its significance. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
 * We'll fix that up. The fact that this object  is of a superlative nature (highest confirmed redshift  for an object of its type, farthest object yet discovered) means that its a topic worthy of posting. That the first person  to nominate it here didn't know enough astrophysics to get the details correct  in the title  of the thread doesn't mean  the event is not ITN worthy.  When the blurb gets written, we'll be sure to  have all  the details correct.   -- Jayron  32  03:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of form, still tired, but now inebriated. That means this comment means nothing, except as an ackowledgment that I've templated it to try an get a definite proposed article and blurb out of this debate.  Crispmuncher (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Note I just put together a brief article, ULAS J1120+0641. I'm not an astronomer, but I do know something about this stuff and I'm reasonably confident that the description is not too far off the mark.  It would certainly be useful for an expert to check it over, though.  I was also unable to fill in some of the information for the infobox, because I don't actually have access to the Nature paper from home -- I worked from the abstract and from the Scientific American news account. Looie496 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Fascinating stuff.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious how to describe it, the most distant quasar and the brightest object?  RxS (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when article gets a bit more expanded with data. I guess we can assume that it is the oldest and brightest astrnomic object known. Gemini.edu source --hydrox (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per hydrox. The article needs more work and the blurb needs rewriting, but at least we mostly agree the subject is worthy.  Jus  da  fax   04:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support cause it's big. Added blurb and link to article.  The quote comes from the end of the article at  Nature.  Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Humm, my first blurb:
 * The most distant and brightest quasar found yet, ULAS J1120+0641, is discovered by European astronomers who report it origins to be less then 770 million years after the Big Bang and believe it "will remain a vital probe of the early Universe for some time."
 * is too long. Changed it to:
 * The most distant and brightest quasar found yet, ULAS J1120+0641, is discovered providing a window to study the universe just 770 million years after the Big Bang.
 * I hope that is better. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - I can't see anywhere in the paper any claim that this is the brightest astronomical object detected. Various news sources are claiming 'brightest in the early universe', which just depends how you define 'early universe'. If you mean 'beyond redshift 7', there are only 4 such objects. Other news sources are claiming 'brightest in the universe', but I think this arises from a misunderstanding of the above. The paper even compares the spectrum to other (lower-redshift) quasars of the same luminosity. Modest Genius talk 12:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So we're down to the most distant quasar? I don't think I see anything saying it's the brightest quasar. RxS (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's probably enough... being the most distant quasar means it is also one of the oldest things ever found, and the implications for connecting to the early universe seems important enough to deserve mentioning at ITN. This is very much a unique find, and not just a run-of-the-mill "Oh look, its another star" sort of things.  -- Jayron  32  14:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, I just wanted to make sure we're not claiming more than is the case. RxS (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic reports it as Early Quasar Is Brightest Object Ever Found in the Universe. The contention seems to be: since it is farthest and the light still reaches earth, it must be the most luminous. If that is correct, I don't know, but I guess we could say in Wikipedia, we calls 'em as they sees 'em. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic is wrong. The Nature paper says the quasar has a luminosity of 6.3e13 L_sun. That's above average for a quasar, but unremarkably so. Known quasars have luminosities up to at least 100 times that number (cf. e.g. ). Modest Genius talk 09:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the correct information. I looked myself, but not having any background in the area couldn't find it.  I kept finding lists of magnitudes instead of luminously. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Some regular news sources are now talking about this in layman's language, including BBC News, Wired News, and ... the Honolulu Star Advertiser. So improving the article just got a whole lot easier. It's very big, it's very bright, it's very old, and these guys have been hunting for something like it for a decade.    Sharktopus  talk  17:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Article updated to at least the current standard of 2010 Jiangxi train derailment, clear consensus above, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Seems like anything with –est is worthwhile for the main page. I thought the Sun was the brightest  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 06:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just had a once-over of the article. It's not brilliant, but certainly good enough for ITN. Ready to post, but with the following blurb:


 * Astronomers announce the discovery of ULAS J1120+0641, which has a redshift of 7.1 making it the most distant quasar yet found.
 * Modest Genius</b> talk 10:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 12:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

GRB 110328A gamma-ray burst

 * Nom - notable, an unusual eventOlegwiki (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The longest blurb ever. Please shorten. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Longest Gamma Ray Burst? Excellent, Science story. The article could use some fleshing out though and the blurb could use trimming. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose on timeliness grounds. Most sources linked to date from April. The most recent article I noticed was June 17.  Where is the current news element? Crispmuncher (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Oppose. Whilst this does appear to have been an unusual GRB, the explanation is little most than informed speculation at this point. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Greek austerity vote, protests

 * Nom Regardless of how the vote turns out, it is clearly the most notable topic of the day. --bender235 (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Sky news saying it the vote was in favour. Mjroots (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support but I'm not sure the link to "austerity measures" is particularly useful to the reader. Pedro : Chat  14:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. MPs alleging "chemical warfare" against protesters, calling it "outrageous" and that it has "assumed lethal dimensions". Sounds significant. -- can  dle • wicke  15:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The impact of these events have been rippling through the Global markets. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment We need to be clear about what the lead item is here - the protests or the passing of the austerity measures. Right now it is the former but I would argue that the significant element is the latter.  If that is the case we need better coverage of them and a change in empahsis in the blurb. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Concur. If the blue linked "austerity measures" was to Economy_of_Greece (which would need expansion) that would help - maybe even that should be the bold link? Pedro : Chat  18:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Events are spinning out of control a little, this will interest our readers. Good article, good topic. RxS (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support General strike, continuous protests and chemical warfare. This is starting look like an uprising in a 21st century EU country. --hydrox (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Article looks ready. I agree that "austerity measures" should be bolded and linked to Economy_of_Greece. Mamyles (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. Not a huge fan of the blurb; any suggestions for changing it or bolding another page? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Taliban attack political targets in hotel in Afghanistan


The Taliban kill 10 people during an attack on a Hotel InterContinental in Kabul. Truthsort (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support - was a developing story with repeat attacks throughout the day. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   22:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support - itn next.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: The update is currently too short. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Last time I checked, Afghanistan was a country in a state of war. It evades me how is ten people dying in a warzone notable, let alone strongly so. --hydrox (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just heard them say on CNN that this is where SkyNews keeps their corespondents in Afghanistan... I expect thats why its getting so much coverage The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated - <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   02:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - The update sways me; it is still brief but decent enough.  Widely reported in global media.  Attack is notable as an ITN blurb in light of Barack Obama's recent decision to begin a limited withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.  Jus  da  fax   02:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably you meant 'Kabul' and not 'Kabal'? Blurb changed accordingly. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And I assume you mean Truthsort, the nominator, not me. But while we are cleaning up matters, the blurb appears to be in error. I'm seeing 'only' seven dead in the New York Times and the LA Times has it six. Those numbers don't include the now-killed attackers, who appear to have been about six.  Jus  da  fax   03:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Veteran prime minister to retire



 * Oppose for now pending official notification from either Somare himself, his legal representation, or the PNG government directly. The language in the reference is very ambiguous, and only speaks of his "family's collective desire that Sir Michael be allowed to recover at his own pace and therefore retire".  This, if officially confirmed, would be ITN worthy, but so far this isn't a positive enough confirmation of the event, and is merely speculative in nature.  The article cited ITSELF says "Theresia Kumo, the director of the Sir Michael's media unit, told ABC News Online that reports the prime minister had resigned were incorrect.  She said Sir Michael's family was simply stating their position on his future to the public, and added that Sir Michael is still PNG's leader."  This is not a ringing endorsement.  -- Jayron  32  20:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like the 3-time PM is so close to death that he is incapable of resigning for himself. That fact alone makes it worthy of ITN exposure, if only for a few hours until more exciting/worthy news replaces it. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we don't have any confirmation that he actually retired/resigned/officially forced from office yet. We just have some family members essentially saying "He's really sick, so we're retiring him for himself" and the contradictions from his own colleagues which state he hasn't actually retired.  This will be a story soon (when he either dies or does actually retire) and if he's so close to his death bed that his official retirement or death is iminent, there's no need to "jump the gun" just to get this blurb out there early.  Take our time, get it right, and when something real happens, THEN it would be a good idea to post it.  NOW is not the time, LATER will be the time.  -- Jayron  32  03:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose until we have a successor, who would be the news... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Lagarde named IMF Chief

 * Nom. --bender235 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternate date: 5 July, when she will take office. --bender235 (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support major international organization. --hydrox (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - major story.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support major story with worldwide interest.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: The update is currently too short. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if there is much more to say than this at the moment. I think the update is starting to be sufficient; there's a considerable backstory in the article (about the nomination, at least) --hydrox (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support no question this is the biggest news story today. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Big story and comes in the wake of the scandal-ridden resignation of the previous managing director. Jus  da  fax   03:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Google antitrust lawsuit

 * Eh, companies get sued all the time, and it seems like we always only go after the tech cases. Bank of America is settling a $8,500,000,000 suit from its investors (NYT front page) and I don't see people scrambling to nominate that. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Guess it's too much of a long-shot to tie today's interface changes and Google+ into the blurb. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   04:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this - companies don't get anti-trust suits every 5 minutes. I'd like to post the new Google skin as well. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Rod Blagojevich convicted
Oppose The original story certainly made huge headlines, but it's still a corruption case involving a governor of a single state of a single country. If all high-level politicians found guilty of corruption had their stories put on ITN, then we'd have a fair few from various countries around the world posted pretty frequently. Franklinville (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support These were political convictions of corruption against the govenor of the one of the biggest states in the world's most powerful superpower. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does the US being a superpower have anything to do with this? At the end of the day, this story's practical effects relate only to Illinois. Franklinville (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose For two reasons, firstly Rod Blagojevich is not notable for anything outside US/Illinois politics, only of interest to the US. Secondly, it looks like this is only Round 2 of the fight, the fist ending in a draw, this round has been won by the prosecution, I suspect that there are more rounds to come before the final result will be known. Mtking (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Legal appeals can indeed continue ad infinitum, but this is a conviction. To continue the boxing analogy I'd say that the winner has been declared by decision but the loser may contest the decision, rather than this being the 'end of round 2'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you ask the defence legal team, they would probably disagree. Mtking (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but privately they'd admit the conviction was a severe blow. I haven't followed the trial closely and IANAL, if I understand correctly he will go to prison now. The only thing to wait for is his sentencing.  (currently he's forbidden from travelling outside the Chicago area until the sentencing). So further appeals will happen with him behind bars.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect anything until you read about it. An ordinary person might get taken into custody at sentencing. George Ryan, Blago's predecessor in both governing and federal crime, stayed out on an appeal bond for 18 months between conviction and the end of his appeals.--Chaser (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose One corrupt politician, unheard of outside his own country. And can we please drop the "world's most powerful superpower" hype, or rename this page to ITN in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This is getting international coverage, but it's more of a coda to the scandal. He was long convicted in the court of public opinion.--Chaser (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interest outside the US is not an ITN requirement (though I agree being or not being a superpower is irrelevant).--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - The corruption was over Obama's former Senate seat, which 'Blago' felt was his to sell. This is a big deal, any way you slice it.  Jus  da  fax   04:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How is this of any significance outside the US and or Illinois ? Mtking (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First international news website I visited was the BBC: front page . Second international news website was Aljazeera: front page  Third I went to Reuters: front page  Fourth I went to Times of India: front page The extra notability is, as I say, that the corruption was over Barak Obama's former Senate seat, a fact which is being pointed out all around the world as you read this.   Jus  da  fax   06:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not confuse coverage by the 24hr news services with significance. Mtking (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You asked, I answered. The 'Blago' conviction is being covered in media wordwide and is of global interest, yet again, due to the hard-to-ignore fact that the U.S. Senate seat in question in the trial was last held at the time of the criminal activity by the current President of the United States.   Jus  da  fax   06:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support It is receiving international coverage on the BBC and Guardian main pages, as well as coverage on the main pages of the American news networks. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  05:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've collapsed the opposes on the grounds of US bias. That's not acceptable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh. I briefly mistook this for a mediation case where you were the mediator... Since it's not, see WP:TALKNO. Every editor has the right to express their opinion.  Night  w   07:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Within reason sure. But the continual complaints about US items that wouldn't occur for non-US items is painful and basically racist. If this was a cash for honours scandal in the UK there would be no oppose votes, even though the US senate has far more power than the house of Lords. It is perfectly possible to argue the case without claiming its US centric - e.g. by the lack of international coverage or something. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The "newsy" part of this story had passed -- when he was impeached. Apparently, there were 31.2k] views yesterday, as compared at time he was impeached when it had 150k views in 2 days, which further proves my point. I'd like to point out that "international significance," whatever that is, is no longer a part of the ITN criteria. So this boils down if it does meet the ITN criteria of "entries of timely interest—that is, encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event." – H T  D  07:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can anyone explain why it makes any difference at all that it was Obama's old seat being sold? HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess no one would care if it was one of North Dakota's Senate seats. – H T  D  11:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It mattered in the beginning because no one knew whether Blagojevich had negotiated with Obama's team to exchange the appointment for something of value from them, which seemed like a real possibility then. See Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges. I think that importance is attenuated by the subsequent investigation and mostly by the passage of time since the scandal came to light.--Chaser (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I think Obama's place is important enough, and this scandal has international coverage. Grey  Hood   Talk  18:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support This was the top world news story in The Wall Street Journal today while the Gadhafi story was only third. I don't understand how that is on ITN. I would have prefered a nomination linking directly to Rod Blagojevich corruption charges, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. How often does a governor get convicted for selling a U.S. Senate seat? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Shouldn't we link to Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have no idea how often a governor gets convicted for selling a U.S. Senate seat, and that's the point. I'm from another country, and this level of news from any country doesn't generally have an impact across national borders. HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The US is a developed country. I'd expect it to be extremely rare... How often to Australian senate seats get sold? I highly doubt it happens frequently. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you care if it did happen? HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it would show that the Australian government is highly corrupt. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hilo, whether or not we would care is irrelevant. Interest outside Australia would not be a requirement for such a story.  WP:ITN strives to post stories of interest to its readers, including Australians.  Surely you would think that such a theoretical event would be more significant than the AFL Grand Final, which is posted every year as per ITNR and is also not very significant outside Australia.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I for one would most certainly care, mainly because I never would expect it in Australia of all places.--WaltCip (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose tabloidism; he's no longer in any position of power - this is a retrial, and still not convicted on 3 charges - a third trial to come?? Are we going to post every conviction of a member of a national legislature for corruption (methinks that Tunisia, Egypt, and some others will have an ITN every week for quite some time). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Court rules on violent video game law
Significant case for the VG industry, as if the law were upheld, it would have set a standard higher than other published works and would likely have deep impact in future game development. The court decision is here, I expect within an hour to have some good articles to add and added to the main case page above. --M ASEM (t) 14:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Inclined to oppose. Perhaps DYK would be a better venue once the reactions are all in? There have been, in my mind at least, far more important decisions issued by the Supreme Court this past month: Davis v. United States, Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (which will likely end up affecting the entire US' health care market), and the WalMart class action denial, among others. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only aspect here that I think is important is that there would have been a world-wide impact on the VG industry since a majority of games are developed and published within the States, and if the case were decided in the opposite direction, the overall industry would have felt that. Other cases, which certainly are if not more important for the average US citizen, have little reach beyond the US (not to trivialize them in any way, just of the recent US-centric complaints about ITN). --M ASEM  (t) 15:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Important Free Speech case in Digital Media. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Normally I would hesitate to feature any U.S. Supreme Court decision but this particular case appears to be a rare exception since, for better or worse, many (not all, since Japan is another giant) best-selling video games are made in the U.S., therefore it does have an international impact. The update looks good too. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support article looks solidly updated, and the case looks to be significant to how video games are allowed to be sold and rated. Additionally there is international impact as BorgQueen points out. It'd be interesting to see this same principle applied to sex in video games, but I guess the US is probably too strait-laced for that. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a lawyer, but my reading on this is that standard Miller Tests apply now to video games thanks to the decision. If it is is Miller-test-"obscene", then it can be regulated as porn.  But that's neither here or there... --M ASEM  (t) 17:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment marked as a minority topic, as video games are technology. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - It's a big story and will have an impact for years to come. Article update is a good factor. Jus da  fax   20:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a law in one country. Looks incredibly US-centric. HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So is a decent percentage of what we consider posting. No-one complained that the Chilean Miners, which was featured on ITN three times last year was Chilean-centric. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, a very US-central story that doesn't have any real implications for any other country. While the gaming industry will globally see this as good news, they're still not going to get away with anything in the less "land of the free" countries. Really, the fact that the US, a country with a glowing free speech record, is, um, allowing more free speech is hardly newsworthy on a global scale.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!   20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the US gaming market is massive - its certainly in the top three along with Europe and Japan (who I'm sure between them make up 90% of the market), I'm sure this will have major impact. And while free speech is constitutionally protected the US's record on it hasn't been wildly brilliant in recent years.
 * Reporters without borders gives the US 20th for press freedom, which while decent, is hardly glowing. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comparative values on press freedom are a poor substitute for absolute numbers on freedom generally (the U.S. is always one of the countries that gets top scores from Freedom House ) or free speech in particular. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has recently been on a free speech tear. There may be other liberal democracies that afford more absolutist protection to press freedom, but the U.S. has strong free speech protections--you'll never see someone prosecuted here for denying the Holocaust.--Chaser (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite a lot of countries get top marks from Freedom house these days, and that index is also about political rights and democracy rather than straight freedom - neither is perfect frankly. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments: The current blurb has to be shortened. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment added link to Minor (law) - I've just removed an orange tag from that article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I can see the impact this could/does have per Eraserhead. I don't buy that this is too US-centric; the video game industry is international and it affects games sold in the United States whether they are made in the US or outside the US. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 23:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the others above, this is a legal story only affecting the US, other non-US legal stories in the past have been opposed for that reason so a precedent has been set. Mtking (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing Ready as has had 3 Oppose's since being marked as such vs one support. Mtking (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As a general comment to those opposing on the US centric-aspect of this, it's difficult to affirm how much an impact on the world this would have had if the ruling was the other way (that is, that it would have allows CA to restrict sales to minors based on "violent" content. The analysis goes that if this passed and affected video games, every other entertainment industry in the US would bound to be affected by it as well - not only the content makers but also the content distributors from other countries with less restrictions on free speech. Given that the US is one of the largest entertainment producers and consumers in the world, this would have had significant impacted (after a few steps in logic, granted) worldwide entertainment, in the same manner previously outlined just for video games.  I realize this case can't happen now, but this was what many in the industry were worried about.  If you do a google news search on "violent video game" you can find there are a lot of international papers covering this as well eg:  , etc.  --M ASEM  (t) 02:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: Is it feasible for VG manufacturers to produce 2 versions of a game? Like one version has less violence than the other? I suppose removing suggestive cut scenes or mini-games don't count. Anyway, this would've been easier if the court judged the other way, as that would've meant that either the VG manufacturers create two different versions of a single game, or create less violent games that will be distributed to everybody. – H T  D  05:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have. One immediate example to mind is Left 4 Dead 2, due to Australia's lack of a mature rating for video games (therefore, banning its sale), forced Valve to create a version that didn't have blood and gore like the US and other release versions. Still had you shooting up dead people, just not as "red".  Some games include filters that can be set to block blood, gore, and swearing, as well.  --M ASEM  (t) 05:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well in that case this case doesn't seem all that notable as VG manufacturers can just create different versions for each market. – H T  D  11:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, actually, that's not as simple a result (alternate versions of media have existed for decades with so called "TV edits" of movies). The cost of developing and marketing and supporting separate versions of software is far too costly to be a regular thing that if developers were under this stigma of government enforced age gates, they would like drop anything violent for sake of having something marketable. It is also the case that the law never gives any strong definition of violence, so what's simple cartoon humor to one may be aggressive and damning to another, and that would lead to a crazed rush of people demanding any game be blocked if it contains the tiniest amount of violence.  And if that passed for the VG industry, you bet that family groups would have rushed to get the same said for television, movies, and any other published media (there's a reason that MPAA and other such groups backed the VG industry in briefs to the SCourt).  The ruling of the Court maintains the status quo, which I recognize is not always a big news item, but importantly prevents a massive shift of balance between freedom of speech and states' rights involving protecting children. --M ASEM  (t) 12:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Remarking [Ready] complaining about US bias is definitely not a good argument and I don't think precedent is a good argument without a backup link. And the supporting arguments are pretty strong and its a minority topic. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing ready - how about In the news/Candidates/May 2011 as an example. Mtking (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly that item looks to be a "no-consensus" item so taking precident from it seems not really reasonable. Secondly the cases aren't comparable - the former case isn't a supreme court case and it also directly is likely to only affect tabloid tittle tattle which we usually have a dim view of. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the appropriate precedent would probably be the Indian supreme court ruling on euthanasia as that was a case at the right level. I doubt if that got a single oppose. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, a kid being able to buy Death Storm 2 on his own in California is just as important as a country of 1 billion being allowed to make decisions to end someone's life...  Night  w   11:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought we were moving on from topic bias. By that measure only deaths are ever worthy of posting. Both of these are cases heard by a similar level court with international interest. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are aware that this law is a culmination of a long road that involves things like Columbine and the like (eg the claims that violence games lead to violent and lethal behavior in youth?) --M ASEM (t) 12:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? I doubt even Mexicans cares whether teens can buy video games in California. I'd support if it was a federal thing of notability, but it's not. It's one state and it's video games. And it's a law that was in effect for a grand total of five or six years.  Night  w   12:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically the law never went into effect - its been blocked by courts since its inception, never enforced. But that just fuels the side, "who cares". I am pointing out the negative space here, the fears that major worldwide industries had if this law was found constitution in the US. It's a situation that won't happen, but there were a lot of fears that it would have been a very drastic shift in entertainment (several states were ready with their own bills to block sales of VGs, so it would have effectively become a national-upheld law, and with interstate commerce laws, ones that even more liberal states would have had to recognize; the industry would have had to mold itself to meet that law, either creating adult-only titles that they could sell or promote or stick to all-age appropriate simplistic titles; the movie and other entertainment industries would have likely expected to see similar laws on sales of DVDs and other media, creating a similar effect there, and that all affects what comes in and goes out in terms of the US entertainment import and export).  Or to get to the heart of the matter, Mexicans won't care that a kid in California couldn't buy their game, until suddenly entertainment they like from the US suddenly is no longer being produced because of such laws.   Yes, I'm fully aware of the long, hyperbole-filled chain that this follows, but this is exactly the types of analyses that were being done on this bill.  --M ASEM  (t) 12:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Far less significant than that gay marriage decision in New York, which I also opposed.  Night  w   11:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support US is the biggest game market and this could be precedent for the whole world. Grey  Hood   Talk  18:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] ICC arrest warrant for Gaddafi



 * Nom. --bender235 (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support accused of serious crimes. --Kslotte (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * did we post al-Bashir? if not it hink wed wait for the arrest (akin to Mladic). Alternatively add this as part of the ongoing libya issue. For which we can also put a sticky.Lihaas (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we posted al-Bashir. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Omar al-Bashir. -- can  dle • wicke  13:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Arrest warrant by the ICC against a ruling head of government is very significant indeed. The update looks OK; any objection to posting? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 13:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support ICC arrest warrants are always notable, especially when issued against ruling heads of states (per previous). --hydrox (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 MD
The asteroid which is bound to pass relatively close to Earth's surface at a distance of about 12,000 kilometers (7,500 mi), roughly 32 times closer than the Moon, at around 17:00 UTC. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  09:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongest support ever but post it after impact when all humans are annihilated. – H T  D  09:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support and speedy post to have it on the time of "impact" posted. --Kslotte (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --bender235 (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * we dont vote count -- you ahvenot given any reason for support.Lihaas (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A well-worded blurb please? --BorgQueen (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From The Examiner (not the greatest of sources, but it will do for now): "Although it is acknowledged this asteroid will pass very near our planet, it is not the closest; because on February 4 this year, another space object passed just there-thousand-eight-hundred miles from earth's surface. The "2011 MD" has between twenty-five and fifty feet in diameter and will be the largest object to pass close by Earth since running the small celestial bodies control program, "Near Earth Objects" (NEO)." If I remember my days of studying astronomy well, ten-meter asteroids actually hit the Earth every year or so? If someone could confirm that such a thing is actually the case, I would oppose this nomination. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 11:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Earth_impacts (relying on a Nature article), one 5-10 meter asteroid enters the Earth's atmosphere about once a year, but usually they burn up before impact. This one is estimated at 5-20 m in diameter, and asteroids of that size flyby every 6 years or so (perhaps that's the frequency estimate for the 20 meter asteroids?). Sources cited in the article conflict as to whether an object this size would make it through the atmosphere if it were actually on a collision course.--Chaser (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this is important and big enough for ITN. __meco (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Blurb suggestion: A near-Earth object 2011 MD passes about 12,000 kilometers (7,500 mi) from Earth's surface. --Kslotte (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. But I think its better if its mentioned that its passing 32 times closer than the moon.  Lynch 7  12:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the article needs more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Earth is an asteroid magnet. The pitted topography of the moon is a pretty good indicator of future events. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   21:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose If the object had hit Earth's atmosphere, it would have broken up, being about the size of van or small bus. Had it been a fair amount bigger, it would be ITN-worthy, as I see it.  It missed and is no big deal either way: the point is moot.  Jus  da  fax   06:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

[Ready] Yani Tseng



 * Note: She's the youngest golfer to win a major, male or female. – H T  D  07:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Young Tom Morris was the youngest to four at 21 years old just go look at List of The Open Championship champions to verify that fact.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Golf Channel source.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh sure. Since the 1870s. – H T  D  03:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support no reason we should be bias towards men - and we'd post this for the male tournament. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * in that case take this to ITNR talk. (and we didnt post the omwnes NVCAA ven though mens was posted)Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support a significant record on a professional level sport event. --Kslotte (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. More record-breaking Asian women needed on ITN. A record-breaking European male was posted for similar recently. This record appears to be even more significant. She also has a picture. -- can  dle • wicke  13:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Big deal for a major professional sports. Glad this was nominated, perfect for ITN. RxS (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments: The update is currently too short. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support After updating-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Share– a– Power[citation needed] 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to update it since no one else has done so. -- can  dle • wicke  23:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone? -- can  dle • wicke  13:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

