Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2012

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

[Posted] Tribal clashes in Sabha leave 147 killed

 * Tentative support, but the phrase "tribal clashes" is pretty vague and doesn't really explain what is happening. Maybe "Clashes between X and Y tribes in Sabha, Libya..."?  Spencer T♦ C 19:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would keep "tribal". How about "Six days of tribal clashes between the Tabu and the Arab Abu Seif in Sabha, Libya kill 147 people"? However, I'm concerned about Tabu tribe article having no inline citations in most sections.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  19:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support Seems like a very important clash after few tribes announced their strive for secession from the country. It is fairly well covered through the media and the death toll is extraordinarily high.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Looking at the events of today (the date it is nominated under) I see 16 deaths reported - that isn't hugely significant in the realm of armed conflict. To get the higher death toll means running a narrative thread through a number of separate incidents and treating them as a group, which becomes more of an ongoing problem as opposed to a specific event which is generally the focus of ITN.  If we are to lump them together and treat them as a group we really need an independent RS that does the grouping of these particular events together, as opposed to them simply being an otherwise unconnected subset of difficulties in post-revolution Libya. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
 * My first notion was that the nomination is for the Sabha conflict, not particularly for the day-to-day tribal clashes and most recent itself. Current blurb needs minor change to document the developing conflict.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Crispmuncher the provided source does that.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  10:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * comment if this is added then it should not be on the top as the clashes occurred couple of days ago. (some additional deaths are probs from injuries occurred then)Lihaas (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just placement i guess...the fightings been ongoing for a week with most losses occurring before yest. So the "in the news" part would relate to Wed/Thurs at most.Lihaas (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its NOT the most current. And it happened at least after Gambia. The clash that strted was last MOnday (almost a week ago)Lihaas (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed now. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

[Ready] Skateboarding's first 1080

 * This is NOT a minority topic, nor is it a news article with a blurb liek that. I rewored and changed the relevant bitsLihaas (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose It ruddy is a minority topic! Of absolutely no interest to anyone, anywhere, ever. Wholly inappropriate for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 08:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Of absolutely no interest to anyone, anywhere, ever." Demonstrably false by the existence of this nom, thus your vote is not only invalid but is also the core of a paradox that, untamed, will rip our universe asunder. Repent. --Golbez (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely this is a minority topic. I've also added back the nationality and age of the achiever and rephrased the blurb somewhat. __meco (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hes nto from Argentina or Mexico or Canada
 * As for minority topic: since when does sport become a minority topic? Listed at the bluelink is "Business and economics, Culture, Infrastructure, Technology"Lihaas (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, why not. However, the article would have to be significantly longer. --Tone 08:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support if the article can be expanded sufficiently. A world first, and an especially significant milestone in the relevant sport (compare the recent 100 cricket centuries story). AlexTiefling (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's interesting news indeed. Support if expanded. --RJFF (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support with a bit more expansion; it's a nice quick and positive story after all the recent conflict and election stories. GRAPPLE   X  12:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support because it's a world first, and many professional skateboarders deemed the trick impossible. Also agree with Alex, matches the 100 cricket centuries story. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  14:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly the most outrageous claim of equivalence I have ever read. Tendulkar's record is the culmination of an international career in a major international sport that started 10 years before this kid could walk.  It is evident to anyone who follows the sport that the achievement is unlikely to be matched in at least a generation.  He has received some of the highest awards that his nation and his sport can give.  A child's hobby is considered equivalent????  Extraordinary. Kevin McE (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support because of it being a minority topic. Skateboarding is popular in many countries, but - can someone clarify it a bit here? --Τασουλα (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The blurb should be altered to read 'American' rather than 'United States citizen.' --Golbez (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article seems to be well updated...are we still waiting for more expansion of the article? If not it looks ready to post to me. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 15:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready to be posted: Article is short, but decent and up-to-date. --RJFF (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to post, but it seems a bit stale having happened back on March 30 (or 31, I can't remember which)...I also recommend DYK, as suggested by FormerIP. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 17:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This isn't a newsworthy event. The source provided above isn't even a news source, it's the website of the company that sponsors the 12 year-old. Since the article is new, it should be instead considered for DYK. FormerIP (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree it's not newsworthy — no significant coverage in news sites, nowhere near enough for even our lowest thresholds of newsworthiness. Go to DYK. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment has received coverage from LA Times, Long Island Press and UK daily mail. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  19:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and the onus is on you to provide the pudding, not me. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 21:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", actually. But here are news mentions by The Guardian], Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph . Not exactly Woodward and Bernstein levels of reporting, but it's still being treated as news.  GRAPPLE   X  21:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Those don't look like they are likely to have been in the print editions, though. In each case, they've written a tiny blurb to go with the video. FormerIP (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oooohhhh he wanted the actual news stories. I thought I didn't need to link them as they are in the article itself. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  21:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Not being an aficionado I thought I'd learn more about this and went to 1080 (skateboarding). The third and final paragraph of the nine (wow!) line article really helped me understand, not. To help others, it reads....
 * "There were particular challenges at the MegaRamp at Woodward West in Tehachapi, California where the jump was filmed by several cameras. It provided some of the speed and velocity needed, however the 50-foot gap in the ramp was a hinder to keep the momentum going all the way through to the quarter pipe. This was overcome by the creation of a custom built roll-over feature which allowed the skater to drop in on the 70-foot-tall and roll right over the large gap, thus allowing the speed to be maintained."
 * That is simply so much crap as to be unbelievable. I still have no idea what happened. But it's good to know that the skater had both speed AND velocity. This nomination is  NOT  ready. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Gambian election