River Plate
Support for now. Not sure how important it is but "River Plate into football 'abyss'" is "most popular" on the BBC website right now, it is being reported as far away as China and the United States, it's the first time it has happened, the game was "abandoned in the final minute, amid chaotic scenes", fans invaded the pitch, police fired on fans, and South America does not appear enough on ITN. -- can  dle • wicke  23:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose According to the article, River Plate as played poorly since 2008, so I wouldn't be surprised that it was relegated to the secondary league despite its decorated history. Compared to the relegation of several major club teams in the 2006 Serie A scandal, this might be underwhelming. It is an unfortunate turn of events, but it was coming. I didn't see any big names on its roster either. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 01:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is not that it was "unexpected", but that it was a rare event. It is not impossible that one of the most successful teams of a league gets demoted to a lower league, but it's very rare, a series of bad results are hardly ever so bad that they get to this. That's why so many newspapers around the world talk about it, when they would hardly say a line about Argentine football otherwise. Cambalachero (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Chelsea (say) getting kicked out of the Premiership would be a seriously big deal, I think this is worthy of posting. The Serie A scandal is different. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The system's not exactly the same, though. In England, one really bad season is all it takes. In Argentina, you'd need three bad seasons as the club performance is averaged in three years, plus they'd go through a two-legged playoff, so it's not entirely a shock if you're a fan. – H T  D  07:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to consider it a rare event, as I detailed before. Cambalachero (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the point was it was not entirely a shocker. It was a long and drawn out process. Now for rareness that's a different argument, but this being three years in the making should count somewhere. – H T  D  14:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * strong support buig first and mega-event. No 33-time champion has been demoted.Lihaas (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Article updated. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * support - major sport event I have realised.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm on fence on this, but don't have a strong feeling either way. But I will say the article appears to be poorly referenced, fwiw. RxS (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The update is referenced however. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose No significance outside Argentine football, teams get routinely relegated. This team looks like it is been playing poorly for a while. Mtking (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me change that to Strong Oppose Coverage, but zero significance. Mtking (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. Manchester United getting kicked out of the Premier League would have zero significance. Get real. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Argentine Primera División is not the English Premier League nor is it the Spanish La Liga. Mtking (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I will dispute that. According to the FIFA ranking, Argentina is the 5º most important football country. Even above England, which is 6º. So, it is right, the Argentine Primera Division is not the English Premier League, it is more importantan than it. Cambalachero (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Cambalachero, Primera Division is listed 7th by the IFFHS, which goes Spain, England, Italy, Brazil, Germany, France, Argentina, Portugal, Netherlands (see here where it is evident that Argentine Primera División is a significative league). (Cambalachero, you were citing statistics on National Teams). Salut, (IANVS) --200.127.173.60 (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support
 * Response to Mtking: Yes, it is very significant news even outside Argentina.
 * 1) It appeared as a relvant (surprising, significative) news at the cover of sports newspapers around the world (in soccer countries, of course). Each of them have many articles about the subject. Most of the linked articles mention the worlwide repercussions of the news: Spain0s Marca,Portugal's A bola Italy's La Gazzetta dello Sport (1) and (2), France's L'Equipe, Brazil's Lance(+10 articles), etc.
 * 2) But, even more important, it also appeared as significative news in generalistic newspapers outside Argentina (in most of the cases, at the cover): in Spain's El País and El Mundo, in Chile's El Mercurio, in Peru's Cronica Viva, Colombia's El Heraldo and El Tiempo, Uruguay's La República, Mexico's El Universal among many (many) others (including all major newspapers in Latin America and Spain -at least-, plus those menitoned at the top of this section: USAToday, ESPN, The Guardian).
 * Well, it does seem relevant news to me. Otherwise, why all of this newspapers would speak about a "commotion in the world of soccer". Well, because this is one of the most important teams in the world, has the record of Argentine tournaments, has won many international prizes, plays one of the most important derbies in the world, and had never lost category before. Salut, (IANVS) --200.127.172.229 (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, please do not equate coverage in 24hrs news services with significance, how is this significant outside Argentine football. Mtking (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat myself: It is a major soccer news, taking into account it is a world class team and a unique event. All newspapers are stating exactly that. That's why it is relevant news. Thanks, (IANVS) --200.127.172.229 (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed [Ready] as not clear that support exists for this. Mtking (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Formerly good team performs badly for a few years". That is all this boils down to.  If the New York Yankees don't make the playoffs for a year or two, I wouldn't expect an ITN blurb.  If Tiger Woods misses winning yet another major, it shouldn't make ITN.  I'm usually pretty lenient minded on sporting news, but this seems below the baseline.  Yes, I heard it on the news today as well, but it doesn't seem up to the standards of ITN in terms of importance, given the number of sporting stories we usually run anyways.  -- Jayron  32  05:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayron, River Plate won the Argentine tournament in 2008. Since then, it has not played well, alright. But a soccer team is not an athlete, it is renewing its squad all the time, so a bad time is not implying the loss of category. Furthermore, what does it means 3 years of bad football to a history of 110 years of existance of the Club and its pertenence to 1st division?? It is a major soccer news, taking into account it is a world class team and a unique event. Resoting [Ready] as both your arguments are weak Salut, (IANVS) --200.127.172.229 (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry they are not week, you have failed to demonstrate how it is of significance outside Argentine football which is not that significant a league any way, why should some team being relegated be listed and not the winner of the league. Mtking (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've written about this twice already, please read above. I'll reapeatmyself once more, anyway: River Plate is a world class team, with many international prizes won, which have the record of Argentine League championships won (33), and which has never been relegated through a 110 years history is a major event in the world of soccer. Every newspaper referenced (all of them non-Argentine, and some of them Sport Newspaper) have stated the "commotion" this event brought to the world of soccer exactly for those reasons. Now, this seems to be an important news. BTW, the Argentine League is significative though not one of the top leagues currently (From where do you think dozens of soccer stars playing in the Euro Leagues come from?). Salut, (IANVS) --200.127.172.229 (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @200.127, response to response to my comment: Again, there are always world class teams that sometimes suck. It happens.  Sometimes, the New York Yankees finish at the bottom of their division.  Sometimes, the Los Angeles Lakers or the Detroit Red Wings do as well.  It isn't ITN-level importance for a major story.  Sports teams successes ebb and flow, and that one team's "ebb" has waited a particularly long time to arrive isn't all that noteworthy.  Yes, it was all over the news, but so isn't celebrity gossip, and we don't necessarily carry stories about every thing that appears in worldwide news just because it appears there.  I understand that, for soccer fans from Argentina, this is world-shattering importance.  I am a fan of American Football, and I take that shit very seriously, but I don't try to force my own personal fandom onto ITN merely because I like it... -- Jayron  32  14:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not even a soccer fan, Jayron. Don't go personal. I'm only stating the relevance this had inside and outside Argentina, in the world and history of soccer. Big Soccer teams don't usually get demoted, even when playing bad for one, two or three seasons. In the context of soccer, this is a unique event and it is newsworthy. Salut, (IANVS) --200.127.173.60 (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with the reasoning that this is unworthy of an ITN blurb. We have 4-6 stories up at any one time, and in my view the inclusion of this one is uncalled for.  This would set a precedent for sports news... not championships, or the death of notable players, but just sports news... being ITN blurbs. I don't see it. Agree with Jayron that this is below baseline. Also feel consensus is not established here at this time.  Jus  da  fax   06:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For christ sake this is like Manchester United or Arsenal getting kicked out of the Premiership. Or Real Madrid getting kicked out of La Liga. You guys opposing are being too fussy. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 14 hours w.o an update and this is ready..Lihaas (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not WP:ALLORNOTHING. Don't reject a news proposal on the grounds that "if we accept this, we would have to accept these other things". Each one should be accepted or rejected on its own. Cambalachero (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Salut,(IANVS) --200.127.172.229 (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Blurb suggestion: River Plate, one of the Big Five of Argentine football and the most succesful at the Primera División tournament, gets demoted for the first time in its 110 years history.


 * Oppose per Jus. "(...) not championships, or the death of notable players, but just sports news". As far as I can see WP:ITNSPORTS does not includes national tournament results. Could set the precedent for news like "Team A loses 6-0 to Team B, the biggest defeat in its 110 years history". Is River Plate involved in scandals, or something, or just "playing bad"? I ask because when is asked "what does it means 3 years of bad football to a history of 110 years of existance of the Club and its pertenence to 1st division", all I think is if when the team returns to the National A, it won't be ITN material either. In Brazil, in the last few years, some very traditional, with more than 100 years os history, got demoted, and returned mostly in the following year. It's something regular, I think. Maddox (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a special event, not a recurring event, so the link to the list of recurring events is pointless. And, as I said before, you can't reject a proposal because you don't like the theme: each proposal is considered on its own. This proposal is not about a single match, but about a team being demoted from the top league: if someone actually proposed a single match result, then it may be rejected. Cambalachero (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a unique event. It is not going to happen again. Except if you consider Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, etc. loss of category). Rare events, all of them. Nothing to worry about, methinks. Salut, (IANVS) --200.127.173.60 (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't recall at any point stating I "don't like the theme". It's quite the opposite, actually. What I'm saying is that it has no significance. Every year teams get demoted in Argentina, Brazil, England, Italy and Spain (any other country mentioned I missed?). Maddox (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Article has been viewed ~80k times since the story broke. Compare that to three ITNR items: 56k when the Miami Heat were beaten a few weeks ago, 70k views when the Vancouver Canucks lost and the city rioted, and ~11k views in 3 days when Cork GAA won some competition you probably haven't heard of (LOL can't resist). – H T  D  14:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

IANVS (is that a reference to the Roman god by the way?) really hit the nail on the head that a great many of the arguments in opposition here are plainly false. I must say that there's a great deal of ignorance on display here on how soccer leagues work. It certainly isn't a requirement that we all understand such things; this is an international collaboration and as such we're often required to comment on the notability of things we're not familiar with. Anyway, comparing River Plate getting relegated to the NY Yankees missing the playoffs (Liverpool missing out on Europe would be a closer comparison to that) or the Boston Celtics 'sucking' is plainly false. It might be a reasonable comparison if one of teams finished with the worst record (in the whole league, not just their division) for three years in a row AND some very serious consequence happened as a result. Really though, there just isn't an analogy to a team getting relegated in North American sports. I've been on the fence about this as it probably is only a temporary setback for River Plate--they'll proabably get promoted back quickly. However, we did post the New England Patriots going 16-0 in 2007, amid some debate, and I oddly enough think this is a comparable event in terms of rarity, considering River Plate's long history of never having been relegated and their historical success as a soccer club. Support--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Resume: Considering that opposition for this to be on ITN is based on 1) arguing (with no evidence at all) that the Argentine League is not significative(which is FALSE); 2) arguing that world-class soccer teams get demoted all-the-time (which is FALSE); 3) worrying that this could set a bad precendent(which is not the case, because this is a unique event, and similar cases are RARE); 4) arguing that this has no interest outside Argentina(which is clearly FALSE as newspapers from around the world gave importance to this news based on its exceptional nature)plus given that the blurb and actualization is [Ready] and that the article was visited ~80k times since the event, I think it is time to consider its publication. Salut, (IANVS) --200.127.171.94 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Similar cases happen every year, at the end of all national championships I'm aware. Maddox (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The teams that get demoted every year are usually small and unimportant teams. Not the case here Cambalachero (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Some more on River being world-class: IFFHS has listed River Plate 9th at the All-Time Club World Ranking.This is why this is exceptional. Salut, (IANVS) --200.127.171.94 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We are now talking about how "important" River Plate is? Maddox (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the alleged low "importance" of River or the Argentine league was one of the reasons used to reject the nomination, which has been proved false
 * Oppose The Boston Celtics sucked for a while too. Would that've been posted? The Montreal Canadiens haven't won the Cup since '93, perhaps that should be posted. Hot Stop (c) 05:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a straw man argument. River Plate is not the Boston Celtics or the Montreal Canadiens, nor the event reported is a no-event as the team "sucking" or not being champion Cambalachero (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Remarking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "[Ready]" removed by administrator User:BorgQueen, you have already added it before, please leave it to another editor to re-evaluate the discussion. Mtking (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest this be remarked 'Ready' (and posted obviously). The !vote count is 6-5 with two votes based on plainly false analogies and other votes based on thin arguments such as 'teams get relegated every year' (which fails to recognize the significance of a club of River Plate's stature being relegated).--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are five other former national champions in "Argentina B". This is not noteworthy, not ITN-material... simply because teams get relegated every year. Maddox (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, a straw man argument. Rosario Central, one of the examples, was champion 4 times, and now it's in the B. River was champion 33 times, it is the highest winner, and most details pointed about the significance of River Plate do not apply to Rosario Central. Cambalachero (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a moot point anyway as this story is older than the oldest story on the template (Khadaffi). And stop saying shit you disagree with is a straw man argument.  My point is that occasionally teams with winning history perform poorly and this isn't any different except that North American sports don't relegate teams, as much as most people would rather not see the Pirates anymore.  Hot Stop (c) 19:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Puyehue-Cordón Caulle eruption

 * "Continues to disrupt" doesn't seem like ITN-worthy material, IMO. Has something major happened today? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment This is a tricky one for ITN. It's been significant news for most of the past three weeks for most southern hemisphere countries. It's had a huge impact on air travel, but generally invisible to northern hemisphere folk unless they are travelling to or from one of the affected countries. Naturally, as time goes on, the impact simply increases in its sum effect. It's something that all citizens of the lands affected have become aware of over the past three weeks. I believe it should be here because of its total impact, but it's hard to say exactly how and where. Rather than other editors just dismissing it, like that post above, I'd like some informed and intelligent discussion of how ITN should deal with this kind of spread out event, where the normal rules don't work. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's follow-up this evolvment and try to pick up somethings singificant to post. 'continues' isn't as such signficant. --Kslotte (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That post seems to ignore everything I said above. Of course "continues" isn't significant under our normal policies. But this is like Boiling frogs. Nothing dramatic happens at any single point, but the frog ends up dead. Can ITN handle boiling frogs? HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, I think you make good points. However, we did post this in early June when the volcano erupted. The eruption in Iceland was also just posted once, when that disruption in air travel began  (which was sudden and overwhelming, costing the airlines over $1 billion). The tenor of the news stories seems to be that there has been some disruption the last few weeks, some flights have resumed, but some not. I think we missed the peak of the important news on this item.--Chaser (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Support - for all the reasons given above, and to simply see if I can attract any attention at all from the US/UK/soccer fan demographic of this page. HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose given the lack of update. If the article is updated with new information within the last few days I Support due to the significant effects on the southern hemisphere. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

LulzSec's end

 * Support This is a group of hackers where no evident Political, Nationalist, Religious, Military, or entrepreneural affiliation or goals have redefined how we look at cyber warfare The relative ease which they seem to have walked through dozens of topnotch and supposedly "secure" systems also redefines the possibility of what a small loosely knit group can do. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support given how many system's they've hacked this seems worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, lets at least give it six hours for opposes to come in. the Peter Faulk seems ready The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment personally, I don't know if this should go up. I would support technically because these guys were apparently the ones who hacked into the US government sites, but this group has only become notable in the past month or so and has pretty much been in the shadow of Anonymous in the minds of the public. Furthermore, with a group like this, I don't think anyone can take a move like this seriously. Everyone in the group will still be doing what they do. It isn't like this disbandment announcement doubles as a "we are all going to move to Tahiti and become Christian monks" thing. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 20:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Two months ago I would have agreed but as I said the concept of cyber warfare and cyber terrorism has been redefined. My personally theory is that they have been hired by a 3rd party after their two month long publicity stunt.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Group of internet nerds get some DDOS attacks in during their lunch breaks, and suddenly they're notable? Nothing in this story is worth front page attention doktorb wordsdeeds 20:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They did some DDOS but they also Hacked into several Corporate, Law enforcement, and Governmental databases and then leaked internal documents from them. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support Slow news day indeed. But this seems most topical, if NY gay marriage is not applicable. --hydrox (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose We're honestly considering posting this over NY gay marriage? Their DDOS attacks had minimal impact compared to the New York legislature's actions, even on a global scale. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per NW. There are plenty of more notable events that should be posted overtop of this. And just FYI, I think they're disbanding because one of their members had his personal webpage hacked by another group and they were threatened with the reveal of personal and identifying information if they continue mindless DDoS attacks. Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 22:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think comparisons to other items that are being rejected are reasonable. If you want to post the gay marriage thing make a solid comment in support there.
 * Taking such a negative line because people are possibly being inconsistent in their standards in another discussion isn't productive to the section as a whole. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No chance in hell.--WaltCip (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please can you avoid WP:IDONTLIKEIT opposes. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll elaborate then. This "group" does not have any legitimacy behind it save for an isolated series of DDOS attacks, many of which have been dealt with swiftly and without much fanfare, so as a group they are not notable. Since their impact was hardly felt to begin with, it does not matter at all whether or not they disband. Given the sporadic nature of groups like these, who is to say that their dissolution is permanent?--WaltCip (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose theri announcement doesnt mean anything as a new body with much claim of damage. Furthermore, most hack-attacks were done by Anyonymous, who are more notable
 * and ditto per eraserhead, consensus is not built by vote count.Lihaas (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. How is this notable? --bender235 (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No deal in Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations

 * Negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia in Kazan Russia concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh region has led to no deals. This was expected and is seen as yet another step towards an Azeri invasion of the region in a try to take it back.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * zzzz Wake me up when September ends the Azeris invade. – H T  D  17:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: The Nagorno-Karabakh article has to be updated more. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not sure how much interest there is among our readers on this particular news, and I'm not sure we want to post something on the basis of what might happen as a result. Let it play out and post when something definite happens. RxS (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose intl talks happen all the time to no avbail, only need to mention when somethign happens
 * btw- what is "zzz"? productive comment?Lihaas (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's say that the "zzzzz" comment was as productive as this nomination. – H T  D  09:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * au contratire nominations warrant, by defintiion, a productive call for support. if you dont have nominatiin you dont get anythign posted, and certainly cant say that all nominations get posted, so this was a BOLD additionLihaas (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't make out what you're trying to say, if anything. In any case, you don't have to lecture me on how things work here, like I said, the "zzzzz" comment was as productive as this nomination. Think of it as another/offbeat way of commentating. – H T  D  17:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hezbollah's move

 * Le Figaro reports that Hezbollah transferred hundreds of missiles from Syria to Lebanon, fearing the fall of the Syrian government in the ongoing uprising. (Haaretz) --BorgQueen (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion, since the timer is red... --BorgQueen (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Judging by the Haaretz summary, The Figaro report seems quite sketchy without identifying the intelligence sources by name. Some other ideas: The conclusion of the 2011 Valencia GP, disbanding of the LulzSec and Gaddafi's peace offer. --hydrox (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the LulzSec item but somehow I don't think we could gather enough supports. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about: "Ash cloud from the 2011 Puyehue-Cordón Caulle eruption continues to disrupt flights between Australia and New Zealand." (Sydney Morning Herald) The article is fairly extensive, which is always a plus. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Article is excellent, but has already been featured. I would think LulzSec disbanding would be topical and current news, though there might be problem with finding consensus over the correct term to refer to them with. --hydrox (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've nominated LulzSec above. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What did I say? Too many opposes already. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it was quite anticipatable. Not sure if there is a compelling need to post anything if there is just nothing to post, even if the template goes red. --hydrox (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I support most news from this region. As it is very important.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * MENA sticky again?Lihaas (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Syrian uprising

 * Support as nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Warns? I don't think people here would be enthusiastic when the NOAA tells Americans a big bad storm is approaching. – H T  D  13:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - one of the biggest conflicts right now.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is only a warning. Let's post when some type of escalation is actually happening. --Kslotte (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Hillary's comments are especially significant, but whatever is going on at the Turkey-Syria border might be and I could support a blurb that focuses on that if it's a significant development in the conflict/uprising/whatever we're calling it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change it however you see fit :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should probably be changed to something more generally speaking about the Syrian forces gathering at the Syria-Turkey border. --~ Knowzilla  <sup style="font-size:x-small;">(Talk)  17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose the blurb implies (as does HJ alternate idea) that the troops are massing on the border to invade Turkey. This is not the case, they are massing to prevent Pro-democracy activists from escaping across it. This is consistent with the pattern so far displayed in their crackdown. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Same-sex marriage in New York

 * Oppose The relevant section of the relevant article (Same-sex marriage in New York) is in shambles; it's just an endless ti--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)meline. Lampman (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose its not a firs. we dotn have to give undue coverage to all 25-odd states that will legalise it. (although when it happens down south it may be something)Lihaas (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - wikipedia shouldnt post all "american news". especially as this is not a first.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose given its only a state I think its too local really. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Redacted per Lampman. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment New York is actually larger in population than most of the nations that have allowed same-sex marriage so far. It is the third-largest state, with the largest and – arguably – most important city in the US. The implications of this could be huge for gay rights in the US, and the world. Yet people seem to constantly misinterpret the first part of what makes an ITN item, and completely ignore the second. An item should be notable (no, that doesn't mean equal time for all 192 UN member states), and the article should be properly updated (which is the real problem in this case, though no-one seems to care about that). Lampman (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Similar changes in the law are being rolled out all over the place. The frequency with which they are proposed here is getting daft.  Not a first, not a last bastion of previous values, just one more link in a domino effect: NY is only more important to people in NY.     Kevin McE (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this the largest jurisdiction that allowed same sex marriage? – H T  D  13:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that would be California. Oppose as this does not set a precedent, nor is it notable outside of the whole New York City angle. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 13:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * New York State, not just the city. Imagine Reason (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Brazil is bigger too. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hasn't it been overturned in California, and it's termed "civil unions" in Brazil? – H T  D  13:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, it was overturned and then that got overturned as well. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 14:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, see Perry v. Schwarzenegger, but the ruling of the US federal district court for Northern California has been stayed by federal 9th Circuit court, so California only recognizes same-sex marriages which were performed within the six months prior to prop 8 as ruled by the California Supreme Court until the stay is lifted. The case is now being appealed to the 9th Circuit, pending answers on procedural matters by the California Supreme Court (as California's Governor and AG have refused to appeal the case, who are named as defendants in it). --~ Knowzilla  <sup style="font-size:x-small;">(Talk)  17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the navigation template it is marked "conditional" so that says something. So currently, is NY the largest jurisdiction that allows same sex marriage unconditionally? – H T  D  14:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right about Brazil. However Argentina has gay marriage and 40 million people, and Spain has gay marriage and 46 million people. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really affect the 19 million New Yorkers only. For example, a gay couple in Iowa can go to New York and have their marriage "validated". So technically, once a U.S. state legalizes same sex marriage, it's like legalizing it in the entire country of 300 million people, provided they (gay couples) can actually go there. – H T  D  17:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, or that gay couple in Iowa could just, y'know... get married? Iowa has gay marriage. --Golbez (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, all this change does is save New Yorkers having to visit one of the five other states that already have such legislaetion, so it is even less notable. Kevin McE (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh... I really don't think couples would just "go there." To avail of rights associated with marriage you should actually reside; for example, you can't say the authorities in Iowa that since you married in NY, they should recognize that you should adopt and jointly own property, etc. – H T  D  02:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going in the fact that someone told me that "technically, once a U.S. state legalizes same sex marriage, it's like legalizing it in the entire country": if that was incorrect, I'll refer you back to the person who misinformed me. Kevin McE (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The key word in that statement is "like," and add in "technically." If you don't understand those, or willfully won't acknowledge those words exist, then something's wrong with your reading comprehension. – H T  D  17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, who am I trying to convince? Hah hah! – H T  D  17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Plasma Twa. Diego Grez (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, per Plasma Twa. 190.51.160.54 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this about a US state, not even a country-wide thing. --Kslotte (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - New York is a highly populated state and in turn this affects more people than some countries that have legalised it. Also what about the slant, it is paving way for more states as NY has been seen as a big hot seat in the Rights movement in the past. Rain the 1  <font color="#FF1CAE">BAM 14:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is getting more and more common, which I think makes each one a little less significant. We've posted quite a few of these, and now I think it's time to draw a line and start posting those which are not just significant, but truly exceptional. An amendment to to the US Constitution would be exceptional, as would the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Alabama or possibly Texas or some other state known for being a long way to the right of the political spectrum. But I think it's time to stop posting all of these and that it's a good day for freedom when this becomes relatively routine. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Lets see how the the current news items fare on Google News first: about 500 recent news articles and 7000+ results for 'Mario Draghi', about 800 recent news articles and 800+ results for 'Pauline Nyiramasuhuko', 200+ results for 'Nabro Volcano', and about 1200 recent new articles and 2000+ results for 'AirAsia'. And now on this news item: about 7000 recent news articles and 10,000+ results for 'gay marriage new york'. This is clearly a fairly newsworthy item. We should not stop news items from being displayed on the main page just because such news items are becoming increasingly common. Also, in the United States marriage laws are set by the states and not the country, the US federal government can only decide whether or not to recognize a marriage, they cannot legislate on the legality of a certain type of marriage. --~ Knowzilla  <sup style="font-size:x-small;">(Talk)  17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per Knowzilla, having more news hits than anything else on the ITN front page combined seems like a pretty good reason to post it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This will also probably pwn the ITN articles in page views too, without benefit of a main page exposure so... – H T  D  17:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, a major news story. We are still long ways off from this kind of news not being a big deal. Nsk92 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. alos there is a specific article on the topic (Same-sex marriage in New York). Why isn't it linked in the blurb? Renata (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Meets all of the ITN criteria. Quality article, reader interest, lots of media coverage, certainly not trivial: NY has more people than all of the other gay-marriage jurisdictions in the US combined. It's not like ITN has been deluged with U.S. gay marriage items, and if I am not mistaken, this is the first time a sizable state has enacted gay marriage through a legislative vote rather than a court decision -- a true landmark. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Mwalcoff.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the obvious exaggeration of the news. We used to post only allowments in the countries, not any other federal subjects, so I don't care what is the influence of the state of New York and what is its population now. The fact that I oppose this is mainly because it's not a sovereign country, and that this news only dashed through the world's media. When in 2009 Sweden and Norway did it, it was much more covered than this one. If the United States allows such marriages, I'll surely vote support.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There lies the problem: in the United States, the national legislature cannot decide whether or not to permit same-sex marriage, only the state legislatures can. The only way to change that is by an amendment to the US Constitution. Alternatively if, for example Perry v. Schwarzenegger succeeds, and the US Supreme Court declares that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples only is a violation of the Equal Protection & Due Process clauses of the American Constitution, will the entire US recognize same-sex marriage. But that will take several years to reach the Supreme Court, and when it comes to legislating on the subject, only state legislatures can do so (the federal government can only decide whether or not to recognize a certain marriage in respect to federal benefits). --~ Knowzilla  <sup style="font-size:x-small;">(Talk)  16:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support but only if the blurb mentions that NY is the most populous state so far to allow these marriages. That is much more significant to mention than it is the 6th. --mav (reviews needed) 12:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: I think we can forget about this nom. There are too many opposes. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We should probably ditch the U.S./NY-biaz opposes. – H T  D  17:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As important as it is and as much as I am a supporter of the right for anyone to marry whomever they should happen to love, I oppose this being in ITN. HJ Mitchell touched on it already by saying that this is becoming a not-so-uncommon event. I appreciate the step that NY took by passing this, but it doesn't really mean that much to me, given that there are still 44 other states that don't allow it. Striker  force Talk  Review me! 14:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose It seems these get nominated every time. In the past we haven't posted when entire countries adopt gay marriage or other forms of civil union, yet alone individual states.  This isn't the first, nor will it be the last, it is simply a continuation of changing attitudes.  As such I can't see how it can be held to be of sufficient notability. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC).
 * I think ITN did post something about a certain country adopting this measure. Heck we did post Malta allowing the parliament to consider making a divorce law (not at the point of legalizing divorce, which will probably be posted again), and that's the 200th country to do that. – H T  D  17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if it's not an uncommon event (as many opposers state) why is it receiving so much media coverage? Also how "common" of an event can it be if only 10 of the worlds almost 200 countries allow gay marriage? Hot Stop (c) 16:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Too right above. TBH it isn't that common, it isn't like it happens everyday. Celebs die more often and get posted here. Not sure why something that affects millions, which is does, gets opposition. (Considering some didn't want it and will now be annoyed and the rest who wanted it are happy.) I watch out for gay issues quite a bit here, and more often than not it is met with this joke. So for the first time I'm wondering about some peoples motives for opposing. That is just my opinion, it could be clouded too. Rain the 1  <font color="#FF1CAE">BAM 19:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not being gay... more like this being a US-centric (and not even national in scope) issue that drives people here to oppose. – H T  D  20:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Support' big news in just about all corners of the world. NYC is the size of many nations, and a great concentration of Wikipedia readership without a doubt. --hydrox (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - a huge story in the media this weekend. Historic change in a major state of the US. Opposers fail to convince me to !vote to keep this off of the Main Page. Jus  da  fax   22:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment at 13-9 in support and possible issues with US biaz, which should obviously be discounted I was going to add [Ready?] to get an admin to check consensus, however the article still doesn't look updated sufficiently. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is more a state matter than national, much less international. Mamyles (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This to me is far more notable than most of the events on the template currently, and it will have a significant impact on the lives of millions of people. The arguments against seem to boil down to the a) this happens 'all the time' and b) It's not a 'national' issue.  Many people have already pointed out that NY state is far more populous than most countries.  Furthermore, as pointed out, this is the primary way people in the US political system receive this right in the US.  IMO this is not analogous to a US gubernatorial election of a large state, which is less significant than the election of a sovereign head of state because a sovereign head of state has many powers a governor does not have.  As to the 'this happens all the time' argument--full legal marriage rights are still extremely rare globally.  I think the legalisation of same sex marriage of a jurisdiction the size of NY is ITN worthy even if it is not unprecedented.  Surely we would post if it were legalised in the UK, despite that it wouldn't be the first European country to do so.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The UK effectively has gay marriage already and has had for several years - civil partnerships are to all intents and purposes equivalent to marriage in terms of their rights and responsibilities. The only distinction is that in formal legal parlance (but not popular usage) the term "marriage" is avoided to placate the religious groups.  If we accept the two as equivalent your assertion this is the most populous jurisdiction to do so falls apart.  If we don't you are essentially arguing this is worth posting on an issue of nomenclature.  I don't see either argument as conferring particular significance. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Uh, 'effectively'? 'For all intents and purposes'?  That's not the same as allowing it outright.  The nomenclature matters to a lot of people.  That's why people are trying to have same sex marriage legalised in the UK.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Support per Mwalcoff plus the lack of either New York or same-sex marriage on ITN. -- can  dle • wicke  23:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - As a liberal state this hardly surprises but this is a matter that will largely be settled one state at a time verses at a federal level. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   02:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just looking at "Today's Front Pages" at www.newseum.org and noticed this was on the front page of the Calcutta Telegraph in India as well as La Stampa in Turin, Italy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The update is split over two places, but there is an update, and people are whining we haven't posted it in other sections. On votes alone its 60-40 Marking [ready?]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Expect a shitstorm when this is posted :P – H T  D  07:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but let's not fan the flames, shall we? :) ITN is combustible enough as it is.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone should just post it for the spectacle. :P – H T  D  08:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The sixth state? Will we post the seventh? The seventeenth? The fortieth? Please, stop.  Night  w   07:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about the maybe the two hundredth country to grant divorce? Well they didn't necessarily grant divorce but nobody stopped that one from being posted. – H T  D  08:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about a country that approved the same thing as the above state did, an item that probably had no chance of being posted?  Night  w   09:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I found Johnsemlak's and Knowzilla's arguments rather persuasive. But since I am expressing my opinion I am not the best person to post this. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Per knowzilla. It has been receiving tons of coverage outside Wikipedia. --Falcorian (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Update? The article in question is not what I'd consider updated. --  tariq abjotu  12:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit of an update at the end of the section Same-sex marriage in New York.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Not important whether this was the first or seventh or whatever American State to approve this, but as happening in an enormously large and influential State.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support New York, as the state where the gay rights movement started, granting gays the right to marry, and doing so through the legislative process and not through the judicial process, is certainly notable. Covered internationally in several locations. As for all the states getting a blurb, I'd say the only others notable enough would be California, the first southern state, Texas, and maybe Florida. After that I wouldn't think any other state granting gays the right to marry would be notable. The next blurb would be the country doing so nationwide. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  17:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - For a news event that obviously did not have an overwhelming consensus to post, I believe this should be taken down. Truthsort (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An overwhelming consensus isn't required, and we generally avoid removing items that have been posted. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Belated oppose It's the sixth state to allow it. By my take on this that's 4-5 away from what I would consider making it notable enough for ITN. If it was the first, that's landmark, the second I might go for depending on circumstances, but the sixth to me is a bit far down the road. As for it being the largest, I don't consider that a factor heavy enough to tip the scales to my supporting without it being closer to being the first state. Note that I'm not strong enough in my oppose to want it taken down, just enough that I would have preferred it hadn't been posted. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 22:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As others have pointed out, New York is a large state. Due to the federal nature of government in the United States, this news is more important than just a state issue. If we care about what happens in Malta we should care about what happens in New York. Imagine Reason (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Draghi designated as ECB head