 * Oppose - fails to meet the purpose of itn; To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news; To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events; To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them; To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.
 * If the nation was more important (G20) or had been in the news (Egypt) than it would pass the first and third point. 70.48.105.120 (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? 25 mins later you say "oppose its not important/notable" -- it is ITNR and it will be posted unless you can discuss to change the ITNR regardless of reasons at TINC.
 * Anyways, my stupid internet connection is not loading this. can someone collate the data and add it or show it to me add? ThksLihaas (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's your internet connection. The server of the IEC seems to have collapsed. --RJFF (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ^ and stating that it is ITNR is not an argument, please state how it is notable and why readers will be interested. 70.48.105.120 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's a national election plagued by accusations of corruption and rigging. I fail to see how that's less interesting than the BRICS summit or a baseball team changing hands. GRAPPLE   X  13:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the comment above...ITNR mens it will get posted.Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. It's scheduled as a recurring item in WP:ITNR, it's of significance to anyone interested in world or African politics, and I see no pressing or valid reason to refuse it. GRAPPLE   X  13:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone mark ready?Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No way at the current state. – H T  D  15:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose ITNR does not mean "post regardless". That article is an unholy mess and should not be near the front page in its current state doktorb wordsdeeds 15:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed its the quality of he article. Whats the "unholy mess" then? so we can clean it to ready for posting.Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lemme point out where in the article is the "unholy mess": it's this one. – H T  D  15:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WOW! you are just so helpful in impriving WP with that comment. that will really help improve the article. J-H-C!please dont spread that love ;)Lihaas (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pushing it to be posted at ITN at this state won't help in improving it, either. – H T  D  15:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thx for clarifying what "state" that is ;) + ITN has often been cited as a reason for improving the articleLihaas (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that cited enough. Your blabbering on this issue is actually not helping to improve the state of the article nor its chances of getting in the Main Page. – H T  D  18:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is small, but it's not a mess. There's a few bare-url citations that could be fixed, and while the prose isn't fantastic it's hardly the worst I've seen. For what it's worth, here's a Deutsche Welle article on the election that would further help to expand it. GRAPPLE   X  15:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being fruitful, lot more helpful than the rubbish above ;) Ive added contnent from there. We could add the list of 48 constituencies, though im relictant as the MP data is nothere.
 * Reflinks is a DYK not ITN preregotaive, but its still done ;)Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support and ready to be posted. The article has been tidied up, expanded and updated during the last couple of hours. I think doktorb's requirements considering the quality of the article, leading to his temporary opposition, have been met now. It utilizes all sources currently available. The notability should not be called in question, given that it is ITN/R and has been covered by int'l media. --RJFF (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Question Should we mention President Yahya Jammeh as the leader of the winning APRC, even though it is a parliamentary and not a presidential election? --RJFF (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We dont do it be precedence, hes also not the parliamentary leader for the parliamentary election. In places such as El Salvador we didnt put Fnes for the FMLNLihaas (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I'm not a fan of automatic ITNR for election in "less important" countries either, but the update is solid and well developed. I'm no expert in Gambian politics but it appears free of significant problems. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Obvious Support good update to ITN/R item. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 6:14 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 BRICS summit

 * Support: It's an ITNR item so that takes care of notability and the article looks good. Have also added a title for the nomination so that it shows up on the index above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking readyLihaas (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Summit of BRICS is a very important meeting for the world's politics and definitely item for ITN.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Shall we instead wait until it concludes, in that case we can also post some results? --Tone 14:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I added some results of the summit, along with another reference. Rest of the references are available in the article. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. Nice work. But the proposed blurb is too long, and I couldn't even find the word "declaration" in the article except in linked references, and I think New Delhi is a fairly well-known city so I trimmed "India". --BorgQueen (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we seperate BRICS and summit as the former has its own articleLihaas (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, please see WP:PIPE. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not PIPE as its not deceptive. It actually leads to the BRICS page and the summir [age per the links.Lihaas (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to add a photo for this ITN blurb? We can add the logo. The other photo in the article would be rather useless at the ITN size. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! Good point, the updated 5 leaders...IF its free of concerns.Lihaas (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Lula da Silva recovers from cancer

 * Support Notable enough to warrant a mention, as he is a very popular leader and former head of state. He continues to play a major role in Brazilian politics, including this year's municipal elections (particularly in the city of São Paulo).  Li mon gi  (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, someone announcing a return to politics isn't exactly ITN stuff, especially since the article update consists of two sentences in an otherwise large piece. More effective for Wikinews. --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The news item is the recovery from cancer, not just Lula's return to politics. That doesn't happen very often. Cambalachero (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, no, but if that's the story then this is nothing doing. We don't, or shouldn't, post otherwise regular things that happen to famous people, unless they have an immediate impact on geopolitics, which this doesn't. --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Golbez has it spot on. Not significant for ITN. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose neither is particularly remarkable. Dick Cheney had a heart transplant that made headlines, why not nominate that too.  Hot Stop UTC 00:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Golbez. Khazar2 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

[Pulled] Sale of the LA Dodgers

 * Question — do we have any precedents for this? Did we post when FSG bought over Liverpool? If we did, then I'd be inclined to support. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we posted Liverpool or not; was it the largest sale in history? The previous record, if I remember corectly, was something like 1.5 billion. I think two billion dollars for a baseball team (and not a very good one at that... go Jays!) makes this comparable to a major corporate takeover. -- Plasma Twa  2  16:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Just looked it up. The previous record was $1.47 billion for Manchester United in 2005. -- Plasma Twa  2  17:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Historic purchase of a sports team. Truthsort (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment' I was set to say "uhh, no" until I saw that sale price. If we do run it though, I think the blurb needs to note this is a record for such a sale. Resolute 17:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per this being such a huge amount of money. By no means a Baseball fan... --Τασουλα (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but it should be made clear in the blurb that this is for a record amount. Hot Stop UTC 17:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI I marked as minority since it's a business deal. Hot Stop UTC 17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wasn't sure if this counted as a minority topic or not given it is a sporting item as well as a business deal. -- Plasma Twa  2  18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support for the amount of money involved in the sale. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I don't know anything about the sport, I don't care about the team, I don't have any interest in finding anything about this whole affair, but I can see just how notable and important this news story is, and can see no reason why it shouldn't be on the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I really don't like baseball, but to conclude a record-breaking deal worth $2.1 billion is a very important news. Note that this is even times more than the value of the richest football clubs.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a business transaction, not a sports one. I'm not used to seeing business transactions posted here. HiLo48 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lack of significant update in the article, and lack of any real life significance in the actual news business transaction. Mt  king  (edits)  20:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Guggenheim Partners article meets the "standard" five sentence update. -- Plasma Twa  2  23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The thrust of the Support's above are based on the significance in relation to the sports team, that article has not had a significant update. If the nomination was just about a deal done by Guggenheim Partners then it would be WP:SNOW opposed. Mt  king  (edits)  00:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of fleshing out the update on the Dodgers page (though how long it stands is anyone's guess). I believe it is well above the required minimum now, though it could possibly use some fan and player reactions, which alas, I cannot add at the moment because university essays do not write themselves. -- Plasma Twa  2  02:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose We could either consider this a business story, or a sports story.  If the former, then I would question whether it is so big a deal that it would automatically merit mention; if the latter, we have a long standing principle that records are not generally ITNable, on the basis that the nature of a record is that it will be surpassed.  So notability seems to centre on a business record within one specific business sector: I suspect that we would not extend that to other sectors. Kevin McE (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but did we not just have a sports record/milestone on itn? -- Plasma Twa  2  23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally that is in areas of personal achievement, not someones ability to write numbers on a cheque. Mt  king  (edits)  00:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