 * Nom New head for one of the most important central banks in the world. --bender235 (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternative: place it on ITN on November 1, when he takes office. --bender235 (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Person in charge of one of the top 3 currencies in the world. Thue | talk 12:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would prefer to place on November 1, when he will actually have the power to start influencing policy. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Both now and November 1 are possibilities. I would prefer posting now, because his appointment is news right now. Thue | talk 18:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support now per Thue. I've seen the expected appointment of Draghi in the news a lot. The euro doesn't have the same status as the dollar as a reserve currency, but the eurozone's current fiscal crises elevate the importance of this office .--Chaser (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose now, Support for 1 Nov, we should wait till he takes office. Mtking (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support now, while it is news. Notable international appointment. Mamyles (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * wait till he takes office, a designation doesnt mean anything because hes not making policy.Lihaas (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support now while it is in the news, constantly waiting is silly. November is so far away we can post it again then anyway. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Important appointment. The time is ripe; no need to wait. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Article updated. Looks to have consensus to be posted now, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Rwandan former minister convicted of genocide

 * Support, seems to be long list of people involved, but Pauline seems as key player based on her political position and sentence length. --Kslotte (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - most news reports are also making a big deal of the fact she's the first woman.-- Beloved Freak  13:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Support posting the highest ranked govt. minister convicted (if such she is), oppose posting first woman: chromosomes do not make offences more or less important. Kevin McE (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm personally not bothered what the blurb says, but you might want to tell the Guardian, Telegraph, Associated Press etc. that. :) She's not the highest ranking, the Prime Minister of the country was previously convicted. However, this is still news right? I'm not familiar with ITN - this is my first submission, but this is making (lots of) headlines, I only came to the article after reading about her on the BBC website, and presumably that's kind of the point, to help readers locate articles on events they've just read about? -- Beloved Freak  14:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * siupport famous first, notable by that itself.Lihaas (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Peter Falk dies

 * Oppose. We have Recent deaths. The death is in itself not newsworthy, and it's highly unlikely there will be a substantial update. --Golbez (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator I feel Falk meets the death criteria as a particularly notable individual in his field. Columbo alone was notable for a long (35 year) run, and Falk was the only recurring principal character throughout.  Number of edits to the article today show a reasonable level of interest although admittedly the death section is in need of expansion. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Falk was very notable in his area of televisual entertainment. We won't see another like him. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, because there is nothing "important" in this as news, but the sort of item that makes me wish we had a more prominent Recent deaths section, even if just a string of names on the MP. Kevin McE (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Mjroots. As far back as the 1960's Falk was a noted motion picture actor, as witnessed in his participation in the seminal comedy It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World which included virtually every major funnyman in Western culture. And prior to that, his acting was honored with back-to-back nominations for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. As Mjroots points out, his work in Columbo alone is worthy of serious notability, and his obituaries are all over the media today, from the New York Times to the BBC.  Peter Falk's death is ITN-worthy, in my view.  Jus  da  fax   19:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Death was not unexpected, he was no longer active, and there is no impact on current events. He wasn't one of the greats of his profession: in an industry that dishes out awards by the bucketload, he appears to have won zero. Nothing in his life would have made ITN, so why should his death? As above, this is "recent deaths" material. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, as Columbo alone makes him notable enough. As to Mkativerata comment, I wonder if only assassinations are ITN material? People dying of old age aren't? Maddox (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a factor. I'm not saying all old-age deaths are non-ITN worthy, just that it is one of a number of factors to be considered. Reagan's death at 93 was ITN material, no doubt about it. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood, and I think I agree as being "a factor" to be considered. As for being "ITN-material", I have to admit I wasn't born when Columbo was aired, so I used the historians opinion mentioned in Peter Falk. Have you read it? CNN points that the did received awards, but Columbo it was what made him notable and, as BBC points out, it is stil a reference in television, as Luther is inspired by its themes (brazilian magazine 'Veja' also points that). Columbo is seen as a remarkable thing in Television (not me saying, but sources from Argentina and Spain, besides USA's ones...) Maddox (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When somebody dies the media almost always trumps up their influence and importance. 24.159.22.26 (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Two of the links I used (BBC and Veja) talked about his influenced before his death. The article Peter Falk uses a ton more. You want reports from which decade? Maddox (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Per Maddox Well Played. I was going to be a strong oppose lol  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 05:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Columbo is a seriously influential TV detective show. A top story on Xinhua too. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "seriously influential " and what is that basedon? (the statement that is)
 * To give an example from the Summer 2011 edition of Intelligent Life (page 38) - published by the Economist the headline on one of their articles on the environmental movement states "The way greens make their points can be irritating, They need to be more like Lieutenant Columbo". -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose every dead actor is not notable regardless of awards won.Lihaas (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, but this actor is particularly notable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lihass, is that your opinion? Or is that statement based upon reliable sources? I ask because the sources pointed out above say otherwise, that he is very notable. I was not a Columbo viewer, wasn't even born then, but I looked up what the media was pointing, after and before his death, before saying he is or is not notable. Maddox (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support - extremely notable. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  11:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose - not every american actor deserves a mention on itn when they die.... --BabbaQ (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not just an American actor... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Internationally known actor. I can see stories on his death on news sites all over the world. Grey  Hood   Talk  12:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose He's not royalty, not former president of the US, not 'King' of anything, not winner of the Nobel Prize or any other major award. he died of old age – that makes at least 6 reasons why not. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment per the article he won 5 emmys, 4 for Columbo, and a golden globe. To claim he didn't win any major awards is highly dishonest. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Confucius, I found this brazilian cinema critic stating the character Columbo was a 'immortal king', and Falk stablish the tone for decades to come. I mean no disrespect - I am a user from pt.wp mainly, that way I will use the "here" to refer to en.wp - but I find that here are more personal opinions than statements based upon Falk's relevancy. Maddox (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the article needs more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support notable actor. Winner of the most important TV award, the Emmy, and the second most important film award, Golden Globe. But article needs clean up; I see for example "Of death, he once said: "It is just the gateway.""-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Share– a– Power[citation needed] 18:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Our categories list 1039 Emmy winners and 606 Golden Globe winners: that does not make him obviously ITN worthy. Kevin McE (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He's won 4 of them, I doubt the number of people in that category is particularly high. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My only comment I'll make here is that my Russian mother-in-law is a huge fan of Columbo, and it's probably the only American tv show she's ever watched regularly. His signifance clearly crosses borders.  Otherwise I'm neutral, and I'm partial to Kevin's comment above that this is an example of something perfect for an expanded 'recent deaths' section.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

However, as suggested in the past, I support the idea of looking more to the content about people's lives (rather than imposing update requirements that aren't always realistic). I just don't recall the idea attaining consensus. (Of course, it's entirely possible that I missed a discussion.) —David Levy 20:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient. The decision as to when an item is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. It appears that the "five-sentence update" example (intended to be a "general" rule of thumb) was copied over without the relevant context (i.e. that what those sentences convey matters). —David Levy 20:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm marking this ready, but will wait for another admin to review. I think there's a consensus to post this. If it was a straight vote it would probably have consensus, but we hope it's more than that. I think that looking at the discussion the opposes have been (mostly) answered with appropriate counter arguments. At least 2 of the opposers make points that aren't really relevant (BabbaQ and Ohconfucius). No one claims that every American actor gets posted, and certainly the list of positions mentioned by Ohconfucius are not the only ones that we post at ITN. In addition, Mkativerata's oppose if factually wrong (he won 5 Emmy's). I think we'd like to avoid a situation where editors can sink a nomination just by showing up without making any relevant justifications for the oppose "vote". I think this has consensus to post, but as I said I'll wait for another admin to review the points I've made since the posting may be challenged. I'd really like to see more analysis of discussion rather than scanning the bold support/oppose postings. RxS (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I agree that there's consensus that the topic itself qualifies, but I see no major update to the article. —David Levy 19:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've updated it to be 5 (admittedly rather short) sentences. Given the timer was red I think that's OK. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eraserhead1. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Have we established consensus to relax our update requirements when the timer is red or when preexisting background information is the primary asset to readers (e.g. when someone led a noteworthy life but died under mundane circumstances)? I personally oppose the former and support the latter, but I don't recall the community agreeing to either.  —David Levy 19:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) In fact I am not sure if we relaxed anything here. The minimum requirement is five sentences with references, and the update meets the requirement. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't merely count the number of sentences; we require that they convey a substantial amount of information beyond what's stated in the ITN blurb. In the case of a death, this typically includes details regarding its cause and/or societal impact.  In this instance, we know only that Falk left behind relatives who intend to "remember his wisdom and humor."
 * I just checked In_the_news/Admin_instructions and it does not say what you are saying. Could you give a guideline or policy page to support your claim? --BorgQueen (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From In the news:
 * I have added a paragraph with tributes to Falk from Steven Speilberg, Stephen Fry, and Rob Reiner, which should fix the problem. I must agree with David that this should have had a better update before posting.  And by the way 5 sentences is not a minimum as is often stated; it is considered more than sufficient.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note: Falk shouldn't be at the top. He died (at least) before Draghi's designation and the Rwandan conviction. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. —David Levy 20:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Police sentenced to death for killing Floribert Chebeya

 * Support, an exceptional case of justice. I think the article needs to be improved a bit. I assume there will exist much more information to make the article more complete. --Kslotte (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some more argument why this is exceptional: 1. there still exist justice in a developing country, 2. policemen getting charges is rare in any country, 3. sentenced to death is a very strong "punishment" --Kslotte (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose noty globally notable. you know how many activists have been improsioned/tortured/killed by state officials? and to pre-empt counter points, there are plenty of officers who are punished for it too. why is this more exceptional? (i can changemy vote if the arguement is convincing). at any rate, congo's judiciary doesnt hold great stead in legal independence.Lihaas (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support policeman extremely rarely get punished for behaving badly. Even in the UK, and where there is video evidence of the wrongdoing, it has taken its sweet time to even get the Ian Tomlinson case to court. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose Lech Wałęsa's pneumonia is more newsworthy. I would support if it was a story about UK or US policemen; we're talking about the a third world country here... (undid two unnecessary links in blurb just in case it gets enough support). -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly, that makes it more notable, not less notable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, mon ami. A life is worth a lot less in a third world country compared with in the west. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but its taking its sweet time for the UK to punish a policeman for a death that there is video evidence for that has been published by a leading national newspaper. The UK has one of the world's least corrupt police forces and the best legal systems. That this hasn't been swept under the carpet is significant. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support policemen gutting punished in corrupt third world countries is pretty notable.  usually such murders go unpunished.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Enormous volume of prejudicial assumption about the application of rule of law here: it would be nice to see something more informed than Hey, that's a country in Africa that I don't know much about. I bet the police are always killing people and getting away with it.  I'd love to see some of those commenting above providing some data or reports from reputable NGOs to substantiate what otherwise seems to be crude racism. Surely the decision here is whether the fact that the death of this human rights campaigner was at the hands of the authorities (which, after a trial, is no longer a matter of contention) is notable in ITN terms.  Note that the target article is not the trial.  Kevin McE (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * thats not difficult courtesy google. might want to read this --Wikireader41 (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Souris River floods
~ AH1 (discuss!) 18:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose not enough impact yet for ITN. --Kslotte (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Airbus-AirAsia: largest single order of commercial aircraft in history

 * Support significant story from a budget airline. Shows that the Asians can run a good airline and that the Europeans can make good planes. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I added the NPOV tag to AirAsia ages ago, I don't think it was justified so I've removed it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've updated AirAsia - looking at the news sources a lot of them were focused on Airbus, but I don't think its illegitimate to focus on AirAsia instead - or possibly both once the airbus article is also updated. Therefore as its a minority topic marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe we need more supports before posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * you're probably right. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support sounds as a big deal. --Kslotte (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think three supports should be enough for a minority item, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support major event, considering the Boeing - Airbus competition. Maybe that article should also be referred in the blurb. Crnorizec (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I bet many military aircraft orders are much larger than this. A quick glance on Google shows some F-16 orders in excess of 160.No opinion. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   03:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: There is currently one cite error in the reference section. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I will post as soon as the error is fixed; I tried to fix it myself but it somehow froze my browser. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grey  Hood   Talk  09:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support important milestone. (redacted blurb) -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need some background of who AirAsia are, so I've added 'budget airline' to the blurb. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is 'budget airline' necessary? I think it is obvious 'AirAsia' is an airline. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering there are two links to AirAsia, and the fact that a link to 'budget airline' is a distraction at best; we don't need to link the country either. I've reverted the change. Anyways, it's the admin who decides, so the change is just for reference. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted as is. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] North-South Sudan agreement on South Kordofan

 * Important, the conflict which has caused the displacement of 140,000 people still has not been mentioned on our front page!Olegwiki (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support' again, as I have also supported the previous candidates... Thue | talk 14:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak support Good update but the rest of the article needs expansion. Need a better blurb that better incorporates the target article. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   16:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support peace is good achivement in this conflict. --Kslotte (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - important event.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment while I respect your point Marcus, and certainly it'd be nice to required that (except that we'd never post anything), the update looks to meet the criteria. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] James "Whitey" Bulger captured

 * Support Looks like a good candidate and the article is of a decent quality too.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: The article has to be updated more. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * dodgy this, notable capture, but its not of global importance. though if ITN timer needs something then this is worthyLihaas (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Support - Decent article. Update needs expansion. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   16:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support of interest to people both in the US and elsewhere. "Global importance" isn't a criteria. Hot Stop (c) 14:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I was actually considering nominating this one myself if someone else hadn't. Lots of things are posted to ITN that aren't of "global importance" (e.g. right now we have "RusAir Flight 9605 crashes in Petrozavodsk, Russia, killing 44 people" listed). <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 14:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated now, posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Geert Wilders acquited (Trial of Geert Wilders comes to an end)
A Dutch court acquits right-wing politician Geert Wilders of hate speech charges for statements against Islam. (AP via Huffington Post, pretty major news (largest free-speech trial in the world at the moment, pretty big thing, lots of international news coverage). Polozooza (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also: Kosher and Halal ritual slaughter outlawed in Netherlands on the same day. Polozooza (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The target article should be Trial of Geert Wilders, and it needs to be updated more (minimum 5 sentences and 3 references). --BorgQueen (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * More references would not be a problem as it's currently all over the internet. Polozooza (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support when article updated--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It just was. Polozooza (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but please notice that I said "5 sentences and 3 references." --BorgQueen (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 150 references if you want to. At least. Polozooza (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So be bold :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Still needs more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when suitably updated. A case of possibly EU-wide precedent in free speech cases. --hydrox (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Article expanded with current development. Should be ready, pending 2nd opinion. --hydrox (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Notable victory for free speech. Truthsort (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 2011 Bahraini uprising

 * Support as nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk)
 * support obvious really. a big part of the MENA protests that has been oft-neglected here. Its a significant step in the counter-revolution (which is often not coverfed here either)Lihaas (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as the verdicts have been criticised as 'clear examples of "political and summary justice"' and "were imposed under hardline emergency laws". This seems significant. -- can  dle • wicke  07:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: The article has to be updated more. Ideally the target should be Timeline of the 2011 Bahraini uprising but it has some issues. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been updated. The problem with the timeline article is way too big to be fixed at the moment so we have to settle to the main article. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Ai Weiwei released
Ai Weiwei is the most prominent of a recent wave of arrests of activists and dissidents in China. His detention attracted international calls for his release from the usual western governments and diplomatic channels, but also from a variety of other people, including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, British sculptor Anish Kapoor, and others in the international art community. The article has been updated, but needs more sources.--Chaser (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the top story on The Economist's homepage right now.--Chaser (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Earned a spot on the Time 100 most influential list. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   06:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I duplicated a post for Ai under today. The whole world has been clamouring for his release from unconstitutional detention, now it's happened under some rather lame pretext. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support significant figure released, nice to see the explanation of "bail" in the article, but would be nice to see some more sources and ideally another sentence or two. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: The updated paragraph needs more sources. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we combine this with the fact that Xu Zhiyong has just been detained under similar accusations? --bender235 (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * i would support that. try nom. that seperatel.Lihaas (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Updated now, posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why was China linked? Its of very low usefulness for the reader, thus I don't believe it's necessary. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I knew someone was going to do this anyway. And yes, I agree with David. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it was unnecessary. If really needed, it could have been easily dabbed by replacing 'China' with 'PRC'. However, Ai's both ethnic Chinese and from the PRC; Taiwan is never referred to as China. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

[Reposted] 2011 Eritrean Eruption

 * Oppose, as article is at AFD trending a merge. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it does get merged into Nabro Volcano you could change the article to Nabro Volcano and the blurb to Nabro Volcano once thought to be extinct erupts killing 7. EdwardLane (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It appears to have been kept. It is a fatal eruption. -- can  dle • wicke  00:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The Article has been kept but renamed so I've updated the itn nomination - and I think this is probably a better blurb too. EdwardLane (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Note: I've fixed up the blurb a bit. Had no idea that there were fatalities in this eruption, so this is a delayed story but that is no matter because this is Eritrea. Might also want to mention flight cancellations. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 17:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The current blurb has to be shortened. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's always a temptation to try to include too much detail.  In this case, even seven deaths probably isn't sufficiently significant to merit inclusion, the international aid line is arguably POV or campaigning in nature.  How about:
 * Nabro Volcano in Eritrea erupts, emitting the greatest quantity of sulfur dioxide ever recorded by satellite.
 * Crispmuncher (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Support poison in the air is something different and news worthy. The blurb above sounds OK, but the article needs a bit more prose in the Eruption section. --Kslotte (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pulled per this tagging. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried a cleanup of the article - and removed the tag - feel free to put the tag back if its still not up to scratch. EdwardLane (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks better now and I hope it will stay tag-free... Reposted. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

World's longest sub-sea pipeline



 * Oppose I was feeling quite supportive of this but on reading the article I don't see an actual event here. The first pipeline was completed last month according to the article.  This didn't happen on June 21 (that's the date of the event, not the nomination) and there's a good reason why we have no May xx sections still on this page: it's a bit old to really count as news, and certainly older than the five-day window we usually operate in.  Crispmuncher (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
 * The article says they completed underwater works only now. Grey  Hood   Talk  11:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't what our article says. There seems to be some contradictions there, although I can see how the circle may be squared - the article you link to talks of underwater work, whch may include inspections and signing off, for intance.  Even if it is true in a substantive way, our article needs to be updated to reflect that for an ITN entry. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC).
 * The relevant parts of the article have been updated. Grey  Hood   Talk  17:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait lets post in the autumn when the gas starts flowing. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The record is that it's part of the longest sea-pipe line in the world, and it is completed right now. If we wait until the first flow, the significance of this news will pale.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I support posting it now if something has happened now. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: The article currently has a POV tag. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose since it is hard to define when it has been completed. Let's wait until they finally open it and let the gas flow. --Kslotte (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Rare penguin sighting



 * Oppose not violence, politics or sport. ITN should only be for that!
 * Seriously though, I support, getting all the way to North Island is pretty impressive, far more so than reaching the south of south America and we should try and post a wide variety of topics. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification - The bird is non-native to the island and made a navigation error in the Antarctica. Made me think of BBC's Flying Penguin hoax. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   22:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I thought the blurb meant this was about Species moving into to former territory from which it was extinct from. That would be notable, Freak navigation errors not so much. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per ResidentAnthropologist. Unusual movements of a non-endangered species are not ITN-worthy.--Chaser (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Ban Ki-moon wins second UN term
BBC

Secretary general of the UN seems worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Support and Speedy Post One is a Featured Article the other is in good shape The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously. Nsk92 (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Should it note that there were no other candidates? -- can  dle • wicke  21:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per ResidentAnthropologist and I also agree with Candlewicke that we should mention that there were no other candidates. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support and Speedy Post re-election as UN secretary general is as internationally significant as they come. Mtking (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Was he re-elected? The BBC states "UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has been re-elected to serve a second five-year term, in a vote at the UN General Assembly in New York" then further down it states "Mr Ban smiled and bowed to ambassadors and diplomats gathered at UN headquarters, who backed the reappointment through applause without a vote". -- can  dle • wicke  21:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera says "by acclamation" and "through applause without a vote". -- can  dle • wicke  21:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See vote by acclamation and the closely related concept of viva voce -- these are rather frequent ways of doing business in legislatures. – H T  D  08:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support notable appointment--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support The UN Secretary General is an important position, but I don't think re-election is as meaningful when he is unopposed. Neither article has been updated enough yet--I can't find anything in Ban's article.--Chaser (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. UN's reputation degraded in the last decades, but still it is the most important international organisation, and there is a FA. Grey  Hood   Talk  22:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. World-wide significance. Crnorizec (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: The article has to be updated first. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ditto, all the "speedy posts" and (in HJMitchell's words_) "all the supportsin the world will not get it posted without an update"(alright i paraphrase)Lihaas (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dunno what else has to be said -- he was virtually unopposed and was voted by acclamation. What else has to be said? – H T  D  19:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The article is now updated and ready for posting. Please post asap, before this becomes old news. Crnorizec (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading the post, I think "is re-elected for" would be more appropriate wording then "wins", in this case... Crnorizec (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I get the impression that, here on ITN, there is a culture of never making one link when you can make two. Clearly, only one link is needed for 'Secretary-General of the United Nations'. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Judgement of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali



 * The sentence also includes a penalty of $65.5 million, and came after he was proven guilty of illegal possession of cash and jewelry charges.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This the biggest news coming out of MENA today. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, seems noteworthy enough. Is there an update / is the article in good enough shape? (Apologies, I haven't read the article yet.) <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This one seems obviously notable. Thue | talk 10:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: The article has to be updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article entering a new section about the trial and the recent verdict.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --bender235 (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please wikify in absentia as well. --bender235 (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that it is necessary. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We can replace the President of Tunisia link (w/c is a stub) with a link to in absentia. – H T  D  13:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Removal of a prime minister

 * conditional support with article update and detail s of the terms. its notable to have a leader unseated (particualrly from otuside) a la Ivory coast. Lihaas (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there is no objection, and the article has been updated, going to post soon. I believe I waited long enough this time. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

FIFA Vice President Jack Warner resigns

 * Support FIFA troubles are highly notable and have been widely discussed even in the Economist. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose The only news here is that a person has resigned. We don't officially know why. All charges against him have been dropped and inquiries involving him have been closed. To claim it is related to the corruption scandal may be a reasonable guess, but it's a violation of BLP rules, because we don't actually know that. Items here must not depend on innuendo. This may be a very clever political move at FIFA, getting rid of a target, but we can only guess at that. Not enough hard evidence of anything for this to be significant. (Or legally safe.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If UK sources are prepared to say that its related to the corruption scandal that should be enough. UK libel laws are the strictest in the world. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's ear on the side of Caution as advised with BLP The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose He was only a VP. For an organisation like this, I would support if the president of the organisation resigned under proven circumstances.  Spencer T♦ C 04:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Death of Ryan Dunn
Ryan Dunn, daredevil, Jackass actor, dies after a car accident at age of 34. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  16:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Johnny Knoxville may be worth discussion if he dies unexpectedly but Ryan Dunn? Really? What is his biggest accomplishment? All I could say his "inserting a toy car into his rectum and having it x-rayed" gag was funny the first time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We could insert the rectum part in a blurb. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  16:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The epitome of what belongs only on Recent deaths. We need to remember that page exists, and ITN is not the clearing house for every single BLP that dies. --Golbez (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, does not have enough worldwide appeal. meshach (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Not of international significance. Mtking (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongest support possible. The Irish Times tells us he starred in a franchise that "grossed more than $330 million worldwide", reported in Le Parisien, reported in Buenos Aires Herald, reported in Reuters India, reported in the Straits Times (LOL it passed the "Straits Times test", and reported in the Sydney Morning Herald. – H  T  D  04:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only possible interpretation of strongest support possible is that you consider the inclusion of this item to be as important as including announcement of the assassination of Obama or nuclear attack on Japan by North Korea. Is that really what you mean?  Kevin McE (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * More like strongest-possible-support ever since the rapture ends before Le Mans ends so we gotta post now. – H T  D  12:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Resident Anthropologist. I would more seriously consider Johnny Knoxville. Not everything that gets reported internationally is ITN worthy. For one thing, this guys wasn't even at the top of the slapstick comedy field.--Chaser (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I have to admit I think HTD has a good point. I don't think trying to say that "it wouldn't be reported internationally if it was print" is particularly legitimate. Especially when its reported by so many people. I'm sure this article is getting a ton of views. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. 3 million. Not exactly like Michael Jackson, though. – H T  D  12:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That puts it third in the all-time records for any article. Still, he fails the death criteria.--Chaser (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No way. ITN is not an obit section, and this death does not meet a single criterion of our death criteria. Save it for the tabloids. HTD isn't seriously suggesting Brian Lenihan Jr's death was less important, or maybe he is as Lenihan was Irish and we all know how HTD feels about that. StrPby (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Does sticking a toy car up your ass qualify you for ITN nowadays? --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 13:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose with force The fact that this 'star' was famous at all is a matter of serious concern for our society as it is. Wiki should not make a shrine to idiocy. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and not because of my distaste for the man's work. I dislike professional wrestling, but I supported the failed nomination of an item about the death of Randy Savage (also in a car accident), whose impact as an entertainer was extraordinary.  Mr. Dunn simply didn't rise to anywhere near that level.  —David Levy 19:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not even close to the notability level for ITN. Strange Passerby sums it up well that ITN is not an obituary corner. Pedro : Chat  20:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Opppose Some twat who dies due to his own drink-driving isn't ITN material.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] gTLDs expansion

 * An important development, that is likely to significantly change the face of the Internet. Nsk92 (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've ruthlessly copyedited the blurb, to try to reduce it to realistic dimensions. Also changed bolded article from ICANN to gTLD. --hydrox (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind compressing the blurb, but you cut it too much. The use of non-latin characters is only a part of the deal here; the bigger news is that companies will now be allowed to choose their own gTLDs, leading to stuff like .ibm, .apple, .coke, .delta, etc. That needs to be reflected in the blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose: bit geeky, not main page news, but that is not always a problem. But if posted, less techie language needed for the blurb: generic top level names will mean nothing to a very large proportion of readers, and there is no clue to the layman that it has anything to do with the internet or computing. Kevin McE (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The original blurb was more detailed, and gave examples of current gTLDs, like .com, .edu, .gov, etc. They could still be worked back in. I don't think this particular newsitem is too geeky: everybody uses internet these days, and the fact that the number of gTLD suffixes will probably expand from 22 to hundreds if not more will certainly substantially change the internet. Nsk92 (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have re-expanded the blurb a bit, to address the point raised by Kevin McE. Nsk92 (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Everybody uses a car nowadays, and the suspension is the way their car connects to the rest of the world, but I wouldn't expect discussion of MacPherson struts, upper and lower A-arms and semi-trailing arms without telling the reader that we are talking about suspension systems, or even cars. Kevin McE (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This situation is different: we are not talking about a hidden "back-end" type of a change, like the struts example, but about a "front-end" type of change which will much more directly impact how ordinary people interact with the internet. While people using a car do not generally see its struts, people browsing the internet do see the web-addresses of various sites they access. Nsk92 (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But do enough people care what's in them? For that reason I oppose as too much of a niche item. Hot Stop (c) 17:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The same could be argued for all sorts of stuff we post. I think huge numbers of people care about non-latin characters. I would say the whole population of China, India, Japan and the Arab world probably care about that to a lesser or greater extent. That's over 3 billion people. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So it's of interest to people who don't primarily speak this language? Hot Stop (c) 21:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't just post things that are of interest to English speakers as we aim at an international audience, and there are lots of English speakers in India and China (if only due to the sheer size of those countries). The elite in India all speak English, but they'll speak other languages too. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My example about car suspensions was not about saying that we shouldn't mention it, but that we should not use technical terms beyond the argot of the average native user of English without at the very least an explanation of the context (I have now underlined the part that seems to have been overlooked). Although people might use the internet daily, the vast majority will not have a clue who or what ICANN is/are, will not automatically guess which meaning of suffix is intended, and will consider generic top-level domain to be incomprehensible jargon.  We do not give sports results without telling people what sport the NBA Championships or the US Open is in: we need something to set the context of this jargon-laden blurb.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support It was covered on Today this morning, while that is an intellectual radio show its hardly a geeky one. Seems significant. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. A big deal for the Internet. Thue | talk 18:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Article updated, minority topic, opposes are pretty weak given coverage on Today for example, and that we are 24 hours over the target time for posting. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable and noticeable development. Grey  Hood   Talk  23:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Reshaping the internet as We know it. Will We be part of .Wikipedia or .Wikimedia? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly and reluctantly I have to support this. It may be an truly idiotic decision and a car crash waiting to happen but it is significant, and given that technology tends to be of disproportionate interest to the user base, of interest to our audience. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Plane crashes in Russia, 44 dead

 * Comment I'm generally supportive of this, but the article looks like it may need some work. It seems highly inappropriate to be drawing defintive conslusions as to the nature of and cause of the crash at this early stage, as the infobox appears to do. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It does? The only thing remotely close to that is the Controlled flight into terrain bit, which is the type of accident, in this case, flying an aircraft into the ground. It makes no implications as to why or how the aircraft was flown into the ground. C628 (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you know it was under control? There are other issues in the same vein - how many survivors are there?  Some of the injured are in critical condition and may not survive.  It's a very good start for an article but we do not deal in speculation - information as it is available now needs the provisional nature emphasising - e.g. at least 44 fatalities, and I probably wouldn't quantify survivors at all in the infobox at this point.  In the main article you may be able to do that, provided again it is emphasised that the information is subject to change, e.g. Initial reports stated that... While it is still of a speculative nature it does not qualify for a main page bold link, effectively meaning there is no ITN item. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Support - Getting some moderate coverage over here in the U.S. Speculation is fine as long as it is cited. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   02:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral It is getting coverage, would change to support if more than one nationality was involved i.e. Russian Airline, Russian built plane, Russian Engines, in Russia, with as of now, no conformation on any non-Russian's on board. If it turns out not to be a Russian full house would move to week support. Mtking (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The BBC are re-reporting Russian reports that one Swiss is among the dead. . Crispmuncher (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Support: International coverage. Could change blurb to mention 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. GaneshBhakt (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why the hell would you want to bring an unrelated accident occurring over a year ago into a blurb about an item presently newsworthy?! StrPby (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I said could not have to. Also, it ain't unrelated, the aircraft is the same.
 * Strong support - should be posted right now. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  12:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Yet another fog-related Russian aircraft disaster. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 12:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Death of Brian Haw



 * Oppose I agreed with Brian Haw's stance and I agree he was a vital part of the fight against Labour's (almost certain) illegal wars. But I cannot accept that his death is ITN-compliant. Notable but not the correct Wiki kind of notable. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 05:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be more dead Irishmen nominated here than dead Americans this momth. LOL – H T  D  06:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your disruptive interventions here are becoming tiresome. You are capable of making sensible contributions to discussion about which items are worth including, so please try to have enough self restraint to limit your comments here to those which are constructive, and stop trying to make nationality based points.  FYI, Haws was not Irish and the current "score" is 4-1 in favour of the US. Kevin McE (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Another dead white man. We need to further our coverage of white men who recently died. – H T  D  11:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hope that we can make choices about which person's death is worth including here based on the circumstances of the death, the importance of the person's life, and the state of their article; not the colour of their skin. Are you suggesting that we should have lowered the bar for posting Clarence Clemons because he was black?  Of course, those who argue that priority should be given to anglophone nations are re-inforcing the systemic bias that you seem to be arguing against. Kevin McE (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - covered in diverse sources and were 36 hours w/o an updateLihaas (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Whilst I can understand opposition based on the death criteria, his protest is certainly sufficiently notable - the story here is that his protest has finally ended after more than a decade. Even those who didn't like his politics recognised his determination and integrity in the face of adversity. His notability as a renowned peace protester was world-wide, as the diversity of news sources covering his death indicates (over 400 GNews hits and rising). Having said all that, the article could use a tidy first. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support seems to be a seriously notable protestor. 10 years is a hell of a long time. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The update needs expansion. The death section does have three references but they all directly detail his death and CoD. There should be some reactions or something more significant.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I added some reaction from Tony Benn and Mark Wallinger. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to do anything more. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated sufficiently now. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I would consider the two deaths below to be much more notable and worthy of inclusion based on the sources provided and appeal. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 22:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Those two don't have consensus and one of the nominations has even been withdrawn. -- can  dle • wicke  22:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 22:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This item only has one oppose, your one doesn't count as it doesn't add any points, and the items in support are generally strong, especially the nominator. And this has been covered by sources around the world. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Not an internationally notable or recognisable.Mtking (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it not clear from the above that he is internationally recognisable? India, Iran, the Middle East, Australia, New Zealand, United States... :D -- can  dle • wicke  22:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * News filler. If the internet did not exist, it would not be "news that's fit to print" on those countries. The internet gives us the false impression that news is "reported" elsewhere. He does not fall on any of the three of the death criteria: was not in a high-ranking office of power, and had a significant contribution/impact, was not a very important figure in their field of expertise (take note of the word "very"), nor did his death have a major international impact that affects current events. 400 Google news hits? The 2011 NHL Entry Draft had 800+ Google news hits, and Ryan Dunn had 2,5k Google news hits! Don't expect we'd get to see those in the Main Page. Ever. – H T  D  03:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with HTD's point above.  I didnt' see Haw's death yesterday anywhere on the main BBC News website.  I'm sure it was reported somewhere on the site but it's very low profile coverage.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So he camped outside the British Parliament for 10 years what did he do that is of international significance ? Mtking (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Spanish protests

 * Wouldn't quite call this a "revolution"... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The 2011 Spanish protests, also referred to as the 15-M Movement or the Spanish revolution"... the article gives it several titles. :) -- can  dle • wicke  02:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ¡NO! Protests by welfare recipients in free countries never constitute news. No, no, no, no, no y ¡no! ¡¡¡Maldita sea!!! μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Deutsche Welle, Sky News, The Sydney Morning Herald, Press TV, The Financial Times, Reuters Africa, CNN and lots of others seem to disagree... :D -- can  dle • wicke  03:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * support number is pretty damng large, particularly ina countyr that doesnt see such mturnout (though that would be large anywhere)Lihaas (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * comment" update is not there on the article. can people find an article update it and then nominate.Lihaas (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: Is not the top story in Deutsche Welle (Greek austerity measures; you'd need to press page down twice to see the story)), Sky News (U.S. Open; this story not on the home page), The Sydney Morning Herald (Afghan killed Aussie soldier; this story not on the home page), Press TV (French troops kill Afghan civilians; this story relegated to the videos section), The Financial Times (Greece austerity measures; this story relegated to the 4th bullet point in the world section)... you get the point. – H  T  D  06:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose": All eyes are on Greece; Spain didn't even make my evening newscast. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I dont feel 90k is enough really, especially for a two centre protest. The London protests we posted got over 200k people turning up. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Rory McIlroy wins U.S. Open

 * Support Updates seem sufficient but that blurb needs work: records are broken or beaten, not "upset". Crispmuncher (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Pretty sure the target article needs to be 2011 U.S. Open (golf) and not Rory McIlroy. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, I missed that - that was the article I checked anyway. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Last year the target was the athlete. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   01:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case it isn't ITNR. ITNR applies to the event article in this situation. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering are we? The reoccurring event is much more important than the target of the blurb. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   01:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, way to assume bad faith. Please retract that. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement is intended to be entirely objective with no underlying malice. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   02:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of wikilawyering—"a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of judging other Wikipedians' actions"—isn't malicious? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what you meant by that was: Oh okay. I was just a little suspicious because the internet is a terrible conduit for interpreting emotion but now I see there is no malice between us. Is my word not enough? <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   02:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't true. Man Booker Prize and Nobel Prize in Literature are ITNR but are not updated with a paragraph every time someone wins. There is another example on the Main Page right now. -- can  dle • wicke  01:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sport events generally have an article for the actual event that took place that year. Literature articles are generally harder to find an update for; there aren't hoards of fans who work to 2011 Man Booker Prize articles and the like.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per ITNR plus, if 11 records were broken as the article states, this is probably more notable than the average sport ITN. -c - can  dle • wicke  01:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 11 plus 1 for breaking the most records. :) <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   02:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support We need to change the blurb to include "youngest in so many years" somehow (see link http://www.sportinglife.com/golf/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=golf/11/06/20/GOLF_US_Open_Age.html&BID=585) doktorb wordsdeeds 04:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: The Rory McIlroy article isn't updated; more specifically the updated paragraph lacks citations. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No sense on insisting McIlroy's article be boldfaced when 2011 U.S. Open (golf) are just a couple of references away from being an ITN-worthy update. – H T  D  06:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Significant sporting achievement. The kid is now the hottest golfer in the world... -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Blurb should also mention that McIlroy is the youngest US open winner since Bobby Jones in 1923. --bender235 (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, which seems uncontroversial, but no need to mention Woods, and the use of upsetting is unknown in UK English. Suggest In golf, Rory McIlroy of Northern Ireland wins the U.S. Open, setting a record score and becoming the youngest winner since 1923. Kevin McE (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again: In golf, Rory McIlroy of Northern Ireland wins the U.S. Open, setting a record score and becoming the youngest winner since Bobby Jones in 1923. ;-) --bender235 (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you mention the youngest part Bobby Jones shouldn't be mentioned unless Tiger is. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   13:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite so: Jones has even less to do with the events of the last few days than Woods. Kevin McE (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments: 2011 U.S. Open (golf) does not have any citation at the moment. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That section is not the target. BBC Sport article reffed in lead.  Kevin McE (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Its got a couple of sources now. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No citation for the Tiger Woods part, either in the WP article or the WaPo story. Posting the first part of the blurb though. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed blurb to record 16 under par which is sourced. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Peace deal 'urgent', says Shimon Peres

 * Israels President Shimon Peres has today stated that a peace deal between Israel and Palestine are urgent. This comes ahead of Palestines very possible request in the UN for recognition of an independent Palestinian state in September.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * obvious oppose(id think) 1. wheres the article. 2. its a comment, nothing has been made.Lihaas (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's the story here? What do we run as the blurb? It is once again proven that politicians, especially those in the Middle East are full of hot air and too busy making statements about what they're thinking of maybe doing instead of actually, y'know, trying to solve the problem? That's not news. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same grounds as the previous ones. This is essentially political commentary, not a substantive development.  Would this single comment ever justify five sentences of coverage in an otherwise steady-state article? Crispmuncher (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC).


 * Oppose "Says"? That says it all. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just vapourware, nothing new or ground-breaking. Lacks urgency, sincerity, and political will. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

North-South Sudan conflict escalation

 * Satellite images shows at least 89 apparent military vehicles belonging to the Sudan Armed Forces in the city Southern Kordofan capital Kadugli, including heavy ammunition transport trucks, light vehicles on its way to Southern Kordofan at the South Sudan border. Ahead of South Sudan independence day on July 9.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - Conflict imminent. As nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the nom doesnt need to add support. its implicit.Lihaas (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as before given an update. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose as Crysal Ball for "imminence" we dont post that unless there is a conflict (i beleive something was posted last week, could be wrong) and wheres the article. ou can bet bottom dollar nothing will be [posted without an articlenom. See the edit box and youll find the ITN candidate template.Lihaas (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We haven't posted anything on this one yet. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support some kind of mention of the conflict ITN, since it hasn't been featured yet. Thue | talk 18:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose "conflict imminent" is original research (not to mention wild speculation) and moving a few armoured vehicles around isn't necessarily evidence of anything. But if we're going to post every small scale troop movement in a trouble spot, wed have nothing else on ITN (and we'd better sticky India and Pakistan, half of South America and most of sub-Saharan Africa for starters). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is too speculative and too quick to assume unfavourable scenarios.  That a government is moving forces to protect what is soon to become an international border does not indicate imminent conflict.  Does the US patrolling the Mexican border indicate those two countries are about to go to war? Crispmuncher (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC).

Is there some technical reason why this hasn't been posted yet? Or some big sports match in the way? Support μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * umm, there is no consensus. What is the reason for your support? (remembering that ITN doesnt vote count for consensus)Lihaas (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like we were right to wait, I saw mention of a deal to demilitarise the area on the news earlier. That seems to scupper theories that a conflict is imminent and shows precisely why we don't do crystal ball stuff. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC).


 * Comment Blurb is too long and convoluted. Needs to be pared down. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarence Clemons dies

 * Support: As nom. GaneshBhakt (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I've seen the story on most news sites I've checked. Hot Stop (c) 14:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on none of the news sites I have checked. Perhaps it's because I live outside the US? Nanobear (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Are we really reduced to listing the deaths of the members of backing bands? To my mind this is material for the recent deaths page - not In Ihe News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.250.34 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose not notable. We re not going to list every band members death for every bandLihaas (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose As above. Not a significant enough person. He never did anything in his life that would have made ITN. That's a reasonable indication that his death shouldn't either. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose According to this article, Bruce Springsteen saw him as an equal partner and a dear friend. But there's not much there about societal recognition of Clemons' contributions as on par with The Boss's or otherwise meriting ITN coverage. He's certainly been key to the E Street Band, but he's not at our usual level for posting musicians.--Chaser (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mkativerata. Also, I think the person was hardly known outside America. Nanobear (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Old man dies? Did he write all that cacaphonous poser's songs?  Sleep with Courteney Cox?  He certainly wasn't as well known as Elizabeth Sladen. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Don't be ridiculous. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

South Korea army fault
South Korean marines fired rifles at a civilian jetliner as it was descending to land after mistaking it for a North Korean military aircraft. No victims, but this story has coverage and could have been a tragedy. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  15:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose "No victims" and "could have been a tragedy" is not enough for me personally. There are dozens of little incidents like this every year between the two countries. Besides they just fired rifles not anti-aircraft or other heavy artillery. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Shooting at a civilian jetliner seems both unusual and dangerous. Has international coverage. CNN, Sky News, Agenzia Giornalistica Italia, The Daily Telegraph -- can  dle • wicke  00:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Two stupid, under-trained, incompetent, 18 year old soldiers did something dumb, but harmless. That's the news here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can bring down a commercial airliner with rifles fired so far away. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 04:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per candlewicke - The Amazzing Race (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There really is no story here, and what article could we possibly attach this to, given the lack of notability?--WaltCip (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I vote for the typical NOTNEWS-violating 2011 Somewhere happening of nothing much type title. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support How often does a country's military fire on a civilian airliner? KAL flight 007. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Renom2: China floods
This is ready for posting. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be posted until it's too late. Already six days after the floods are in the central attention and one day after the alert has been raised on higher level, we don't even have a discussion about this. Really strange.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Death of Frederick Chiluba
Since we always use to post the death of former head of state, and Chiluba was in office for 11 years, it's worth posting in my opinion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The death section is currently too short. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose No discernible impact on current events -- he had been out of office for close to a decade. Not a worldwide figure in his time, either: Zambia is a small country with an economy half the size of Vermont's. That the article says very little about his 11 years in office but a whole heap about corruption allegations of which he was acquitted, does not bode well. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. He was President for 11 years. Zambia isn't small. -- can  dle • wicke  00:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Presidents should be automatically notable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can see serving heads of state getting a mention; but notices of the deaths of former heads of state should be limited to those relatively few who made a lasting impact on world history and still have broad international name recognition. This man did not and does not. 81.148.250.34 (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Constitutional reform proposals by the King of Morocco
Although the reform proposals are not likely to satisfy the protesters, the King's response is unusual and uncharacteristic compared with the brute force reactions of most other Arab rulers to the Arab Spring protests, as noted by Nicholas Kristof in an NYT opinion column. Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, as Kristof notes repeatedly, Morocco has long been one of the more open countries in the Arab World. I don't think that the King's response is so unique in his history. That being said, it seems the gravity of this change is on par with a new head of state in a democratic country, so :support.--Chaser (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: One of the biggest news in MENA at the moment -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the proposed blurb. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would've been nice if we waited on the result of the referendum on July 1. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 07:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Howard, possibly for first time ever :@) Posted contrary to normal practice, with great haste (<5 hours after nom), and in the light of only one support comment, which seems less than wholehearted.  It was announced in March that there would be a referendum, all we have here is confirmation of the options that will be put before the voters, so the defence that it is ITN because it is a response to current protests is scarcely timely. Should be pulled, at least until there has been some discussion of whether we wish to expand our coverage of referenda beyond announcement of their results.  Kevin McE (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree this was posted fast. However, I think this is the real news. That a progressive, reformist king offered a referendum in March is news, but not surprising given the protests. The referendum passing is similar. But that an absolute monarch is semi-voluntarily offering to devolve power to the people is the most important news. This is the part we are posting. The details of the referendum is the most important part in a big step in the process of a monarchy becoming more free.--Chaser (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Agent Orange cleanup

 * Support highly notable step by the US. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note that what is new here is that the clean-up is commencing not that the US finally agreed to do it. The US did that years ago but the clean up is only now commencing the past few days. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose not globallyu notable bc the us alone agrees to smething. there ahvebeen lotsof multilateral agreements to clean up landmines the world over, we dont post thatLihaas (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)::
 * I would also agree that it is not globallyu notable. I would add that that World Cup final that we posted was also not very notable.  There have been lots of football matches between different nations and we don't post them all.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC) p.s. support
 * International notability isn't a requirement. Im certain this is today's biggest story in Vietnam - a country with 90 million people - if not the years biggest Vietnam story. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 03:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's the update?--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, the current content is from 2010. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose How is this different from any other environmental clean up operation? Crispmuncher (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Because Agent Orange is kind of a big deal, whereas most environmental cleanup operations are much less significant. Millions of people were affected by this and 150 000 suffered birth defects, most environmental stuff is on a totally different scale. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] New Lebanon govt

 * possibly big repercussions with the first March 8 govt incl./ Hezbollah in gov ernment for the first time. (though itsd be pov to mention hezbollah as they are not the biggest player in govt nor tdo they lead the parliamentary group)Lihaas (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't this ITNR? As I believe so marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * not sure b/c thre was no election. just a fall of govt and a new one now formed. Although it is ready pending support.Lihaas (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've no opinion either way, but I'd like to see some discussion, particularly on whether ITN/R is applicable, if for no other reason than I don;t want it pulled after a string of after-the-fact opposes. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Major implications for the whole territory. IIRC the fall of the previous government was covered as well. --hydrox (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Given there have been no opposes, re-marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

South Kordofan conflict

 * A major humanitarian crisis looming.Olegwiki (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as below. Needs a little more of an update and it'll be ready for posting given the consensus below. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The reaction section is fine, but the content expansion needs to focus on what the groups such as the UN are reacting to--what happened there.  Spencer T♦ C 01:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks as good as the sample article at the time of posting. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The sample article has 2 paragraphs in the incident section, while the equivalent section in the nominated article, South_Kordofan_conflict, has only 2 sentences.  Spencer T♦ C 16:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - if expanded some.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the ready mark as I agree with BabbaQ that the article has to be expanded more. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] World's richest literary award