*Support: If its the largest such deal ever, then its worthy of being posted on ITN. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Retracting support for reason provided further below. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was ready to support, until I read this, which includes lines such as "agreed Tuesday night to buy," "is one of several steps toward a sale," "is subject to approval in federal bankruptcy court." Thus, I oppose, but would support posting the story when it's confirmed. C628 (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the blurb and marked as ready. Hot Stop UTC 03:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hold your horses. C628 makes a very good observation. Perhaps editors have been voting without the full facts. I'd also support waiting for the deal to actually go through. FormerIP (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If people didn't check the articles, it's their fault. I have tweaked the blurb though Hot Stop UTC 03:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I made one slight edit to your blurb, changing "sports team" to "professional sports franchise" as the sale includes both the team and Dodgers Stadium. -- Plasma Twa  2  03:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that I gave it only a cursory glance so I really dont have any one else to blame but at the time I read it, the first line in the para read "has been sold" and not "an agreement had been reached on the sale". I'm not imputing any bad faith, but the blurb and the opening line was (probably unintentionally) misleading at that time, hence I'm retracting my support. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support obvious global significance, despite being a sports story. Update need to be more clearer. Secret account 03:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's absolute crap. I wasn't going to argue this strongly (and still won't), but posts like that deserve the bullshit call. I live in the most sports obsessed city in one of the world's most sports obsessed countries, and there's no mention in our local media. HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Baseball is largely a North American obsession.  After the fact oppose for that very reason. The "make up a story and then change it once it has support" element makes a mockery of the whole consensus-building process too.  I don't agree with Hot Stop's analysis: people should be able to take stories on trust.  If a bait-and-switch is done (even an unintentional one) we need to wait to make sure there is consensus on the actual story featured. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Wikilawyering at it's finest. Hot Stop UTC 05:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? I haven't cited a single policy there.  Trust me, if I wanted to throw a spanner in the works I could bring up some more substantive arguments of factual accuracy in even the revised blurb. You'll also note I haven't gone in demanding that this be pulled.  It is simply a nonsense to use consensus formed in support of one story as evidence of consensus for a less significant story.  Crispmuncher (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Actually, baseball is fairly popular in Japan and South Korea too. I'm not a fan, but then I don't like any sports... --BorgQueen (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That actually makes my point for me. We've now gone from "global significance" through "largely North America" to "North America and a couple of other countries". Crispmuncher (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC).
 * "Global significance" isn't an ITN criterion. And in this instance, the particular sport isn't even directly relevant; the transaction is noteworthy because it sets a record across the entire industry (encompassing all sports).  Perhaps this is what Secret meant.  —David Levy 05:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC))
 * Quite true. "Global significance" isn't an ITN criterion. But Chocolate Horlicks still made the unhelpful, incorrect, provocative claim here as part of his case for posting. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean Secret (not Chocolate Horlicks), yes? [I hope so too. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)]
 * It's reasonable to disagree with that assessment (and Secret has acknowledged that the wording was "a bit strong"), but the above exchange is based upon a mistaken impression that the wording in question referred to the sport of baseball itself. The actual claim, while highly debatable, is far less extreme.  —David Levy 01:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Levy is right. I might have worded it a bit strong, but this story isn't a joke or a mockery. Baseball is the top sport in several countries, including Japan so it's not an "North American obsession" like American football is. But a 2 billion dollar sale of a sports team that was expected to fetch around 700-800 million at the most? It has major implications in the global sports and business no matter what sport is played. It gives the estimated value that similar squads such an English Premier League team go for if it become available, and shows that big record breaking acquisitions like this are not impacted by the recent recession, and other record breaking deals in other areas can happen. It was a top story in BBC sport where the Dodgers were called one of the most prestigious franchises in sport, still the second biggest story on Al-Jazeera sport over 24 hours later, lots of coverage in Mexico  Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and just about every other major global business news source there is. If it wasn't for the dollar amount the team is going for, or any other sports deal I, nor all these ITN regulars above wouldn't supported. ITN is not all about politics. Not even the World Series games gets this kind of global coverage Secret account 05:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We have above "It has major implications in the global sports and business no matter what sport is played." I know most of the rest of the world doesn't pay much attention, but in Australian Football, the AFL, with league attendances way up high in world rankings, tried the franchised, club ownership model, and reverted to ownership by the members. So this sale won't have much impact on Aussie Rules. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC
 * Premature The discussion, perhaps inevitably, got reduced to our all too frequent "this is just US interest/high US interest, esp with some peripheral awareness, is sufficient" mode of argument.  Compared with any other story we run, agreement to do something is a much earlier step than we report in other areas of interest.  We announce changes of law, not agreement to do so: we announce outcomes of prosecutions, not the decision to start proceedings, we announce the result of sports events, not the decision to plan to undertake them.  If consensus for the story exists (a close call, but not one I'd challenge), that is one thing, but if nothing comes of these discussions, if some glitch occurs in the paperwork or the due diligence procedure opens eyes to something, or if the boss of Guggenheim partners gets hit by a bus before he signs, then we will effectively have been publishing news on the basis of crystal balling.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I sort of agree with Kevin here, if this deal goes south then we should also post Guggenheim Partners now disagree to purchase... I know that will most likely not happen but still a little premature. -- Ashish-g55 11:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I just withdrew my support after C628 made the point and I gave it a more careful read. I was mislead a bit by the blurb and the opening line as it stood then, so I thought I should correct my mistake. I dont want to speak for others, so I'll let the above editors comment for themselves whether they gave their support for the actual sale or an agreement regarding a potential sale. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kevin, do you think the "US interest only" discussion was helped by some ignorant, presumably American, editor claiming "obvious global significance"? (Please note again that I am not pushing my opposition to this nomination any further. Just highlighting stupid, provocative posts when I see them.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think that your use of the adjectives "ignorant" and "stupid" is helpful? This doesn't strike you as the least bit "provocative"?  —David Levy 01:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in trying to personalise the direction in which the discussion developed. Each editor should be capable of deciding for him/herself when they are being stupid or provocative. Kevin McE (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * was it sold or purchased or they just "agree to purchase"? time make the news, was and will is not the same.--Feroang (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Pulled. Consensus seemed clear at the time of posting, but this no longer is the case.  —David Levy 01:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't usually question admin decisions, but I only see 2 or 3 after-the-fact opposes (one from a noted anti-American). This seems like a case of whomever yells loudest gets their way.  Hot Stop UTC 04:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think David made the right call here. I'm pretty ambivalent about whether or not this should be posted, but I don't think we should be posting business deals that haven't actually gone through. Once the deal is done there's nothing to stop this going back up. Jenks24 (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Except by that time the people complaining every 'i' hasn't been dotted will say its still. Sorry, I've been around ITN long enough to know that some people will wikilawyer tooth and nail against anything.  Hot Stop UTC 05:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether one agrees or disagrees with the "premature" argument, it's unfair to dismiss it as wikilawyering. That the deal hasn't been completed is a material fact.  —David Levy 05:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I supported the blurb on the current wording, but I also will agree on a reposting once it passes through an bankruptcy court and gets officially approved (unless something else happen like if New York Mets sale coming soon beat the price here). I don't mind the pull, as there was some valid concerns listed above of editors who would otherwise support the posting. Secret account 05:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't a matter of yelling. There's concern that this item was posted prematurely, with one editor withdrawing his/her support after a significant discrepancy came to light and a remaining "support" rationale explicitly citing the deal's (nonexistent) conclusion, while other comments are ambiguous in this respect.  I don't believe that there's consensus against posting the item, but consensus in its favor no longer is clear.  —David Levy 05:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While wondering whether I am the one being characterised as a noted anti-American, I am bemused that an editor cannot confidently tell the difference between counting to two and counting to three. I would observe that other editors opposed posting at this preparatory stage of the deal for precisely the same reason before the blurb was put on the main page, and that those supporting were all citing the purchase/amount of money, rather than the possibility of a purchase.  I found the posting of 03:23 29 March, suggesting that editors have no right to amend/withdraw their support for a proposal, irresponsible.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The posting admin was aware of the fact that the nom may have been worded incorrectly while the discussion took place, and she didn't feel didn't feel it was an issue. My suggestion wasn't that people can't change their minds, but that they are responsible for reading the relevant article before commenting.  And FYI Kevin, you weren't who I was referring to.  Hot Stop UTC 12:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When BorgQueen posted the item, there was significantly less discussion in which the discrepancy was cited as an issue. At that point, I'd have made the same call.  —David Levy 04:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Has it ever been suggested that we should (almost) always wait for a full 24 hours worth of comments before posting an item? That way we would have a chance of getting comments from all time zones of the world, rather than perhaps only those who might have a particular bias on an issue. This was posted after less than 12 hours of conversation, and it was hardly an urgent, earth shattering event. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That has crossed my mind as well even before this post - too short a time span inevitably introduces systematic regional bias. You'd always have WP:SNOW for e.g. the death of Osame bin Laden and rightly so.  OTOH timeliness is always a concern here and we are all too frequently slow to respond.  I think my preferred option would be a 24 hour guillotine on discussion, after which it is assessed and that is final: posting items after a few hours is generally too son and after three or four days it seems pointless.  However, that's probably the kind of thing to throw in to the mix in a major review rather than on an ad hoc basis here. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC).