 * This is an ITNR item and the article is updated... so I am posting soon. Hope no one yells at me. :D --BorgQueen (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The update in the bolded article is pretty much bare minimum and consists mostly of a quote from the judging panel. I won't remove, but if someone can find anything else to add to it, that would be good.  Spencer T♦ C 21:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- can  dle • wicke  21:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's much better now.  Spencer T♦ C 01:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] New head of al-Qaeda

 * Support Major story. its as big as electing a new head of state (For lack of a better word) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, Al Qaeda is important. Thue | talk 20:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support seems like a worthwhile posting and they are very high profile. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is what is called a press release, and was a forgone conclusion when Usama was made hagfish fodder. There is no NEWS here. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: Wasn't he pretty much in charge anyway when bin Laden was holed up in that house?  Spencer T♦ C 21:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And Ayman_al-Zawahiri needs expansion.  Spencer T♦ C 21:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, while may not be terribly surprising, still quite a significant development. Nsk92 (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Article looks sufficiently updated. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support high profile CEO of high profile organization.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Posted RxS (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

IBM

 * Oppose, anniversaries like this belong in On this day... <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 11:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They're turning 100 today... not in the past :) Has been all over the news the last week or so *shrug* --Errant (chat!) 11:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is a fact that I get a large portion of my news through NPR/BBC radio these days, but I honestly hadn't heard about it until now. If you want, I can add a "1911 - IBM is founded" or "June 16, 100th anniversary of the founding of IBM" to OTD. That's what we generally do in cases like this, unless the anniversary is exceptionally notable (off the top of my head, to me it would have to be more notable than July 2/4, 2026 [250th] or even 15 June 2215 [1000th]). <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, Maybe the young'ns here don't realise it, but this company had a massive impact on the world during much of the second half of the last century. This is special enough to be posted. HiLo48 (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And also late in the first half too: IBM and the Holocaust/IBM during World War II.  Spencer T♦ C 21:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per HiLo and nom. Major innovative company with an enormous impact global. This is a big anniversary and ITN material IMO. Their volunteer drive is supplemental as well. In full disclosure, I do own stock in IBM which in no way impacts my support. :)--NortyNort (Holla) 13:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a current event. The company is highly notable, and the anniversary is important, but ITN is not for anniversaries. That's what OTD is for, and that's where this should be. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HJ Mitchell, I was considering nominating this, but had the same feeling. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It probably belongs more to WP:OTD, but since it's unlikely it will get there right now, we should make a compromise and post it here. It is very notable in any case. IBM is one of the most important and most legendary companies in the world. Nanobear (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good argument. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Added to on this day for next year: Selected_anniversaries/June_16. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That still depends on the admin who'll update it next year. I've seen good faith additions by editors only to be reversed at the last minute before the page gets locked. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 06:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Greek economic crisis escalates
Crnorizec (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - Compounding the effect on stocks the Japanese earthquake had. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   09:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, all over the news recently. Not a huge fan of the update though, but that's a problem with all of these "recent economic issues" articles; they're just a comprehensive news ticker. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 11:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Major story. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The article makes it sound as if this happened three days ago. Is that the case? HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is a developing story. It started to escalate since 2-3 days ago, when the negotiations between the government and the opposition failed. Crnorizec (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This is more Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead, not news. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, significant recent developments, pointing to the likelihood of a Greek default; the current crisis already has had significant impact on the European and world economies. Nsk92 (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The outlook has gotten much worse in a matter of days and it's having major effects on world markets.--Chaser (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support a significant step in how things are escalating. --Kslotte (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. The update is a bit shortish but I think it is acceptable. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * UPDATE for the more notable finance minister (which is why greek markets were up when others were down today). its also more signiicant in domestic politics b/c apparently he was the PM's rival once-upon-a-timeLihaas (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

CIA website knocked offline

 * Support: as Nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose LulzSec does this with websites nearly biweekly now. No sensitive information was on the site, and the AP article suggested that increased traffic from the LulzSec Twitter announcement may have also contributed to the crash.  Spencer T♦ C 01:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as ballsy messing with the CIA is... its a simple DDoS attack, knowing how little traffic the page gets I could probably arrange DDoS attack on a server like that simply by posting to 4chan and letting the /b/tard's do it for me. No skill at all DDoS attacks even if it against the CIA...  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wording is misleading. Confidential information within CIA databases themselves have not been compromised.--WaltCip (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, simple DOS attack on website which is not infrastructure-critical. Thue | talk 07:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Game 7 of the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals
Won't jinx any team this time by suggesting a blurb. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If Vancouver win we should mention that they are the first Canadian team to win the Stanley Cup since 1993.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, but when the match ends. I also concur with John.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ITNR. Worth noting if the Canucks win that it would be the franchise's first title, I believe, while if the Bruins win it would be Boston's first in decades. StrPby (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Boston did it. A hook at the Current Events portal reads, "The Boston Bruins defeat the Vancouver Canucks to win the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals, for the first time since 1972." That might be a good start for now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Game 7 doesn't have a prose update. Should we wait on it? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, this is going in by default anyways, but a better hook is, "The Boston Bruins defeat the Vancouver Canucks 4-0 in Game 7 to win the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals in the North American National Hockey League." Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need to mention North American, but we should put "In ice hockey" at the front as per norm. Tim Thomas won MVP, that should be mentioned as well. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 03:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot we added that too. Once we get a picture of him, that can be added as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not normally post the scores of games on ITN and this should be no different. Just mention the win and the Conn Smythe winner. StrPby (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should also mention the riots in Vancouver... Shark96z (talk · contribs) 03:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, riots occur with a lot of championships, so it really isn't that big of a deal. If anything, it would overshadow the event and make the hook unwieldy with so many facts. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's go with this:
 * In ice hockey, the Boston Bruins defeat the Vancouver Canucks to win the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals. Tim Thomas wins the Conn Smythe Trophy as the playoffs MVP.
 * Any suggestions or corrections? We can throw in File:Tim thomas.JPG as a pic too; a rare picture of a goalie that shows his face even.  -- Jayron  32  04:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is ice hockey a popular enough sport for it to be unlinked? There's a long discussion at Talk:Main Page about this. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 04:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read that discussion. OK.  I have delinked both ice hockey and MVP to reduce bluelinking.  Any other suggestions? -- Jayron  32  04:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we should mention the MVP, as that wasn't done with Basketball or other sports. It seems more significant that this is the first win since 1972. Mamyles (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, we did mention Dirk Nowitzki (the MVP in the NBA Finals). -- Jayron  32  14:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support recurring item. Truthsort (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: I would love to post but the article currently seems to need more prose update about the result, along with references. Curiously it is using a couple of Wikipedia articles as references; I think it is best to replace them. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Stanley Cup Finals now appears to have something resembling a prose update, but it lacks refs. I'd be willing to post if someone could add a few inline citation to that section. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I added one. Hot Stop (c) 13:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Posted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggesting mentioning the riots in the blurb. The Toronto Globe and Mail calls them the 'worst in the city's history'. 150 people are injured, and thousands took part. These are no ordinary sports riots.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Lunar eclipse
June 2011 lunar eclipse

The center of Earth's shadow falls on the moon this time, thereby making this a pretty dark one. (last was in 2000). Partial eclipse starts 18:23 UT. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose this should have been posted beforehand, when it actually was news, not now that it is dead history. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support as appearance that emerges rarely and could be totally seen in only half of the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the many places where it's cloudy. I haven't seen one this dark and won't till I'm about 30. Greatest eclipse was at 20:13 UT. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needs more references, and probably more prose expansion as well.  Spencer T♦ C 01:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it already happened (should have been posted twelve hours ago), and a central eclipse isn't much bigger news than the multitudes of partials. Mamyles (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I think this is the first time I see someone objecting to an ITN nom because "it already happened". Aren't we supposed to post only after it has taken place? --BorgQueen (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually, if an eclipse is reported as news, it's before the event so people can view it. In my opinion, I don't care about this after the fact, though others may disagree. It's not as significant after the event. This "news" was known in detail centuries before (different from other news, I agree). Perhaps this would best be in the "on this day" blurb, in the future? Mamyles (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Uprisings in Athens and Barcelona

 * Please do something about the merge tag first. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Should it be removed? Barcelona now as well. -- can  dle • wicke  15:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "As part of the impact of the Arab Spring that effecting the world, protests in both Spain and Greece accelerate"? Just a thought -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is to do with the Arab Spring, it might do in Spain, but in Greece its the austerity measures. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The impact of the Arab Spring and the 2011 Spanish protests were a major source of influence for the latest wave of anti-government protests in Greece.Outraged Greek youth follow Spanish example Quote: First the Arab world, then Madrid, now Athens. Outraged Greek youth has taken its lead from the Arab spring and Spanish protests over unemployment -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The alleged 2011 Greek uprising is part of the 2010–2011 Greek protests that emerged half a year before the Jasmine revolution. So the influence of the Arab Spring is limited on the base of the initial grounds of the Greek protests.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, slightly related, eggs were thrown at bank executives in Ireland earlier. The bank executives were told they "should all be taken out and bloody shot". -- can  dle • wicke  20:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose this is flagrant, shameless WP:SYNTHESIS. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the "Arab Spring" shouldn't be mentioned? -- can  dle • wicke  20:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Medeis, and voicing strong concern at the increasing attempts to use ITNC and ITN as a vehicle for activism by a few certain users (not a comment on the nominator). This is not an appropriate place. StrPby (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose connecting the Arab Spring for every Goddamned protest. No comment on the subject of the article, though. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 03:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The situation is Greece is getting top story treatment in BBC News so that's a shoo-in when it's updated. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 04:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Italian referendum

 * The article needs more prose update. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems well worthy of posting, Berlusconi losing a referendum with such a margin is a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Conflict in South Sudan
This seems to have escalated and aid agencies are finding it difficult to operate. BBC, Al Jazeera. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. The border dispute in Sudan is very significant, and IIRC we have featured it yet. Thue | talk 14:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * support - significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Thousands of people displaced. -- can  dle • wicke  14:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Renom: 2011 China Floods
These have been ongoing, and the article now looks pretty good. And it looked to have consensus earlier this month. I think posting on the 14th would be OK, as the floods were still occurring then. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest new Blurb - 10 Million people affected by ongoing flooding in China, causing more than 3 billion USD in economic damages, more than half a million people evacuated, and at least 200 dead or missing since the start of June.
 * Also flooding still ongoing on 17th with more rain forecast EdwardLane (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about adding Flooding in China to the sidebar for ongoing events - disasters section. But I don't know where to nominate it for that - is it here at ITN ?  or can someone just go ahead and add it without a nomination process? and incidentally does that affect the nomination for ITN if that happens? EdwardLane (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to add there. No, no nomination necessary, and it does not affect the nom here.--BorgQueen (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I shall - though it seems like that there ought to be a nomination process for that - it's almost as public as ITN articles :) EdwardLane (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I find the article still being of poor quality, not enough prose. Support if the article gets a light improvement. --Kslotte (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the prose somewhat, I agree that the original content was still in it's 'stub like' form - merely providing the data rather than telling the tale. Please elaborate on the article if you fell the inclination, i've sure it could do with more to make it to 'featured article status' :) EdwardLane (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ready to go in my opinion. It will easily get improved even more once on main page. Do we get some support to post? --Kslotte (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hasn't this waited long enough? This has been in the news longer than the richest literary prize no one has heard about. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 11:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is more updated that the example new article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If no admin posts this in 30 minutes I'd go to AN/I. It's incredibly idiotic that this got a hard time while some nominations waited for 6 minutes(!!!!) –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 12:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Go for it, I usually don't find ANI productive. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's posted now thank goodness. This was a massive failure averted lol –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 13:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

[Pulled] 2011 Bahraini uprising

 * Support: as Nom. The article needs updating but this is big news and its a clear violation of Human rights -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The blurb has to be shortened. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed it, what do you think? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like it's including too many words to say something simple... why not "Bahrain commences the trials of 48 medical professionals who treated injured protesters during the popular uprising"? Why specify the rulers, it's presumably the state versus, and we don't need to say it's to hound, it's pretty explicitly in retaliation for them rendering aid. --Golbez (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, Go ahead and change it :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support Very important news and a rare example of verified human rights violation, and if this is something that is a legal issue, I doubt we can seriously talk about human rights. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article currently needs more update. Perhaps it is better to update the Timeline of the 2011 Bahraini uprising article instead. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated, posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as interesting international news. Mamyles (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Change to "accused of" giving aid to injured protestors. No conviction has yet been handed down. 24.159.22.26 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That kind of makes it sound even worse for the state, doesn't it? "I accuse you of helping this injured person?" --Golbez (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that from our article, none of them were charged with giving aide to protesters. This may be the reason they were charged according to most RS but it apparently isn't the governments official POV and in fact isn't really mentioned in the article. Nil Einne]([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk) 19:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please change the blurb, it currently implies that they have been charged becuase they helped them. In reality it is for different reasons like storing weapons. 77.103.5.197 (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pulled, as the article is currently tagged with POV and refimprove tags. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Spanish national police force website knocked offline

 * Oppose: A website going down for an hour? Meh. Anonymous has taken down bigger sites for longer periods but I don't think I would support them for ITN either. --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it regularly happen to police forces? I thought it was unusual but maybe it isn't. -- can  dle • wicke  18:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it happens regularly but I don't think being a police force necessarily means your site is better secured than PayPal's or Mastercard's. :) Now, it they took down the Spanish ministry of defence, or something actually sensitive to data security, then we might have a story. --Golbez (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] A Gay Girl In Damascus hoax

 * Support. An interesting and notable story, showing how easily Western media can be mislead because of their reliance on "rebel" blogs and twitter accounts in their coverage of the Arab revolutions. Nanobear (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article currently is not in a good condition. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it seems the article was significantly updated throughout this day, the tag is obsolete. Grey  Hood   Talk  17:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I struck my comment. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Just for the record, how many top news sites have eaten this story: CNN, FOXNEWS, Guardian, ALARABIYA, Washington Post, Washington Times, Daily Mail, Al-Jazeera, Telegraph. Grey  Hood   Talk  18:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support looks to have got significant international coverage, seems to be highly notable, and is a bit different from what we normally post. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of opposition and given there's a good update marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this must be the most trivial story I've ever seen on the front page. Owen214 (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Belgium

 * Oppose Would prefer to say "Belgium forms a government after X days of not having one" when they finally get around to it. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Comment Is there an article that's been updated or even can be updated? Other than "still no gov't", I'm not sure what can be added. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I would have liked to post this earlier when they broke Cambodia's record maybe, but I think going without a government for a whole year is significant, and I doubt its happened at all during the 20th or 21st centuries - I think if we're being honest before the 20th century places would have gone without a government for longer than a year. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There weren't that many parliamentary democracies before the 20th century.--Chaser (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Belgians say that they are just smarter than everyone else, and that other people are simply jealous... Furthermore, they don't seem to be in a hurry to form a government, so it's no news. Crnorizec (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Significant record, widely reported. This is a recurring problem in Belgium, but that they've gone an entire year is a bad sign for Belgian bonds and consumer confidence. If their bonds get downgraded in the next few days, then strong support.--Chaser (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting topic with a decent article. We don't need to wait for a bright line here, this is something that will interest readers. It may not be "news" (whatever that means) but ITN isn't a news source. It's certainly in the news. And in any case there are real consequences here beyond the formation of the government whenever that happens. RxS (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The Belgian situation is noteworthy, and this is a good chance to feature it. Thue | talk 07:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There doesn't seem to be much significance in this beyond achieving an arbitrary record.  If this is actually having an effect on Belgians' daily lives, I can't discern that from the article.  Seems less significant than the near-government shutdown of the US, which would have had real effects.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, post when they finally gets an government. They will probably beat the time record also tomorrow. --Kslotte (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per NW and Johnsemlak. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment About the world record thing, how sure are we? Considering it apparently took over 1 month for anyone in the media to notice that Cambodia was longer then Iraq and we announced this non world record on the main page for about 14 hours   and are still saying it in the archives ITN archives/2011/February I'm not sure if we should trust them to have properly checked up on this. In the news/Candidates/February 2011 is also relevant. Did we at least get high quality RS making the claim this time? Nil Einne (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Guardian NY Times. Some references are to "modern record", others simply to "record", so I cannot tell whether they mean that this is a modern record because democratic governance is modern or a modern record because we don't have good documentation. Someone should call Guinness.--Chaser (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 65th Tony Awards

 * Support, major theatre awards in the U.S., live theater equivalent of the Oscars, this years awards had additional levels of scrutiny and coverage due to the controversial nature of Parker/Stone musical. Article is fully updated, and looks reasonable for a go.  I know this isn't on ITN/R, but perhaps it should be.  -- Jayron  32  05:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Too US centric, only rewards plays/musicals performed in Broadway theatres. So claim that is the live theater equivalent of the Oscars is false. Mtking (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there any 'international' theatre awards? I'd hate to completely ignore theatre just because most of the awards are limited to a particular scene.  Perhaps a deal could be cut where both the Tonys and whatever the West End equivalent are added to ITNR.  I'm not a culture vulture but I believe Broadway and London are the primary centres of theatre in the English-speaking world.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, the theatre equivalent of the oscars (which are also US-centric, but still newsworthy). Why isn't this an ITNR already? Thue | talk 11:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Johnsemlak. While being internationalist is good we shouldn't exclude significant artforms because of it. We post the Filmfare awards and they are only of interest in India. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm uneasy about highlighting The Book Of Mormon like that. The BBC's coverage seems to be focussing more on War Horse.  While that won fewer categories there are more categories that are up for grabs for musicals, where there is no corresponding category for plays.  On the other hand, if we don't mention any productiosn we end up with a balnd-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless blurb that simply acknowledges that the Tonys have taken place.  Crispmuncher (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC).
 * How about: "The Book of Mormon wins Best Musical and War Horse wins Best Play at the 65th Tony Awards." --BorgQueen (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer this blurb. Similar to how we list comedy and drama for the Emmys. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Proposed for ITNR. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 2011 NBA Finals
The Dallas Mavericks win. ITNR Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support recurring item. Truthsort (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support after update and LOL at the impending US biaz comments. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 03:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, but 2011_NBA_Finals needs a referenced prose update for Game 6, and maybe a little more for game 5.  Spencer T♦ C 03:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: And for those that say that this isn't international, apparently the games were broadcast in 215 different countries and 46 languages, not to mention that the teams have players from the United States, Germany, Puerto Rico, France, Serbia, Canada, and Lithuania (and a coach of Philippine origin).  Spencer T♦ C 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I updated Game 5. I'll let somebody else update Game 6. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 03:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support once appropriately updated. No-one's said a word about US bias yet, so please stop tilting at windmills. MVP (Nowitzki) should be mentioned in the blurb. Lampman (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per international broadcast as well as many player's international careers as mentioned above. Shark96z (talk · contribs) 03:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ready now. Suggest "The Dallas Mavericks defeat the Miami Heat to win their first National Basketball Association championship. (Finals Most Valuable Player Dirk Nowitzki pictured)." –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 05:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as per ITNR but Oppose picture as the NBA Finals are open only to US teams vs Le Mans being international. Mtking (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, any team anywhere can be an NBA franchise. There was talk of European franchises some years ago. Heck, even Chris Bosh left Toronto (not in the U.S.) for South Beach.
 * And when's the next opportunity in having a German guy holding a basketball as the lead pic? Never? How about nice shiney cars? –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 05:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR, and strongly support the pic with Nowitzki, which is a huge deal in Germany.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've posted Howard the Duck's blurb (and the picture) with some minor variations. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I smell impending bitching when I saw "MVP" there. Meh let's just wait for them. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 07:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with "MVP"? I'm going to take a guess that it's not a commonly used acronym outside the United States, and thus biased. My apologies if my gaffe triggers World War III. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, cut the arrogance and paranoia. I'm a non-American, non-basketball fan and I am totally in support of this posting. But with terms like MVP (which I happen to know because I played a lot of baseball a long time ago), a lot of non-Americans won't know it, and it just makes sense to elaborate on the abbreviation for those people. There is a lot of international interest in this. Don't make the thread an all-American love fest. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Finals MVP" is linked to Bill Russell NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award, thereby providing direct access to an explanation of the term. In the past, we've similarly used the abbreviation "MP" (a term unfamiliar to most Americans), linked to the relevant country's Member of Parliament article.  In either case, spelling out the complete term would result in awkward wording.  —David Levy 08:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I never know why International English uses "Man of the Match", they might as well say "Dude of the Match" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude is primarily an American English term which has somewhat spread to commonwealth English but not that much. The use in cricket in particular makes sense since it's a gentleman's game, not a dude's game or a guy's game or whatever. Note that as I understand it, the MVP is closer to the man of the series. 'Man of the series' and 'man of the match' is arguably shorter then 'most valuable player of the series' and 'most valuable player of the match', a distinction that would be necessary to have equivalent awards. Of course it's not clear why you need 'most valuable' in such a context. Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Wow, I've never seen as much pre-emptive aggression as displayed in this discussion... Lampman (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's how I saw it too. Maybe it's at least a positive step towards some American editors at least thinking about the impact of posting seeming purely American material here. Just one of those stages in awareness and acceptance. (And I still totally in support of the posting of this item.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too; this is a no-brainer! But do we really have to attack every hypothetical person trying to promote an international perspective? Lampman (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment wasn't meant to "attack" anyone; it's just that sometimes, someone - typically new to ITN - opposes because it's a sports league in only one country, and I just wanted to make my comment clear that the finals did have some international effect. I apologize for being a little bitey.  Spencer T♦ C 02:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

[Reposted] End of the 24 Hours of Le Mans



 * The 2011 24 Hours of Le Mans concludes with Marcel Fässler, André Lotterer and Benoît Tréluyer with Audi R18 TDI winning the race.
 * After we missed to post the start of the race, the final results are worth posting in my opinion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR. Crnorizec (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting, per ITNR. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 16:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so fast--the update has only one reference that I can see.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pulled per your objection. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't it that hard to work up an update on this one? I'm assuming per Mick's comments that potential sources should be plentiful; as are other ITNR events. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 17:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you update the article yourself then? --BorgQueen (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do I have to bait this one? –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 17:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right then, how about this? (Keep in mind I know shit-all about motorsports) C628 (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, reposted. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Turkish general election, 2011

 * Support: Appears to be an important election - Support once the results are declared and the article is updated. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The results have been updated in the article. Wait the "Results" section of the article needs updating. Best time to do it will be after the preliminary results are out, June 12 20:00 +2hrs UTC. Crnorizec (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Crnorizec (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The election board website is down at the moment. NPR has a detailed story reflecting the results as well. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 21:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Prose updated. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] IMF suffers "major breach" in cyberattack

 * Appears to be notable enough for us. They describe it as a "very major breach". Please feel free to tweak the blurb. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Um - What's a "foreign government"? Being an independent body, surely all governments are foreign to the IMF. (I know those words come from the first source, but that does seem odd wording.) The second source says "IMF officials declined to say where they believe the attack originated." Quite a different perspective. The third source didn't work for me. But the big issue here is that the attack happened a month ago. The news is that they have now announced it. Not sure how we handle this. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the blurb. According to the sources, IMF told its staff and its board of directors about it just a few days ago and made a public announcement just now. We generally feature when they make official announcements and confirmations, although there have been occasional exceptions. In this case, they had kept it secret even from its own people. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose no details of precisely what was breached: without that it is nothing unusual, like those quotes that there are 80 succesful hacks into the Pentagon every day. I don't see fresh content either, and the IMF article (the only one linked to) has an issues template at the top of it. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose until details are know about what was taken, if it turns out to be of simular significance to the SecureID breach then post. Mtking (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken, thanks. I withdraw the nomination. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Fazul Abdullah Mohammed

 * Support seems worthy of posting a senior al Qaeda death. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, a fairly major development. Nsk92 (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. He is believed to be the mastermind of the 1998 United States embassy bombings. Note that he was killed on Tuesday, so this would be a delayed announcement from the Somali government after they exhumed his body. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 02:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. top ranking Al-qaeda operative.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, we've posted so many of these already it feels like overkill. Though ITN is an obit page at this point so it will be posted anyway. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Siege of Jisr ash-Shugur
Nom. Most important development in the region right now. --bender235 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Major refugee crisis is unfolding. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 13:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This new article on the seige needs more work.--Chaser (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a pretty big story, considering BBC is doing live updates. I'm uncomfortable with the large amount of quoted text in the lead, though. Turkey reports 4,300 have crossed the border with Syria. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 02:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support it seems like Syrians are so hot to get out of that country that they are fleeing to their traditional enemies like Turkey and Israel (featured in the news lately too). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Start of the 24 Hours of Le Mans (15:00 CEST)

 * Seems like an interesting idea, and then replace it with the results? Like it.. RxS (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Chance for us to be ahead of the curve, post when the race starts, amend when the race finishes. Mtking (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support A very good idea assuming we get an update and not a second nom when it ends. μηδείς (talk)
 * Support Provided it is updated and not bumped when the result is known. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Support based on same reasoning as above. --Kslotte (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support sounds like a good idea frankly. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Vroooom!! and per above --Johnsemlak (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks decent enough, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at risk of having already been snowballed. This is a radical departure from convention, and introduces a whole new approach to ongoing events.  That is not necessarily a bad thing, it should be properly discussed as a matter of policy, not introduced ad hoc.  I fear this being claimed as precedent for announcing start of voting, beginning of trials, first stage of competitions, etc.  Our objective is not to be the first port of call for those seeking news updates, it is to highlight Wiki articles that refer to current events: this appears to be an attempt to be first reporters. Kevin McE (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Our objective is to direct people to articles they might be interested in. And this is ITN, ad hoc judgements are its stock in trade. I could care less about setting a precedent, people are well able to resist such claims here, as they often do. Sure, we can have a 'discussion' about this 'ground-breaking' change, but with the race due to start in an hour, making that request here would seem to be pretty pointless, designed to do nothing but torpedo a nomination that was getting snowball support, for purely bureaucratic reasons. And we don't do pointless bureaucracy for the sake of it. MickMacNee (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really mean you could care less, or do you mean you couldn't care less? It's so often misused these days. 80.42.155.205 (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose mostly per Kevin. It seems that the reasoning "all the interesting things about it are pretty much over once the race actually finishes" holds true for most sports events. Would we post the beginning of the Masters or Wimbledon? To me, the news is that a competition has ended with so-and-so victorious. When we do post the start of an event (e.g. the Olympics), the beginning has a newsworthiness that this event's start lacks. Makeemlighter (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This a continuous 24 hour endurance race. A single event. It's not a series of golf rounds, it's not a tournament of tennis matches, and the 'start' is not a distinct 'ceremony'. As has been suggested above, when it finishes, we wouldn't be posting that as a separate 'event', but merely modifying the hopefully already posted blurb with the winners name. That's obviously not going to be desirable or practical for weekend long golf tournaments, or 2 week long tennis tournaments. The correct analogy is to continuous events like the royal wedding and space missions which we do post when they start, not other sporting events. MickMacNee (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Well, it's started. Wikipedia strikes again. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait for final results, for the most part I agree with Kevin McE. The race starting isn't news; its finish and winners are. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The most popular endurance race in the world, and one of the pearls of the racing sports is by far sufficient to me. I also agree that should be posted only the final results.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The final result is already ITNR. MickMacNee (talk)
 * Support posting now, I like the idea of highlighting an ongoing event as it's ongoing. C628 (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As far as 'the news' goes, which ITN supposedly isn't, barring a worse major incident happening, the main event of the race that the news reports will be focussing on after the finish, has already happened within the first hour, which is what? 25-26 hours before Wikipedia will ever get round to posting even the final result. MickMacNee (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional comment I just wanted to make a point that nothing's precedent unless we want it to be. The format of the race is as interesting to non-race fans as the final result. None of the other examples given above in opposition have formats exotic enough to be valid comparisons. Hopefully this is a step in the direction of ITN being a little less rules bound and pedantic. RxS (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm not sure I like the idea of sporting events being posted at their start. The article is already going to be suffering from lots of edits and edit conflicts, putting it on the front page is only going to make it worse.  Very little will be written about the race itself, and I'm not fond of people attempting to start writing a race report now when the race still has 23 hours to go.  Further, I'd argue the article is not really good enough at the moment for something to be listed on the front page.  <font color="#004400">The359  (<font color="#004400">Talk ) 14:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Exposing it to people who might want to read/edit it is the whole point of ITN. Opposing it on those grounds is completely irrelevant and invalid, as it goes against the whole point of Wikipedia. If you feel uncomfortable with people editting it, I'd suggest that's an issue for you not ITN/Wikpedia. The article looks fine to me, and any deteriation in quality due to poor edits can be dealt with in the normal way using reversion/protection/education, as happens every day on all the other articles posted to the Main Page. MickMacNee (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ITN is not to expose people to articles, it's for notable news items. The winners are notable, the start is not.  Claiming this is an attempt to WP:OWN is just down right silly.  There is not a problem with people editing it, the problem is with people attempting to turn the article into an up to the minute live update and trying to cover any and every moment.  Wikipedia does not need an instant updated race report, there is nothing wrong with having a race report wait until after the race is over.
 * The article completely lacks any discussion of the race weekend, no test day coverage, no practice, no qualifying coverage except for some tables. In fact there's very little prose in the article at all.  This is not what passes for ITN quality. <font color="#004400">The359  (<font color="#004400">Talk ) 14:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are completely wrong. ITN does not require articles to be fully complete before posting, and ITN is not the news - it exists to draw readers and editors into articles on current events, the very people who might expand it beyond what it already is to include the things you mention. The idea that Wikipedia has to wait until the race is over before anyone can start adding info to the article is utterly ludicrous, and the idea that we prevent articles from going on the main page to make it less likely they will get poor updates is equally so. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we don't require articles to be fully complete, but we do require a substantial update before posting other than in exceptional circumstances, and that's a good reason against posting it right now. If it was updated, it would be a different story. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that it had started was already updated, and now that's been missed, so has the race summary with the first major event. God knows what else you think needs to be there to make this a 'substantial' update, but please let's not pretend that you are suddenly going to support this if it arrived. You think that the race is only 'news' once its finished and thus doesn't belong until then, even though ITN isn't 'the news' (and the fact of the matter is that in the real world, the coverage of the race doesn't peak at all after the event, certainly not in these days of instant coverage, and in the case of the live TV coverage, that shuts down just 15 minutes after the end - that's how much they give a shit about telling people about the race after the event). So, you'll have to strike that view if you want me to believe the above and put any more time into this nonsense. As always, pissing around with ITN/C has already substantially ruined my own personal enjoyment of the actual event itself. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ITN does not require articles to be complete if they're brand new articles on sudden events. This is a planned event and an article that has existed for a year now.  That it completely lacks much of the background for the race does not make it something we should be promoting on the Main Page.  Hell, the 2010 24 Hours of Le Mans was never even posted on the Main Page after the race because it was equally poor and not truly up to date.  Again, please read what I said: I have no problem with people editing the article, but the article should not act as a live race report. <font color="#004400">The359  (<font color="#004400">Talk ) 15:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Please point me to any wording that remotely says articles on planned events need to be complete before going on ITN, or anything like it. It doesn't exist. You don't spend much time at ITN/C, and it's showing. You do however spend a lot of time patrolling and reverting race articles, so please, just stop pretending that your opposition is gounded in anything other than the completely invalid and totally unwiki reason of not wanting people to see the article, and thus edit it as it happens. That is not Wikipedia and that is not ITN. Accept it. The 2010 nomination was opposed (including by me!) because it didn't have a single referenced update, even after it had finished! In contrast to your non-reason for this race (and your opposition to the 2010 for not being 'complete'), that's actually a valid oppose. And not posting the 2011 race now only makes it more likely that this will be exactly what happens again. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody said complete. But the article now is inadequate and not up to date.  There is a major difference.  In the news seems to quite clearly state that the article needs to have some sort of major update in order to qualify for ITN.  Your proposal is that the article should be put in ITN before any update has occured.
 * WP:AGF clearly needs mention, and it's completely moronic to claim that I don't want people to see an article, or to claim that I am here under some sort of false pretense. Don't even begin to start to lecture someone on "what ITN is" while you want to twist around the very basic criteria for it! <font color="#004400">The359  (<font color="#004400">Talk ) 16:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And of course the article can be updated enough to be posted on ITN after the race. See 2007 24 Hours of Le Mans or 2009 24 Hours of Le Mans.  All it requires is people to take the time to work on it, which did not appear to happen last year.  If it's posted on ITN several hours after the race ends, it's not a problem.  The 2011 Indianapolis 500 certainly was not up on ITN when the race ended. <font color="#004400">The359  (<font color="#004400">Talk ) 16:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you're just flat out bullshitting. I have not once proposed the article be posted before it's updated - I was the one who made sure it was up to date in the first place. If you want to be a pain in the ass about it, I can easily go and update it right now to meet the letter of the requirement and add a couple more sentences to make it 5, and add 1 more reference to make it 3, there's plenty more to say from sources already, but I'm not going to because it's clear that's not what's behind your opposition. I am not going to be fucked around here and waste time doing this when that's not the real objection. The real issue here is your complete lack of clue that ITN exists to draw the editors in who would make the updates of the size you wrongly think ITN demands. You wouldn't have a problem with that if you were not planning to do the update all by yourself, and were concerned about people messing it up before you can do it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What update? That the race started at a certain time and Audi was on pole?  That's an update?  Certainly one could have ascertained the pole position just by looking at the qualifying results table further down the article.  You did propose that the article be added to ITN at the race start, at which time there was no major update.  This was the only update after it started, an hour and a half into the race.  What sort of piss poor writing is this?  Nothing about the race start but as soon as there's a wreck, the article's suddenly updated with two sentences!
 * And now you're claiming that you have more than enough time and ability to add to the summary of the article and include references, and you're not going to do it because I'm opposing your ITN nomination? How is that "The Wikipedia thing to do"?  How petty and paranoid to claim that I have some sort of hidden motivation.
 * Since you seem to be so adament of what ITN demands, here's sentence one: "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." Emphasis mine.  ITN is not to draw in editors in order to make the substantial updates, the substantial updates must come first.
 * Certainly if I were WP:OWNing the article, the article would be empty. Because User:Danny93 added the qualifying results, User:Vikirad's been on the ball about updating the entry list over the past few months, and an IP editor added the entire section on regulation changes!  Just because I've written the bulk of the race reports in the past does not mean it is something I demand, it's simply been I've been the one of the only people to bother to attempt to write a race report for a 24 hour race. <font color="#004400">The359  (<font color="#004400">Talk ) 17:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm certainly not the only person opposing this bold move to change the criteria for ITN, so your hidden motives claim holds no water. <font color="#004400">The359 (<font color="#004400">Talk ) 17:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When was the last time you actualy contributed to an ITN/C discussion? Or to any of the many 'what is ITN for' type discussions on the talk page? On what basis do you claim to have a clue what ITN is for, beyond repeating the 1st line of the page to me as if I'm some kind of twat, who had somehow missed it all this time, even though I am ITN regular myself? Unbelievable. I know what its for and I know what the specific reqirements are. You most certainly don't. Yes, you're goddam right that one accurate and well referenced sentence is enough of an update, certainly to kick off the discussion of the nomination at ITN. It's the sort of 'piss poor' writing that ensures people reading an article on a current event get the very basic level of information you would expect. And yes, your goddam right that I could quite easily update it to the letter of the update requirement, if I remotely believed that a) you had had a clue that that was what the requirement was before you opposed for not being 'complete', and b) you would acknowledge that it was 'sufficiently updated' per the requirements if I did. The thing that makes your position so ludicrous, is that as an ITN/R item, the only thing needed for it to go on the Main Page, even if waiting until the finish, is for someone to add 5 sentences and 3 refs to give the name of the winner, and then it will go up, whether you like it or not, whether is has a nice long race summary and is complete with all other sections, or not. You're showing your complete ignorance of how ITN works if you remotely think that's not the case. The only 'bold' move I was going for here is to see if people might understand the basic point that the current 'event' that we are informing readers of here is the whole 24 hours, not the finish. That reflects the coverage and reality. It seems it was a reach too far with all these ludicrous claims that it would lead to the sky falling in if we actualy bothered to start catering for readers in a timely and relevant manner, rather than what will probably happen now, where the final result probably won't even make it up, as the only reason I would be updating it myself to the letter of the law now after the race, is to piss you off, and fuck your weekend up in the way you've fucked mine. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think I need to have previous experience in ITN/C discussions in order to have an understanding of ITN or to have opinions for ITN/C discussions, then it seems you have quite a problem here. I mean hell, you admit that you aren't actually meeting the requirements and are intentionally witholding information that might meet that requirement.  Again, no one has said "complete", ever.  Only you did.
 * Since the race is already nearly a quarter over and it'd be silly to post "Le Mans has started!" now, I'll just put it the way you seemed to want to put it: Accept it. I suggest having a look over WP:CIVIL before you continue with further discussions on ITN/C. <font color="#004400">The359  (<font color="#004400">Talk ) 18:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So you'd turn up to Rfa and support someone because you think they'd use their tools to help you in content disputes? You'd turn up to Afd and say keep because you put a lot of effort into the article? No, of course you wouldn't, because whether you like it or not, just like Rfa/Afd, you need to have a clue what ITN is for before you can start acting like your opinions carry any weight. And yes, for the third time, you are damn right that I am refusing to make the necessary update to this article, per the exact letter of the rules, for the resons I have stated at length. If you want to start lecturing people on civility, don't start acting as if me saying that counts against my point and somehow helps yours when any sensible reading of this shows the complete opposite, and don't start lying about what you have and haven't said - "The article completely lacks any discussion of the race weekend, no test day coverage, no practice, no qualifying coverage except for some tables. In fact there's very little prose in the article at all. This is not what passes for ITN quality" - it's pretty clear from that that you expected the article to be pretty much complete, and is about as far as you can get from what is actually considered an ITN update. MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a great deal of difference between complaining that an article isn't "complete" and complaining that it lacks a multitude of basic information.
 * And yes, you're being quite uncivil and you need to stop. This policy isn't optional, no matter how angry you are. —David Levy 19:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only 'bold' move I was going for here is to see if people might understand the basic point that the current 'event' that we are informing readers of here is the whole 24 hours, not the finish.
 * This is true of any sporting event (irrespective of the duration), but we customarily wait until the winner is determined (with few exceptions, on which I've elaborated below). You keep citing the fact that this race lasts 24 hours, but you've yet to explain how this constitutes a material difference.  —David Levy 19:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

While some ongoing occurrences are sufficiently noteworthy, we include few sporting events in this category (with those along the lines of the Olympics and FIFA World Cup — for which the opening ceremonies are notable in and of themselves — as the rare exceptions). An event's duration isn't the material distinction, so simply being long doesn't somehow qualify one for special treatment at ITN. —David Levy 16:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC) You contend that this race is materially different because it lasts 24 hours, and I disagree that this is relevant to the matter at hand. 2. No, I don't seek to insult you, so I worded my message carefully (and avoided mentioning you by name) in the hope that you wouldn't take my comments personally. I realize that you don't believe that such an item's inclusion would constitute treating the section as a news ticker, but I disagree; it would serve primarily to report the event's commencement/schedule, which you cited as a benefit ("In addition, they've been playing around with the traditional start time in the last few years, so posting the start/finish time will be useful for casual fans of the race, aswell as complete newcomers."). This is why I noted that the section "is not a news ticker or entertainment guide." 3. I also realize that you want the section to function as a means of attracting users to articles to perform edits. This, however, is not (and has never been) its primary purpose. It's entirely reasonable to propose that this become the section's primary purpose, but you instead claim that it already is. You then indignantly deride and ascribe bad-faith motives to those who dare to express disagreement, invariably citing an outcome contradicting your preference as evidence that the section (or Wikipedia itself) is broken. Frankly, this has grown quite tiresome. —David Levy 18:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 2. As I noted, when the FIFA World Cup and Olympics begin, the opening ceremonies are noteworthy in and of themselves. This is not true of most sporting events, and I see no material distinction here. I also haven't claimed that attracting editors to articles isn't a benefit (which applies to every dynamic main page section). I was careful to state that this isn't the section's primary purpose. 4. I'm baffled as to why you believe that updating the article would "piss me off," and I'm disheartened by the extent to which you're openly motivated by spite. —David Levy 19:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC) It's started, we blew it. Hopefully get it right next year. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC) I have little interest in sports in general, but I'm certain that it's common for their fans to follow championship events all the way through, hour-by-hour, with substantial interest in far more than the final outcome. What, other than the long, uninterrupted duration, sets this event apart? —David Levy 20:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, compared to other races, this one's duration is highly unusual. Why does that mean that we should post an ITN blurb before it's been run? —David Levy 23:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC) You note that "readers will be interested in [this race] regardless of the result," but that's true of other sporting (and non-sporting) events as well. It's reasonable to propose that we broaden the section's scope to include advance notifications of interesting stuff and point readers to the relevant articles, but to quote Kevin McE: "This is a radical departure from convention, and introduces a whole new approach to ongoing events. That is not necessarily a bad thing, it should be properly discussed as a matter of policy, not introduced ad hoc." —David Levy 01:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I'm more than a bit stunned by your decision to collapse some of the opposition/legitimate discussion. I don't appreciate having my good-faith input labeled "unproductive drama." Please don't do that again. —David Levy 22:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Regarding having "the time to think about it and discuss it more calmly," this easily could have been proposed well before the day of the race. —David Levy 01:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per much of what's already been written above. The section is not a news ticker or entertainment guide.  Its purpose is to link to encyclopedia articles that have been newly created or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events of sufficient note.
 * Well, your either arguing that it's not a current event, that it's not been updated as one, or that it's not of sufficient note. All of which are wrong. You surely cannot be meaning to insult me by suggesting that through this nomination I think ITN is supposed to be a news ticker, when I've said the exact opposite many times already in this exact section, and a million times before. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking this way too personal. Levy's opinion seems to be quite clear to me - 2011 24 Hours of Le Mans has not been sufficiently updated and therefore does not qualify for ITN.  How this could be "wrong" is beyond me. <font color="#004400">The359  (<font color="#004400">Talk ) 16:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he's said a lot more than that, but he can speak for himself, or not as the case maybe. On the issue of the update, as I said above, if people want to take the piss, I can easily go and add the necessary 2 sentences & 1 ref to technically be 'sufficiently updated' for ITN, but I am not going to be fucked around doing it when this is isn't the actual reason for opposing. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Further, I don't believe that the article can be updated to the section's standards until the race's conclusion. For almost all sporting events, we wait until the winner is known.  Mick cites this race's 24-hour duration as a distinction, but I don't see the relevance.  —David Levy 18:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. As I went on to note in great detail (even citing exceptions and explaining what sets them apart), I'm arguing that most sporting events aren't worthy of note in ITN until the winner is determined. This is not merely my personal opinion; it's how the section routinely operates.
 * The fact you seem to think someone couldn't even make a 5 sentence / 3 reference updatee to this article even now, just a few hours in, only shows your ignorance of the actual event, or what drives reader/press interest in it. We are here to showcase sufficiently updated articles on current events, not to report news events. The race is a current event, the winner being announced is a news event. Your citing of the Wolrd Cup only showed that ITN does post items when they start but when there's nothing to say but 'it started'. As for your idea that ITN doesn't exist to attract editors, you are completely and utterly wrong. This comes up as one of the main benefits whenever its discussed in the round. You're frankly putting me in the ludcrous situation of only wanting to update this article to meet the requirements just to piss you off. And I'm not going to give you the satisfaction frankly. It can rot for all I care. I know the event is on, I know where the article is, and I know when it finishes. Once it's finished, that's my interest over. Interested readers can fend for themselves, certainly if the inevitable happens and it doesn't make it up even after the finish. MickMacNee (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm quite confident that a great deal of updating could occur right now, and I didn't claim otherwise.  I plainly stated that we don't customarily post items for most sporting events until the winners are determined (and I regard this as appropriate).  By ITN's standards, an update containing that information (and meeting the other basic criteria) is what's considered "sufficient" for this type of event/article.
 * I'm no longer interested tbh, especially as you are trying to contradict and reinterpret your own words with each new post. You clearly know nothing about the event, you clearly don't want to know anything about it, and you are freely inventing rules that supposedly exist for ITN, when in actual fact, it barely has any. MickMacNee (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, bye! —David Levy 20:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 *  Support Oppose Excellent idea Mick. For those who aren't familiar with it, this is one of those sporting events where "the event" is as, if not more so, important as the final winner. As another poster has pointed out, we'd note the Olympic starting ceremony. This is even more significant - not merely a ceremony, but a 24 hour event that many people do follow in its hour-by-hour entirety.
 * If you can explain the material difference between this race and most other sport championships (formatted either as a single match/game or as a series/tournament), I'll gladly reconsider my position. I mean that sincerely.
 * That is the point and the material difference. That's what sets it apart. It's a race that runs for 24 hours. That may or may not draw your interest but it is very distinctive. RxS (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the difference, but I don't see how it's material to the matter at hand.
 * Because the format of the race is unique enough that readers will be interested in it regardless of the result. That's the only reason this makes sense. Given that, there's less sense in waiting until it's finished to post it. Posting it once a winner has been decided treats ITN like a news service which it isn't. ITN is here to provide information on a current event that people will be looking for...which is now, not after it's finished. RxS (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A news service strives for expedience, which is exactly what's been advocated in this instance.  While we pride ourselves on our ability to provide up-to-date coverage of topics, we don't rush to post ITN items before key details are known.  When it comes to sport competitions, this usually means waiting until the winners have been determined.
 * Key details usually include winners yes, but this is a different deal. Readers are more interested in this race's format, more so than other sporting events. To a point where it makes sense to make an exception. Why do we have to make up more rules to allow single case events like this? RxS (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Knowing the actual event and things like how it differs from tennis etc, and knowing both the policy and practice of ITN as I do, and with the benefit of coverage on television and on the web right though the race, then under the current ITN rules, even accounting for David's extra rules for sports which never used to be official rules until today, this actual 'event' can be posted in a matter of seconds after the winner crosses the finishing line. Seconds. That's pretty expedient I'd say. It would certainly beat most actual news agencies final race reports to the deadline, but then again, they're the fools who include things in their news reports like the crash that happened in the first hour and other major details of the race, even though they already reported it at the time as well. You certainly wouldn't find encyclopoedias doing that in articles about the race, oh no. Oops. Certainly not while it was ongoing. Oops. Blasphemy. That's if anyone gave a shit about editting the article with that goal in mind. I certainly don't anymore, and I don't know why anyone else would either. But still, it needs to be said, just so people are absolutely clear what they've been opposing here, and just so people are absolutely sure about how ITN works right now and what could have happened, even before we have this mythical discussion about the meta-meaning of the concept of being 'current' that this nomination would have supposedly seen current policy (policy, at ITN? hah) shaken to the core, leading no doubt to a resolution from the Foundation themselves. MickMacNee (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to note that Andy posted a thoughtful, detailed response on my talk page. While I haven't changed my mind, I don't want it to appear that my above request went unanswered.  —David Levy 23:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For christ sake, can someone just post it now? This is an ITNR event, whining that it should be posted later rather than earlier is really piss poor. I thought we'd seen the back of such nonsense. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whining? Because some of us wish to treat this as we do almost every other sporting event that receives an ITN item?
 * I really honestly do think its whining. The article was well and truly updated over 12 hours ago and its an ITNR event so you guys know its going to go up anyway. I honestly cannot fathom why you guys thought this was worth arguing about. Its not as if 24 hours is such a huge time period that having it up for the whole race is going to make a huge difference.
 * The only possible "downside" to this is that we post stuff more promptly, which cannot possibly be a bad thing if the content is there, as it was in this case. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of us disagree with your position (and have explained our reasoning). I could accuse your side of "whining" about having to wait a day, but that would be unfair and disrespectful.  This is an honest difference of opinion, and there's no need to make it personal.  That's "unproductive drama."  —David Levy 01:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The right thing to do if you weren't sure about posting events early in general would have been to let it happen this time, and if you were still unhappy to raise a general discussion afterwards, which we would all have the time to think about it and discuss it more calmly. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You could apply that logic to any ITN/R event (e.g. if someone proposed posting an advance blurb for the Super Bowl). I realize that some are of the opinion that a relevant distinction exists, but I'm not.
 * Have no interest in this race, and wasn't going to interfere with discussion, but I thought I'd see what all the fuss was. For those wanting this posted before the race, the Tour de France starts soon, and runs for several hours a day for three weeks. I am personally far more interested in it than this car race. Can I ask that it be posted before the start, to get readers attention, and that it stays in ITN for the whole three weeks? (Please note that I am being ironic, and don't expect this to happen. I am simply highlighting the silliness of demands to post the car race before it starts.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ask away, I'd support it. Not for 3 weeks though, that's not part of this issue. RxS (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ironic or not, it's just one more example of a sport that's got nothing in common with the Le Mans 24 hours, except for just being a sport. Whoop de doo frankly. It's the argument to kill all arguments. Not. The day some lycra wearing steroid abuser rides a bike for 24 hours continuously is the day I will give a toss about posting that 'event' having started on ITN as something readers might be interested in reading while its ongoing, rather than waiting the mandatory 3 or more hours after the final result is known, for it to be posted on ITN as an article relating to a current event. MickMacNee (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Like this? Look forward to your support (assuming you can avoid unsourced and prejudiced accusations) for posting the next attempt at breaking this when it starts. Kevin McE (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you found something usefull to do with your time. Given the choice of defending your point above, or of starting this ground breaking discussion about redefining the word 'current' to mean 'current' for ITN we supposedly now need to have, or even updating the actual Le Mans article in place of those editors you've royally discouraged from ever touching again, so that it's ready in time for when it can theoretically get posted as the not news news, the very second the race actually finishes, you chose to go searching Cycling News to find the report of some nutter actually cycling for 24 hours, a news item that you know full well would never get posted not only at its start, but also at its finish, even if you did nominate it, because it's total trivial shite. I would have a good laugh opposing it though, on the super serious grounds we've never discussed the ramifications of whether we would have to post when the guy gets into the bath of beans, as well as when he gets out. MickMacNee (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The most discouraging thing about this debate is that people are ignoring the explicit big picture purpose of ITN. They root around and when they find a clause in some rule somewhere they beat nominations like this to death with it. It's like posting nominations cost them money or a puppy gets kicked somewhere. I can't imagine why it's better to have the same stale content linger than it is to have a good churn of topics people are interested in. RxS (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I've based my opposition upon my sincere understanding of the section's purpose, not on ruleslawyering. You're welcome to disagree.  I don't even mind if you tell me that I'm flat-out wrong.  But please don't assume that I (or others) harbor perverse motives.  —David Levy 01:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The first bullet point on the purpose section at ITN is To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. How does this not fit in? How does adding a oddly formatted car race as it starting not serve our readers interest in a current event? RxS (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ex-Irish finance minister dies

 * Oppose - not all politicians deaths are worth posting even if he was an important figure for Ireland. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  18:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would think it quite rare that we would post the death of a former Cabinet-level official of a country of Ireland's size. I appreciate the argument that Lenihan's case is different, but in my view, not different enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I think it meets the death criteria, particularly 1 and 2. I agree that it is quite rare that a cabinet minister level person would be posted but this is an exceptional enough circumstance. It might be compared to the death of a Japanese finance minister previously posted on ITN. He has died at a very young age and is four years younger than that example. Not every cabinet minister level person receives international attention when alive and then when they die as well. The New York Times - "Led the nation's effort to fend off bankruptcy during the worldwide economic collapse". The Daily Telegraph - "Presided over the total collapse of the Irish banking system in 2008, which led to the fall of the government two years later". And Al Jazeera as well. "One of the toughest jobs in Europe ... delivered four austerity budgets in his less than three years in the job ... bailed out the country's two biggest lenders, nationalised the third and took charge of the two biggest building societies". Thousands of people are signing books of condolence and the funeral is expected to be large. The international sources I've used above (from three different continents) show that he was an important figure at a continental level as he was one of the main politicians involved in the bailouts by the European Union and International Monetary Fund after the late-2000s financial crisis, all of which still receives a lot of attention today. -- can  dle • wicke  15:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The update is still thin.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It should now meet the minimum requirements. The article itself must be a B or at least a C and currently has more than 100 references. -- can  dle • wicke  18:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain Grand Prix cancelled

 * Support As the Nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks ready, however I would prefer a shorter blurb. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any Suggestion? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although it is part of a notable series, the Bahrain GP itself is not noteworthy at ITN, so it is not necessarily the case that its cancellation is ITNworthy. The event has only been held seven times: it is not an historic tradition.  Given the current leaders' margins in the drivers' and constructors' tables, the loss of one race is likely to be irrelevant in determining the outcome of the series.  The event was pulled from the schedule months ago (without, AFAIR, ITN announcement): all that has happened now is that that postponement has been changed to a cancellation. Kevin McE (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above. Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  09:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, so what? Big deal. Agree with Kevin McE: nothing new here per se, something that's been expected for a few months being confirmed is not news. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Even tho the Bahrain GP itself is not noteworthy, The cancellation and the reason behind is tho. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. This was always on the cards, it being official isn't news. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, that's the antithesis of most other arguments that appear on this page, in that we generally don't note news "on the cards", we note it once it's official. The fact that the unrest there has not subsided, and has this international implication confirmed today, is the sort of thing we often use to update an ongoing event.  Abrazame (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Kevin McE's reasons are convincing. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I think editors here are focusing on the narrow aspect of the impact on the racers' overall event scores, when the real story is that safety concerns arising from the country's sociopolitical unrest have led it to lose a major international event that brings tourism, revenue and positive attention. This isn't sports news, it's news news.  When was the last time we noted the unrest in Bahrain is still ongoing, with ongoing repercussions, despite Saudi Arabia's actions intended to tamp it down?  I took the liberty of editing the blurb for length, per BorgQueen's comment, but welcome any revert or other rework.  Abrazame (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is a desire to propose an update on the current situation in Bahrain, then that, or the re-introduction of the Arab Spring sticky, needs to be proposed. The cancellation of a sports event at the end of October, even if ultimately caused by events in early June, is not a comment on the situation in June.  Kevin McE (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Support with the blurb "2011 Bahrain Grand Prix is cancelled after months of popular uprisings." μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, it was not cancelled because of the uprising. The original postponement was because of the uprising but the cancellation is purely procedural on the teams' part, at least officially. Oppose such a blurb. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Medeis' blurb is too vague, leading one to guess that it was cancelled by Bahrain themselves. The point is that when legitimate popular uprisings don't result in meaningful concessions but rather in military strikes against your own people—and from foreign countries, to boot—free people from around the world don't want to go to your country to engage in sport.  The cancellation, then, is pretty much as the blurb read, isn't it, that the teams did not wish to go?  I mean, that is the lead sentence in the article cited.  Abrazame (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I frankly think we should post things early as that's generally when they are "in the news" and not be too obsessed about waiting for confirmation. On this item I think I have to oppose as not really being big enough to cover now. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The view stats support this notion that it's not big enough now, as only 400 people cared to look at the article. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 13:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight: we should refrain from promoting the larger story as news because people haven't already flocked to the smaller story? Are article hits part of our policy on consideration?  And if so, what's up with that?  As I've said, and perhaps other editors who agree could help recasting this to support the thesis, the point here is not about the race, it's about the deleterious effect on that country as a result of its political unrest and the military response to that.  Were I to have seen this posted at ItN, I would have clicked on the article to find out more about the unrest before or instead of the article to find out more about the race.  Abrazame (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - Definitly a story for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak

 * Oppose already featured. --hydrox (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, notableOlegwiki (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hang on a bit - Is this certain yet? The article describes the "likely" source. That's what was said about the Spanish cucumbers! I'd like to see a much greater level of certainty before posting it here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose not worth a sticky or a second go around, tens of thousands of times less important than the flu. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - No feelings on yes or no, agree with HiLo48 about need for a greater level of certainty, but if yes, please can the blurb be in English :
 * The E. coli outbreak in Northern Germany that has sickened affected over 3000 and killed over more than 30, mostly in Germany, is attributed by German authorities to raw sprouts produced at a farm in near Hamburg
 * Mtking (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, wait for more development in the case and a clear confirmation of the source. --Kslotte (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator: The article may not be perfectly clear on this, but what appears from news sources is that German authorities do not expect to find conclusive evidence, but based on what they have conclude that the sprouts are the source.--Nø (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: we deal with the news of what happens, not the analysis of how/why it happened. However, should this gain approval, can I point out for the blurb that the produce of farms is generally raw food, so that qualifier seems redundant, and that at least in UK English, sprouts, without a qualifier, is usually assumed to mean Brussels sprouts.  The food in question was bean sprout. Kevin McE (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, as this is a major outbreak Europe is witnessing, and the findings provide the origin of the outbreak. The findings are now confirmed by Robert Koch Institute, and should definitely warn the people. Sibi_antony (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then the article needs updating. It still says "likely cause" in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Flooding in China
Not tried nominating a topic before hope I've got this right


 * Support 54 people seems enough for posting, but the article needs expanding. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * fresh wave of flooding reported today so another 33 deaths I've changed 54 to 87 in the itn canditate bit above EdwardLane (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * article updated. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mississippi floods were not featured either, and they were historically large. --hydrox (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST has arrived at ITN. If "we didn't post this other similar thing" is your only argument, that's a really poor one. --Golbez (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In_the_news/Candidates/May_2011 here's the previous discussion. Just makes me wonder what type of flood is noteworthy. Number of people killed is at least not a veryy good measure. There are several thousand people killed by diarrhea every single day, but I am yet to see it announced on the ITN. --hydrox (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because there's not an article on it with an update. Perhaps you'd write one for us. On the other hand, there is an article on this. --Golbez (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a very good though, certainly not where it'd need to be for posting. I have no opinion on this beyond that. RxS (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 2011_Mississippi_River_floods do seem to be displayed as ongoing events#disasters on the right side of the page here Portal:Current_events I don't know how one might propose adding the 2011 China floods to that page - is that meant to be here ? EdwardLane (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support death tool of 87 is enough, but article needs to get into better shape. --Kslotte (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. A major continuation of last year's flooding, including significant landslides. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 13:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. 50+ killed and 100,000 evacuated. Seems pretty major to me. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * looks like 97+ dead and 230,000+ evacuated so far probably far more, but it's difficult trying tally the various counts in different news sources EdwardLane (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the article still needs more of an update. I don't feel its as good as 2010 Jiangxi train derailment currently. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] E3 again

 * As we agreed to post it on closing. The article needs more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as a major expo in this field and which garnered international attention for followers of this. -- PopularMax (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, with major announcements including PlayStation Vita and the Wii U. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 01:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article needs more prose updates.  Spencer T♦ C 04:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Posting this as "news" discredits the seriousness of both the In The News section and the articles listed there (although, after the posting about M. F. Husain, it won't be THAT much of a stretch). I really think this section is losing the plot on what is news. 80.42.155.205 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an ITNR event. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We post entertainment news about movies all the time. The video game industry is an entertainment field now rivaling cinema as a money earner.  I think it's reasonable to post the single most important video game fair in acknowledgement of this.  E3 gets reported in mainstream news sites like the BBC; it's not like it's that far off of what's news.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would love to post, but can anyone expand this section a bit more? --BorgQueen (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with alternate blurb. Like "Video Gaming Expo E3 2011 closes, having featured the next generation in console systems." Mamyles (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like your blurb, but do you seriously think that the article is ready now? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It has announcements on the new games and systems (though I agree, rather brief), which is what this news is about. The systems articles linked there are very well updated from what I can see, which gives plenty of browsing content. Mamyles (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not an article! That's two lists (exhibitors and 117 "notable" games) and PR blurbs about four corporate press conferences. Please! This is not "news" or an "article". 80.42.155.205 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And the lists have no evident inclusion or exclusion criteria, so the "notable" status of those included seems to be OR. Kevin McE (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia doesn't have to be all about things that only interest vocal cliques of wikipedians. That it is pre-approved is proof it is part of the problem. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't a strong argument, considering that video games are a very large "clique", and a new article is 17 hours overdue. If you know of any more major news in the last 36 hours, feel free to nom it. This is impacting news for a large part, if not a majority of wikipedians. Removing a topic from ITNR simply on the grounds that one person is uninterested is a problem. Mamyles (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hardly consider video game fans to be a 'clique'. This isn't a RPG convention we're talking about here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the update here good enough? One thing, the article will be more substantial when the Game Critics Awards, awards to games presented at E3, are announced on June 21.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yikes, I'm not sure I agree with the 'next generation' portion of the blurb. I know I wrote that in the update, but that was a quote from one newspaper; I'm not sure it's established that Wii U is an 8th generation console.  I'm trying to think of a blurb besides 'E3 closes'...--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, the BBC also refers to Wii U as a 'next generation' console. I'll add that source to the update.  Sorry, I'd say leave the blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, relevant discussion here--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd question the use of the phrase "having featured the next generation in console systems". I'd say at most E3 featured one console that could be considererd "next generation" (the WiiU). Unless it featured the PS4 and/or a new Xbox I don't see why "systems" is plural (personally I wouldn't regard PSP Vita as a next-gen console, but I accept that is an opinion). JieBie (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's too late to pull now, but there's also serious debate if the Wii U is truly a "next generation" console (since hardware wise it is pretty much catching up to what the PS3 and 360 can do). "Next iteration" would be the proper term here.  --M ASEM  (t) 12:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] M F Husain death

 * Nom. Highly notable and controverial artist.  Lynch 7  09:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, this is the first time I'm nominating something here, so if I've erred somewhere, I apologise.  Lynch 7  09:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support the BBC called him "India's Picasso" definitely worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Appears controversial Leader in his field, From the often ignored by ITN Indian sub-continent, Arts and culture topic which is minority topic for ITN. I cant really see a good reason to oppose this. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Article updated. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support iconic and controversial figure.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. This was easy. If this person was from the country between Canada and Mexico, we've never finished discussing this. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 05:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose What did this "Highly notable and controverial artist" ever piss on? μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please rephrase that question to something more understandable? I could try and help address your concerns, if any. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Periodic table expansion
Nom. Epitome of encyclopedic relevance. --bender235 (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only is this a minority topic, it's on ITNR (ITNR). Therefore, there is no substantial discussion required here unless a user is opposing. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is either. This is a science story - the closest minority topic category would be technology but in my view it doesn't fit in there.  Similarly ITNR is very specific - this is not the initial discovery (that was a decade ago in both cases) nor have they been officially named - Ununquadium and Ununhexium are provisional systematic placeholders rather than final names for the elements.  As such it is easy to overstate the significance of this - essentially all that has happened is that prior discoveries have passed the IUPAC vetting process. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Support. But I would reword the blurb to the more precise
 * "An IUPAC committee acknowledges the discovery of the superheavy chemical elements ununquadium and ununhexium." (Maybe also add "by Russian scientists in 1999/2000"?)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as relevant. Mamyles (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mistake This should not have been posted until they were named. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Syrian uprising/Jisr ash-Shugur massacre

 * Nom. The article isn't sufficiently updated as yet, but this event is definitely noteworthy. --bender235 (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest an alternative blurb as below, as I've updated the Jisr ash-Shugur article with coverage of this incident. We need to be careful about how this is reported, as it's only the (very unreliable) Syrian state-owned media that is reporting a mass killing; reports are unclear, and some of the locals are denying it. Something has clearly happened but it's not clear yet exactly what. Also, Great Britain is not the name of the country! Prioryman (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, 120 people are dead. Neither the government nor the opposition denies this. What's in question is whodunit. So it's not an "alleged killing", but a killing.

--bender235 (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "'Very unreliable' Syrian state-owned media reports" did not prevent Naksafest 2011 from being posted to ITN. Nutmegger (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose either proposed blurb. This conflates two distinct issues - the proposed UN resolution and the killing of security forces.  This creates the impression that it is the latter that has directly caused the former. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Those events are connected. The Jisr ash-Shugur massacre is the most recent peak of the Syrian uprising, and Syria's violent crackdown is the reason for the ongoing UN sanction initiative. BBC explains this pretty clearly. --bender235 (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is you making that inference. The proposals are to censure the government.  Therefore what is the relevance of the alleged acts of the protestors? Crispmuncher (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
 * The notion is that the Syrian army executed 120 fellow soldiers who deserted. That is what happened in Jisr Ash-Shugur according to non-Syrian-government sources. Now the Assad regime started the crackdown. This should now be posted. --bender235 (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: Major development. Seems to be heading the Libyan way -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Notable as the event maybe, the blurb with calls for sanction for the usual lot is not notable. i would conditional support it without that blurb (the calls can go on the page, not the ITN)Lihaas (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment/Support - Blurb needs to be ...call for, not ...are calling for. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support assuming the article is improved sufficiently and updated and that the blurb is neutral. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

World IPv6 Day

 * Nom Worldwide interest, worldwide consequences. It's already in Portal:Current events/2011 June 8 but is relevant enough for ITN. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is currently too short. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, IPv6 is important, and World IPv6 Day has been widely reported in the news. Thue | talk 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, news-worthy only for geeks. --Kslotte (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And everyone else who uses the Internet... Support the IPv6 transition is highly significant. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IPv6 won't in anyway change anything in normal internet usage. This is about the internet backbone that is essential for network administrators. --Kslotte (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It will actually, there are only 4 billion IPv4 addresses, and given there are 7 billion people on the planet, of whom a substantial portion have computers and smartphones these days that clearly isn't enough for future usage. IPv6 gives some ridiculous number of IP addresses which means that noone is likely to run out any time soon.
 * One of the current problems is that even if you currently have an IPv6 address you cannot navigate to even websites like Google and Facebook as they only advertise their IPv4 addresses so that people with mis-configured IPv6 addresses don't have issues. World IPv6 day was designed to change that and see what problems there are so that websites can start to be also available over IPv6.
 * With regards to issues affecting normal users, well for starters you'll have to go out and buy an IPv6 capable router, and if you want to connect to new users and new websites - especially in Asian developing countries, you might be unable to do so in the reasonably near future without an IPv6 capable router/ISP etc. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right about the router thing, but this IPv6 day aren't targeting end-users (at least not yet). --Kslotte (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We had the IPv4 exhaustion story. That should be enough for now. --bender235 (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As the article's length demonstrates, nothing really happened beyond naming the day. Mamyles (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What happened? Was there massive breakage? The article doesn't answer anything, so oppose based on an insufficient update. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 21:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Soyuz TMA-02M launched

 * Launch of a manned space mission, a WP:ITNR item. Nsk92 (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not from me anyway. Hopefully we'll get to a point where manned launches are common place enough not to warrant mention on ITN. Support RxS (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above - article looks ready. Mamyles (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as part of Expedition 28. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 22:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Chişinău explosion
- A car explodes in Moldova. Seems to be an attack - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  10:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason that "article" isn't even at AFD yet? Not an event worth an article, especially not one written like a news report! Hardly a mention in any major news source. Oppose, no way, and you need to stop nominating every non-event. StrPby (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please make your position more clear, StPrby? μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Julia Donaldson becomes Children's Laureate
Julia Donaldson becomes the new Children's Laureate. Either her article or the one for Children's Laureate.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Less of a story in Britain than the passing of Elisabeth Sladen. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] SecurID compromised
The hack occurred some time ago, but the scale of the hack has only just been announced. This is obviously a significant hack, with 40 million tokens potentially compromised; and the tokens potentially give access to big important companies such as Lockheed Martin, not just an account on Sony's gaming service. Thue | talk 07:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any other opinions? --BorgQueen (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support seems worth posting. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Replacing all 40 million seems like a mammoth task and its a big security issue. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as a major security breach affecting companies and users worldwide. -- PopularMax (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Articles look ready. Mamyles (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted RxS (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Apple Worldwide Developers Conference 2011

 * Apple's WWDC conference starts today with a keynote which announced iCloud a new version of iOS and Mac OS X. Given the scale of the updates, including a significant new product, this seems worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to oppose; while not in principle objecting to featuring product releases on ITN, the products announced are not that ground-breaking. The main news here seems to be iCloud, but for example Google have already been making cloud services available for a long time. And Apple is just not important enough to feature their developer conference ITN. Thue | talk 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For interest's sake what recent product releases would you suggest to be worthy of posting? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also puzzled on this, how do you recognize a "revolutionary" product on the release date? Would we have posted iPad or iPod on their respective release dates? Crnorizec (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we've ever posted product news. Once you list one, people are bound to ask for others to be listed. It might also be seen as a type of endorsement. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 22:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Windows 7 was posted. It doesn't seem reasonable to never post product news, if the blurb is neutral, as this one is. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * windows 7 was posted because windows users are in billions... there is a massive difference between that and a keynote speech for new service. -- Ashish-g55 11:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have supported fx gmail, the Tata Nano and the OLPC XO-1. Thue | talk 07:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Normally I'd be on the fence but this is sort of a perfect storm. The three product updates/product releases make it notable. In a year, iCloud may have the same impact that iTunes had. I realize that were not a crystal ball but this is a new product in a space that's going to be big whoever gets it right. And, it's going to draw plenty of reader interest. RxS (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only the announcements of the new software versions, in what was nothing more than a media release. Wait until the software actually ships to consumers then re-evaluate. Mtking (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support if the blurb focuses on iCloud rather than on WWDC. Crnorizec (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A company annoucing its new products. How is that of encyclopedic relevance? --bender235 (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't encyclopaedic why do we have an article on all these things? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose No, because we don't post worldwide conferences, but I hardly believe that this one is worth posting. And if this year is special because of iCloud, we cannot predict the penetration of the product across the world market.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we're covering product showcases, then E3 makes a lot more sense than some Apple dev conference. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

E3 2011
E3 starts tomorrow, but there are keynotes announcing new games today. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when updated after opening. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, as this event will be paid close attention internationally. I agree that it should be posted tomorrow. Mamyles (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps the blurb should be changed for clarification to something like "Video gaming expo E3 opens for its 15th year" Mamyles (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestion--Why don't we post the closing, when the article should have more details about notable events, announcements and the like?--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a neat idea: "Gaming expo E3 closes, having seen the announcement of Neat things 1, 2, and 3." <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 13:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That works for me, too. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, but no need to get in the specific products. Otherwise Who gets to decide which of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Battlefield 3, Wii U, PS Vita, Far Cry 3, etc.. is worth mentioning and which isn't? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

[Ready] Portuguese legislative election, 2011

 * Support per ITNR as nominator. Question is, should we mention the debt crisis or not? --hydrox (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support big election and different swing in politics, I think it is ok to mention the debt crisis as it was an enormous issue surrounding the issue. Mentioning it adds context and interest plus it is more educational.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, the result table is there, now we just need a couple of sentences of prose about reaction etc and then this will be ready to post. --Tone 11:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IMPORTANT: The PSD didn't actually win as they were 11 seats short of a majority. The blurb should reflect that. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 15:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, at least when compared with the current top news (Nikola Gruevski, Prime Minister of the Republic of Macedonia, retains his position for a third consecutive term in office). An important political change in this EU member country. Zdtrlik (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Zdtrlik, your comment is very inappropriate. Maybe I care for Portugal and EU and your bailout (=spending other people's money senselessly) even less, but Wikipedia is a community where we all have the chance to make the top news. Crnorizec (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The proper expression is to win plurality = highest number of seats/percentage. Still, there is a prose update missing, 3 sentences, anyone? --Tone 07:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support notable change for this EU member, especially in light of the sovereign debt crisis. --PopularMax (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And i want CREDIT! admins seem to forget the ITN norms!Lihaas (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? The anons did the dirty work on this one. At least says the 1st page of the history tab... –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 18:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dirty work? did you see the edit??? they onyl added the polls. ALL the prose ont he page was without anyone else's help, than you very much,Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone here doesn't understand what the ITN is for... which is updates. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 03:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Someone here doesn't understand" -- see the IRN rtag for credit. its for yhe pageLihaas (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear to be much of an update, at least as it comes to final results. There's plenty of tables but not much prose. RxS (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ITNR should be posted already as its updated. Though NOT okay to mention the debt crisis, we didnt do it for finland.Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is still no update. As of my June 7th edit and now, according to the edit difference there is no significant prose update. Whoever does the updates receives the oh-so-precious-ITN-notice-"award". 03:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has plenty of prose update context. what do you seek for results prose?Lihaas (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

2004 Bowl Championship Series championship vacated

 * Prepare for a storm of opposes screaming U.S. biaz in 5... 4... 3... –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 03:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reason above. College football isn't internationally mentionable. Mamyles (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * College football isn't but Korean university students going on strike for a day for reduced tuition is? 98.88.21.183 (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Before this gets ugly the discussion should be archived -- by "archived" I mean removed from this page and moved to the archives. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 06:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment any international coverage? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mtking (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTAVOTE. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See the edit summary here. Mtking (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can't say your reasoning then it shouldn't be taken unto account. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We currently don't deem the BCS champion worth of ITN, so I'd say on that basis this doesn't qualify. Howver, leaving that aside, this isn't that big news even in the US (let alone elsewhere).  On the NY Times it website it's mentioned way down the page.  Oppose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Macedonian parliamentary election, 2011

 * According to the unofficial results, VMRO-DPMNE led by the current Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski win a plurality in the Macedonian Parliament. The official results will be out tomorrow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:ITNR Crnorizec (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:ITNR. Article looks ready, with results posted. Mamyles (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted RxS (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Golan Heights unrest

 * Over 20 syrian protesters reportedly shot dead by Israeli military, much unrest at the Israeli occupied Golan heights today it is seen as an escalation of protests around the Israeli border. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - per nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You surely mean "Support as nom" :) Diego Grez (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support Maintained top headline all day. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   23:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, as this is headline international news. Mamyles (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Surprise, surprise, who woulda thunk? And how does featuring this inform our readers or improve wikipedia.  We run 'stories' like this yet miss real ones, like the elimination of Rinderpest. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Rinderpest had been eliminated since 2001. A formal press release about a long extinct disease is hardly news. Mamyles (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The elimination of Rinderpest was actually posted... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support a Western democracy shooting unarmed protestors from another country at their border is basically unheard of. Clearly has widespread coverage and its highly notable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support: Its noteworthy for sure. But cant see the updates, which article are we talking about? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose There were dozens of Syrians getting killed by their own army last week - that didn't get posted. But then they try to infiltrate the border and suddenly it's ITN material!!! Nutmegger (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nutmegger dont compare appels and oranges.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which one is the 'appel'? Nutmegger (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Arab Spring has been extensively covered on ITN, and while not every specific incident is covered most of them have been covered extensively. Obviously here there needs to be an update before it can be posted. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now updated the Arab spring article with this latest unrest, as it has a connection with the Syrian unrest.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That article has a POV header, and I doubt that can be resolved quickly. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Well that didn't appear to be the case. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We direct it straight to the section in question. Easy.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also added the information to the 2011 Syrian uprising article. Pick one:).--BabbaQ (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. the Syrian protests and related violence was reported several times. Once a revolution is ongoing, each incident is to be taken in the context of the entire movement. This is not to say the incident(s) Nutmegger refers to is/are automatically insignificant - I was not a party to the discussions regarding that news story and if it was important, it should have been posted.
 * 2. Notwithstanding the unfortunate spelling, as BabbaQ rightly pointed out - the two instances are vastly different. This was not a protest against the Syrian government, this was a separate protest to mark the anniversary of the 1967 Six-Day War (according to news reports).
 * 3. Another difference is that this involves regular forces of one country killing people from another. Any such incident is in my opinion noteworthy (other than a stray incident involving very minor casualties and ignored by the respective countries and the international news). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But I will have to disagree with BabbaQ's position that this is directly related to the ongoing anti-government protests. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree if the Syrian regime is allowing protesters near the Golan heights which they never do in toher cases, then they are using it to divert attention from the ongoing conflict inside Syria. And using the old "its the zionists fault" escape.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The new 2011 Israeli border demonstrations would be good for the ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've created 2011 Israeli border demonstrations, currently its a copy-paste from the relevant section of 2011 Nakba Day so its going to need cleanup. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Article updated, marking [Ready?] so that consensus can be checked. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with title of article is that it directly states that these protests took place at "Israel's" "border" which is a huge issue - the protesters and much of the international community does not recognize Golan Heights as part of Israel, so there is no "Israeli border" to speak of when it comes to what happened last weekend. Such a significant NPOV violation in an article's title warrants NOT linking to this article in ITN. Nutmegger (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you going to try and come up with excuses for not posting anything that might be critical of Israel? The line of actual control seems like a perfectly reasonable neutral line to call the border. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After looking at your article, it seems that the POV in the title is balanced by an opening-paragraph reference to the Syrian claim of 20 dead in Naksa Day demonstrations without any reference to Israeli-sourced statements of a smaller death toll and an Israeli claim that some of the deaths cited by Syrian TV cannot be attributed to Israeli fire. Thus, I remove my objection to this article being linked to but not my overall objection to this news event being on ITN, as more fully explained above. Nutmegger (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  23:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

[Ready] Peruvian general election
Apparently Ollanta Humala won the elections, however, if Fujimori did, it wouldn't be a big deal to change the blurb. Viva Chile, stupid Peruvians! :P Diego Grez (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support now. Hold until final round of elections. We don't want to publish inaccurate/exaggerated information, even temporarily. This is worthy of being on the front page, though. Mamyles (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It surely is. I just wanted to nom it first than anybody else, and the surveys point out Humala is winning. Diego Grez (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When are the final round of elections? We should post this sooner rather than later if there's an update. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This was the final round of elections. The article needs a prose update though. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 18:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR, ill get to a prose update ion 24..Lihaas (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Prose looks fine now. Articles are ready. Mamyles (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Puyehue volcano erupts
The volcano began eruption process, various hundreds of people have been evacuated. The volcano had caused massive destruction in its previous major eruption in 1960, following the 1960 Valdivia earthquake. Diego Grez (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually 3500 have been evacuated, the number is likely to increase. Ashes have reached Bariloche, Argentina. Diego Grez (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now being reported in several international media   Diego Grez (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Wide impact over multiple countries; in the news worldwide. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Given its history and potential impact, this is significant. Mamyles (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when the article has a more substantial update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the article doesn't look updated enough. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article looks updated enough to me. Diego Grez (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted, using a slightly modified blurb (per some convention, we don't start blurbs with a number). --Tone 15:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, just noticed I missed to write where the volcano is. That's fixed now, thank you David. --Tone 16:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 2011 French Open

 * Final starts in about 15 minutes, should be over within 2 hours. Courcelles 12:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, yes, I know both are wearing orange-level banners right now. I'll work on that... after I go watch the match. Courcelles 12:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Major sport-event.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I presume this is ITNR. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Grand Slam finals are ITNR. However, wait until men's final is complete, then post a joint blurb, as has been the precedent in the past. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support (but joint blurb) - Agree with Strange Passerby. Makes more sense to post a joint blurb. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Combined blurb would be something like <tt>In tennis, Li Na/Francesca Schiavone wins the women's singles and Roger Federer/Rafael Nadal wins the men's singles at the 2011 French Open.</tt> if both draw articles are updated; or simply bold 2011 French Open as the single bolded link otherwise. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Precedent is to update and bump the blurb. Courcelles 15:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support and prefer posting of the women's tournament immediately. In the previous years we used to post first the women's winner, and after the men's final concludes only to update the blurb with the men's winner. In addition one day delay is too much in sports. The news is breaking today and will be shadowed with the men's final tomorrow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we please include the fact that Li is the first Asian to win a Grand Slam singles title? It's a historic moment. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. It's also very important, but indeed Michael Chang is the first Asian to win a Grand Slam, though representing the United States. I'll better go with "the first person representing Asian country".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally Yevgeny Kafelnikov is from Sochi which in several sources is in Asia, so "Asian female" would be more accurate. 2.216.140.105 (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not even remotely Asian. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By the mean of Asian people, probably more accurate to say is "Asiatic people" which refers to the people dwelling the remote parts of the continent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sochi is west of the Urals and north of the Caucasus to call that w/in Asia is like saying Italy is in the Middle East. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Post when updated: There is all of two sentences of prose in the women's title article, which I presume is what we wish to highlight. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 16:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * More of a DYK fact than the news. Link to 2011 French Open then. Good twins (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually we've waiting for the mens final because the update hasn't been done until that point, there's no reason not to post earlier if there's an update. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment added comment about her being the first Asian citizen to win a grand slam. Sochi is in Europe by the way. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Article updated. Note I updated 2011 French Open rather than the specific article as that looks much more ready for posting, and even the mens specific article barely contains any content beyond tables. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Article is up to date. --Stryn(t) 18:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, and I suggest changing 'first Asian citizen' to 'first Chinese'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say first Asian is the more impressive record, but if the posting admin switches them I'm not too bothered. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unmarked [ready] and unmarked ITNR (see below for conditional withdrawal of oppose). Post combined results instead.  ITNR does not apply here since that is predicated on the conclusion of the tournament which is tomorrow, by which time we will know both results and may as well post them as one. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty strange not to post this now and update when the other update has been made. That's how we usually go with the mens tournament when the womens hasn't been updated... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll support that on one proviso: we don't bump the story tomorrow. That is to say, we continue to treat it as an item posted today for the purposes of it sinking down and out of the running order.  That way we avoid additional congestion based on ITNR items and are able to post in a more timely manner - delays are probably the biggest weakness of ITN at the moment. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC).
 * If not being timely is an issue, then we need to get this up now :). Re-marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Post the woman's event now, and after the men's final add that (that is, append/add it to the womans blurb). Simple. No reason to wait (except for bureaucracy) I suppose. RxS (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support but Grand Slam should be in capitals, as it is a proper noun. Do not post now; wait until men's final finished.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should we wait? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. We've posted the women's and men's events separately for a long time, in multiple sports. I see no reason to depart from precedent here. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Ilyas Kashmiri
Ilyas Kashmiri
 * Support: Making news everywhere; THE top news in South Asia. Major terrorist killed. Another US strike in Pakistani soil. And it appears that updates have been made. Fixed article reference in the blurb (it was earlier going to the disambiguation (yay! finally spelt it right in the first attempt!) page. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are there any lurking admins out there who will move Ilyas Kashmiri (militant) to Ilyas Kashmiri as he is clearly the primary topic? <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   14:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good and it's of wide interest. RxS (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support article is ready, its newsy, and it was a given before it happened. (article has been moved per the comment above). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator - The capture compounds the killing of Osama bin Laden. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   16:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - guess it is enough for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support death of a major operative in Pakistan seems worthy of posting, and the article has been updated (I marked it ready earlier today). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All looks to be in order. What do we think about posting—I just posted the tennis (didn't see this on my flying visit), so should we leave it a bit to spread the postings out or just have two updates in half an hour? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think posting a couple of things at once is OK. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well. It's been an hour and a half and nobody's objected, so posted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Libyan helicopter operations

 * I don't know, seems a little...tactical...for a major story. RxS (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the reason the operations are getting so much attention is that they are the start of a long series of missions, not that today's operations are of any tactical significance (actually it might be considering Breda is a key oil field but what good is oil if you can't refine it?. Fun fact: An attack helicopter destroys around 17 times its own production cost before it is destroyed.battle tank"&f=false. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   15:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you love how GBook urls never format correctly?<font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   15:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support the use of helecopters is likely to turn the tide in this war. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of objections, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it. RxS (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this is a significant change in policy by NATO. --PopularMax (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Thue | talk 19:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted at the top as it's an ongoing operation. RxS (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Change suggested in blurb: IMO, the bolded text in the blurb should point to Operation Unified Protector and the updates should be made there as well since the subject matter referred here is the use of attack helicopters by NATO. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Death of James Arness

 * Meets criteria 2 for notable death. The star of one of the most noteworthy and long-lasting early television dramas. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 18:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose .(change to neutral) Criterion 2 reads The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such.    I can't see any evidence that he was recognized as a leader in his field--no major acting awards or any significant recognition.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - For example in my country he is a cult figure for his role as Zeb Macahan. His death is one of the main stories in all online newspapers right now. In Europe in particular he is a very known actor for his Macahan role.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are gobs of actors more important than him. Not significant enough to merit inclusion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 21:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose to not win even a single Oscar/Emmy shows he wasn't recognised as a leader in his field. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support He was nominated for an Emmy three times, and acted in the role of Matt Dillon for twenty years. Gunsmoke was the No. 1 rated TV show for four years, and the United States' longest-running prime time, live-action drama with 635 episodes. Not many actors top that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I find that a strong argument. I'm switching to neutral at the moment, and if the update is improved to demonstrate notability (e.g. reactions from other notable figures etc) I might support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Crappy article; needs clean up and referencing, urgently. Diego Grez (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an argument in favour of fixing the article, not excluding this item from ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support He was the star of the longest-running prime-time drama series on television — tied in 2010 by Law & Order, though unlike that show Arness starred in every season; Gunsmoke was a top-ten show 11 more seasons than L&O, including four consecutive seasons at #1. Arness played the role longer than any other TV actor, not just for the twenty years in a row but across five decades including TV films in the '80s and '90s. Gunsmoke used to be the biggest thing on television and he was its main star and it's absurd that people aren't interested in getting any perspective.  This was waaaaay before my time and I hated the thing when I caught a rerun as a kid but I know what Gunsmoke was.  Ratings recognized him as a leader in his field.  I tidied up the article, looks a lot better now.  Of course many articles could be a lot better, but there doesn't seem to be anything about it that should prevent listing.  Abrazame (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You say it "was waaaaay before my time", and you still support it. I wonder how many of the Oppose votes are from younger folk who cannot conceive that old stuff matters? HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy to accept that old stuff matters, but I still think that without winning an award he isn't notable enough. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an old guy, but still I can see this guy's career was long... but as Eraserhead says, he isn't notable enough, and this news is, perhaps, largely "local". Is he known outside the US? Probably not. Diego Grez (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in Australia. This very matter came up at a dinner among friends last night. VERY well known here. See also earlier comments about fame in Europe. HiLo48 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This proposal appears to have been allowed to die, despite virtually every oppose point being refuted by others. What's going on? HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all others above. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a vote (which means nothing in Wikipedia) rather than a comment that adds anything to the discussion. It's a particularly silly post to make just after I have suggested that all the oppose points have been negated. I could handle it if you pointed out where I was wrong, but to just agree with stuff I said had been refuted is hardly helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. You haven't refuted the arguments above. To take a pick: Eraserhead's point about him not winning significant awards in a profession that gives them out freely. Talking about your friends' dinner parties is a particularly useless contribution to the project. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But you're still just voting? Nothing new to add? (He did have three Emmy nominations. Many don't get nominated.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not having anything new to add is no barrier to contributing. Consensus may not be a vote, but numbers are important and far from irrelevant. Three Emmy nominations. Wow! --Mkativerata (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Jack Kevorkian

 * Support - important "right to die" figure.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. A controversial person known worldwide for his views; his death is certainly newsworthy and meets the death criteria (criterion 2: a very important figure). Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as nom. I think he is a household name for many Americans (I'm not an American), but for those who are not familiar, he was well-known for "publicly championing a terminal patient's right to die via physician-assisted suicide", causing a massive controversy and went to prison for the suicides he assisted. I believe he is notable enough for ITN, even though he died an old age. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support actually came here to nominate this... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when updated, as per BorgQueen.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. R.I.P. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. If anyone wants to suggest a better blurb, please do. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 16:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest dropping the 'convicted murderer' for of the blurb, as he's mainly known as an activist for his cause.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please undo. That is a substantive change in the blurb and I would argue that it represents a departure from NPOV.  The fact he is a convicted murderer is not in dispute and is an essential element of any neutral portrayal of the man, regardless of one's views on euthanasia.  In any case, the current blurb is not what approved here and has no consensus for it. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree, that's not what he's known for and would unduly skew the picture the blurb presents. RxS (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was convicted of murder, but only because of what really made him important, "publicly championing a terminal patient's right to die via physician-assisted suicide". (That's straight from his article.) There are many convicted murderers. Most don't make it here. Kevorkian is here because of his right-to-die activism. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would contend that is precisely what he is known for. There are hundreds of thousands of activists for the entire range of issues.  The whole rationale for this posting is that Kevorkian is notable because of the controversy he generated.  What made him notable?  It wasn't writing to Congressmen, marching with placards or any other "ordinary" campaigning methods, it was his direct involvement in over 100 deaths.  Telling half the story - that he is controversial without saying why - can never be held to be NPOV, just as the use of deliberately emotive language (e.g. "serial killer") can't be justified on the same grounds.  "Convicted murderer" is relatively neutral yet shoes why he is notable and why he should be on ITN.  NPOV does not preclude calling a spade a spade - in fact it requires it. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Kevorkian is known primarily for his acts in the area of assisted suicide (including those leading to his conviction), not for the conviction itself. —David Levy 00:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that, but then if so why don't we mention that, and if so how do we do that in an NPOV manner. Describing him as a "murderer" or "killer" would be accurate in law but a fundamentally anti-euthanasia POV.  Convicted murderer, on the other hand, is a factual statement - we are reporting the legal interpretation of his actions, something that is consistent with NPOV. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)/
 * Mention what? That he's known primarily assisted suicide and not for the conviction? That's a little too much detail for a blurb, they can work that out in the article. The conviction is a offshoot of what he's known for, certainly not what people think of first when reading his name. RxS (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Kevorkian was pretty famous before he was convicted, so I do't see the conviction as crucial to his notability. Furthermore, calling him an 'activist' indicates that me may have gone to jail for his cause.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Yemeni president injured in attack

 * Support - important event.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, but alternative blurb: During skirmishes between government forces and armed tribesmen in Sana'a, Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh was injured in an attack. With Battle of Sana'a being the major article here. --bender235 (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per bender325.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - the situation in Yemen deterriorates.Olegwiki (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Yemen doesn't get in the news as often as it should. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   03:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons above - original wording would be fine. Mamyles (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Bender's blurb posted. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 05:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Jaycee Lee Dugard sentences

 * Nancy Garrido is sentenced to 36 years to life, and Phillip Garrido is sentenced to 431 years to life imprisonment for the 1991 Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. Dugard wasnt freed until 2009 and spent 18 years as a captive at the Garridos home.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I wouldn't normally support this kind of thing, there is international coverage - I heard it on the BBC. The article does need more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose This was expected. What was newsworthy is when they found the young woman in the backyard.  Inclusion in BBC media is immaterial. Nutmegger (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose sensationalism, not news. Does anyone really think that a sentence of 431 years is any more meaningful than one of 99? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * incase they dont die? lol -- Ashish-g55 02:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait until Phillip Garrido is released after serving the 431 years cos that would be news !. But seriously No. Mtking (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Georgian protests aftermath

 * In the aftermath of the 2011 Georgian protests, Badri Bitsadze husband of Nino Burdzhanadze a former parliament speaker was arrested and charged with attempting to orchestrate a government takeover using paramilitary groups during violent anti-government protests last week. The uprising was modelled after the Middle East uprisings of 2011.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support We usually post the outbreak and the possible aftermath of every mass protest, so the arrest of the husband of the opposition leader in the country seems to be really important.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Respectfully, I disagree - there are many mass protests we have never posted, and I believe this should follow the same result. The main problem is the article is really, really short.  And although the husband has been arrested, and with no disrespect intended to the protesters, the fact these protests have been described on the article as over with just 2 casualties doesn't quite put it in the same league as the Arab Spring. Franklinville (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Arab Spring is not a criterion to judge the other protests in the same time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * comment The article is no where near ready. RxS (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * conditional support on an improved article, (though there are many more Arab Spring -related protests to add (like Uganda and Lesotho/Swaziland (forget which one))Lihaas (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

MyPlate

 * Weak Support I don't know how notable it is if they change it every little while, but I would say that throughout the history of the food guideline diagram there have only been 5 designs total (I think?). So I'm leaning support, even though the recent changes have been relatively close going back-to-back. That said, the article needs substantial updates and a description of the new pyramid - it mostly lists the history of the old ones. (And expansion doesn't mean adding only loads of commentary and quotes about it...the article needs more explanation).  Spencer T♦ C 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been working on expansion now that the article has been approved for submission. One difficulty in expanding the explanation of the icon, though, is its simplicity. There's essentially one simple sentence of additional info per food group, and that's it. No fine print about serving sizes and food examples, for example. The USDA does provide those guidelines, but they didn't change with the icon. Nevertheless, I have managed some expansion. 76.105.176.44 (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * obvious oppose no way is this news anywehre, or even intl notable.Lihaas (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are currently 190 articles on the topic in Google News, including international sources like Agence France-Presse, The Australian, The Daily Mail and The Canadian Press; there was a joint press conference by the First Lady of the United States and the USDA; and the icon will be seen by hundreds of millions of people on billions of food items for untold years. 76.105.176.44 (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Question I don't suppose this really affects anyone outside the United States does it? It's not as if anybody uses their website and I haven't really seen the new pyramid on any packaging after they replaced it. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   04:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it actually affect anyone inside the United States? HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on the front pages of The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, USA Today, etc. It will be the staple of nutritional education for a generation of Americans. If there were an "In the news" section for the US, this would be on it, but I agree it doesn't rise to international news. 76.105.176.44 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose of no consequence outside of the US. Mtking (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I right that this is the first time 'meat' has been dropped as the name of one of the food groups? Pretty significant considering the historical influence of the meat industry.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not even remotely relevant outside US. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment these points are both refuted by the international news sources found by the nominator. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolute astonishment ...that this is even nominated. I've been waiting to see why it's significant to the world, and seen less rather than more. I honestly cannot see any reason why this should have even cracked a mention here. Would anyone ever contemplate nominating a similar change in another country? Or is this the classic example of US-centrism that we can wheel out in future to show people what US-centrism actually is? HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you ask the nominator? Their talk page is here> . RxS (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I changed my mind. Please don't. Your comments are bitey enough here. There's no need to antagonize new editors...submissions here should be encouraged, and not slammed because you don't personally agree with them. I'm not sure you quit get the whole collaborative wiki thing. RxS (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No intention of personalising it any further. I was new once too, and I do want to encourage newbies. We don't do it well enough. So apologies if it offends. But even as a newbie there is no way I would have contemplated posting an equivalent change in my country for this article. Hence my concerns about US-centrism. That's a big problem for Wikipedia, and obviously not just from this nominator. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This sort of retread comes out with every new administration. It is a press release, not a real development. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support The food pyramid actually had a profound impact on the way nutrition was assessed internationally. After the pyramid was introduced as a USDA guideline, many countries adapted it for their use. I remember growing up overseas where the pyramid was being taught in elementary schools. Some examples can be found here. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 09:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support not because its the US government, or because its a government agency changing its logo for something but because changing over from food pyramids, which are widely used worldwide to a food plate seems like a significant innovation. Additionally given people eat food on plates this looks more like how you eat food. I'd be happy to support this if the EU or another country had come up with it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking [Ready?] given the update and support, and that the opposing statements all oppose on the claim that it isn't relevant outside the US, which was refuted by the nominator pointing to significant international coverage. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I reject that view. This is a purely US-centric story, international coverage or not. Removed the tag. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily support this, but a story being US centric is not an automatic disqualifier, especially when an item has international coverage. This is the English Wikipedia and the US accounts for nearly half our readers (44 or so percent). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RxS (talk • contribs) 15:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Virtually everything we cover is x country centric, when looking through stories geographically most things we post only affect one country, or a small group of countries. Additionally there is also the point that lots of other people use food pyramids, maybe now they will use food plates instead?
 * Frankly I spent a while thinking about this as I really wasn't sure about it, but if the opposing arguments can't come up with anything better than "its US centric" then we should post this. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd accept your reason if it's the top news story in the U.S. It's not, so the "almost 50% of our readers might care" won't work in this case. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 18:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the nominator this made the front pages of several newspapers in the US. So that's doesn't appear to be correct. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read again. I said top story, not a front page story. Several items can be a "front page" story but only a few deserve the top story or the headline. This one is not it. Most U.S. centric stories that are the top story routinely get page view stats of more than 100k (see the Sonia Sotomayor article that shot up to 425k views); among the related pages on this story, Food guide pyramid was viewed a "measly" ~7,400 times, so I can't say there's a big interest to it for us to waive the sorta-maybe-existing international impact criteria. –<font color="#FFA500">HTD  (<font color="#FFA500">ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 18:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, given that's a decent argument removing [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment was aimed at the idea that a story that's US centric automatically disqualifies it from ITN. There's a few opposes based only on the fact that it's a US based story. That isn't enough. Whether this in particular is a big enough story is another issue. RxS (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it "just a press release"? They've come up with an entirely new way to label food groups. Its not just an incremental change. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's just plain wrong. The food pyramid was introduced in 1992. Do we even care about facts anymore here? RxS (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Remarking [Ready] until someone can come up with a decent reason not to post this. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify 'decent reason' any argument that hasn't already been refuted or is not clearly factually incorrect will do here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed given HTD above. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict, was about to remove ready marker] There aren't many times I get angry on Wikipedia but this is one. International significance is a key ITN criteria. You can't casually dismiss every single strong oppose (as opposed to some self-declared weak supports) because they are not relevant when the grounds for the oppose are based on a key consideration. Those opposes are not something to be brushed aside, they stop it dead in its tracks. The substance to this story is that one organisation has opted to change the way data is presented. The reasons for that are purely communicative rather than any underlying change in what is thought. Nor is it in any way revolutionary - a range of organisations produce this kind of material in a broad spectrum of different forms. It could be pyramids, it could be plates, it could be traffic lights, it could even be tabular - ultimately it is a matter of presentation rather than substance. One organisation based in one country changes its presentation from one form to another. The new method is not revolutionary in any way at all. How is that ITN worthy? Since some people choose to ignore arguments in favour of straw polls, you guessed it, this is a strong oppose.Crispmuncher (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC).
 * I wonder where people get the idea that something has to have international significance in order to qualify. We routinely post things that don't. Elections, accidents, natural disasters...we post those sorts of things without any consideration of international significance. The difference here of course is that there's a small group of editors that don't want to see any US centric stuff posted. Then of course it's an issue, but it's not a valid one. RxS (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * International significance isn't in the ITN criteria. Take something like the example update article - 2010 Jiangxi train derailment, there is no significance of that event outside of China. To take one of the biggest stories of last year, the 2010 Copiapó mining accident which was featured on ITN 3 times last year and also has no international significance. If people had made that arguments in those nominations that they've made here we wouldn't have posted those stories at all. Lack of international interest is more reasonable, but as pointed out by the nominator there is international interest.
 * I'm perfectly content not to post this, but some sort of real argument beyond "its only of interest to the US" which was manifestly false needs to have been made. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Support given that the update has been made and there's international coverage.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. No more food pyramid is news albeit in the U.S. It has a good PD image, by the way. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This has been rebranded many times with no substantial or lasting impact. Mamyles (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Halicephalobus mephisto

 * Support. We are always in need of more science-related items. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Noteworthy. --bender235 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Posting. ITN is a bit behind, and this seems like a non-controversial update. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Post-post support. Nice change of pace, an interesting article, and science is under-represented at ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Belarus requests an IMF rescue loan

 * Quite an unusual development, given that until now Belarus shunned relations with and help from the West, and relied on help from Russia instead. Underscores the extent of the catastrophic economic and financial crisis that Belarus has been struggling to contain for the last couple of weeks. Nsk92 (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when updated. I was going to say that Economy of Belarus is the article to update but it is not in good shape. On the other hand, Belarus is a FA so we will have to use it, I suppose. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Before nominating, I have added a mention of the IMF rescue package request to the Economy section of the Belarus article. At first, I also looked around for a more suitable article, but also saw that the Economy of Belarus article was not in good shape and I could not find any other article that would be a better fit. I asked a question about this yesterday at WT:WikiProject Belarus but nobody responded there thus far. Nsk92 (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I support on notability grounds but the current update in the Belarus article is still short. I'm my general feeling is that despite being an FA, a suitable update for ITN is probably undue weight for an country article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I wonder why you always look at the article in the box as the only for a suitable update. It is usually the most common article about the topic, that does not represent the focal point of the news. The article "Economy of Belarus" is the right one to me.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, two editors had already said the Economy of Belarus article was in poor shape. I checked it upon your suggestion and it is very poorly referenced, and I can't see an update there either.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not my point. Instead of updating the most general article, we should update the articles for the specific topics, which in this case implies not to be confused with Belarus.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter; this won't get posted anyway. Nutmegger (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Question This is not the first time that Belarus has asked for an IMF loan. There was another $3.4b loan between 2009 and 2010 (WSJ writes "Belarus is a repeat customer at the IMF"). .  Does anyone know if the request for that loan made it onto ITN?  If it didn't, then I don't see why this one should. Nutmegger (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the ITN process is improving I don't think lack of precedence is a good argument. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose another mismanaged economy with its hands out (again, ) is not really news; if the IMF bails them out, or they default, perhaps that would be news. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support going to the IMF seems like a significant step for any country, and shows there economy is in a bad way - additionally Belarus is an FA. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support significant development in the global financial crisis and it consequences affecting Eastern Europe. --PopularMax (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

[Ready]Space Shuttle Endeavour

 * Who nominated this? Anyway, the STS134 article was bolded at launch. This story is about the shuttle's last flight. Support if Endeavour is bolded link. StrPby (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point; I changed it. <font color="#960018">Tyrol5  <font color="#960018">[Talk]  01:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, a historic event. Nsk92 (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - historic event.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support historic and relevant. --hydrox (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article needs an update. Second, I'm not too sure about the notability. We posted its final launch...do we need to post its final landing? The final time it goes into a garage? The final time it goes into a museum? Where's the limit?  Spencer T♦ C 19:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support As been mentioned above, it is a historic event. Truthsort (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as we've already mentioned in the launch blurb that this is the last mission. Although the focus was on another article back then, this is basically the same event. Eventually I would support if the launch and landing were a couple of months away from one another, but this is not the case with the Shuttle missions. --Tone 21:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Post the launch and landing of the last shuttle. this one launch is enough... -- Ashish-g55 00:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Support - Nothing to add here. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   01:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * quite a useless support if you have nothing to add. this is not a poll -- Ashish-g55 02:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Historic event, the last mission was mentioned in ITN around a week ago, may as well mention its completion. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:52pm • 11:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I note that the opposition raised here was also raised during Discovery return from its own last flight. That was not posted, but only because it wasn't updated (link). If this is updated, it should be posted as it has consensus. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I should have some time over the next few hours to look it over and update as needed (unless someone beats me to it). RxS (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did an update and marked it ready, won't post it, but Support it. RxS (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as previously noted, this was featured at launch. We also noted at that time that this was its final mission.  What then is new apart from the fact of a routine landing at the end of the mission? Crispmuncher (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Oppose as previously noted, this was featured at launch. Mtking (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support posting the end of a final space shuttle mission seems perfectly reasonable - this mission seems to have been particularly significant given its involvement with the ISS. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the final landing of the last shuttle WILL be historical, virtually by definition. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Yemeni uprising
37 more dead people to add to the 50+ from yesterday to add to the 30 killed by government jets bombing a city to add to everything else that has happened since Yemen last appeared on ITN. -- can  dle • wicke  12:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's just sticky the thing again. I see no need for any running update on ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support but without sticky. Seems like Yemen becomes the most impetuous point of the protests at the moment, so I remind when the same was with Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria. And about the sticky, I'd strongly support to insert it again if only we have series of events worth posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Blurb please? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Al-Jazeera -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support we shamefully failed to feature the last important development in Yemen further down the ITN candidates page. Thue | talk 15:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/more-than-50-reportedly-killed-in-yemen-city-of-taiz-since-sunda/ 50 dead in Taiz --93.137.148.213 (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. More than 50 dead and hundreds injured in one city. Must be worth posting Yemen. Why is this being ignored? -- can  dle • wicke  19:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's still no update (to the article)...correct me if I'm wrong. RxS (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose until updated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, there's no update. RxS (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like the key article is wrong, because we have a suitable update in the timeline.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --bender235 (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment not updated. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, over a hundred dead would just as easily describe Syria but these continuing wars and protests are not perpetual news; otherwise we'll be the regular casualty reporter: so many dead in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Libya, not to mention Congo, Mexico (where discovery of mass graves well surpassing 100 deaths continues nearly weekly), and every other place in turmoil. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Sepp Blatter reelected head of FIFA
Oppose - only candidate in an election that is closed to the public = non-story. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this a good time to get this on the front page. The Fifa corruption allegations have been in the news for a while now, and this is a decent opportunity to feature the controversy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that it hasn't officially happenet yet, but as he is running unopposed it is a near certainty; Nevertheless this shouldn't posted until it's official.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly getting major airtime and column inches all around the world, especially with the ongoing issues with FIFA. The BBC World Service is talking about the story almost daily on one of its (non-football) radio shows. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly a highly notable election. There is a lot of controversy around this. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Get the perspective right. Sepp Blatter being re-elected is not the story. It's what has gone before and what is presumably still happening, leading to a single candidate election. The corruption is the story. Plus the appalling image FIFA now has. HiLo48 (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if the corruption allegations are highlighted. That seems to be the reason this is receiving so much attention. -- can  dle • wicke  12:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the corruption allegations are detailed in the bolded article. I agree the controversy is the main story but I think there's some concern about posting mere 'allegations' on the main page.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Can't use the word elected, re-appointed would be better. Mtking (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support but with different wording. As we usually post the results of Presidential election in one country, it's by far sufficient to me to post the Presidential election of the internationally recognized governing body in the most popular sport in the world that gathers members of almost every country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did you choose to totally ignore the concerns expressed by previous posters? HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer the blurb to highlight his re-election, rather than allegations amid the election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose A mere formality given he is already in the position and was the only candidate. This is a non-governmental organisation too. The corruption story may have some legs but remving this minor side show there is not really a lot to justify a post at this time - wait for some more significant development. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

Support, but as HiLo48 says, it's the corruption that's the story here, the re-election is trivia by itself. Lampman (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking ready, the timer is yellow, there looks like a consensus and the article is updated. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)