 * This could've waited until the deal was consummated. We all know that LA bus drivers are one of the crappiest. – H T  D  15:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Will be renominated upon the final sale, and barring a lack of an update I expect there won't be any opposition then. -- Plasma Twa  2  16:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll still oppose any claim that this is of global significance. HiLo48 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Adrienne Rich has died

 * update is poor...as to wehter consensus thinks shes notable for ITN is another issue. for the record, id disagree.Lihaas (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support with thanks. I was afraid someone would nominate Earl Scruggs instead of Rich, who was eminently influential, accent on the eminent. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Striking per RJFF. But I don't know how or if this minority category will ever be an ITN. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: ITN is not an obituary. Deaths of notable personalities should only be included if they are premature and surprising and/or are likely to have a major impact. I don't think this is the case here. There's barely an update, because there is little new to write if an old (great!) woman dies of natural causes. --RJFF (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per RJFF. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Sudan-South Sudan border conflict
Clashes have broken out between the armed forces of Sudan and South Sudan in several disputed border regions --Reader1987 (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Would support (even obviosu support/strogn support) with a bigger expansion of the incident itself...most of it is reactions at th emoment and th emain issue is the incident. (although reactions adds to its worth). Also need UN's response from Moon.Lihaas (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * the information present is all that is known currently--Reader1987 (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a bit short but it's really a question how much more can be added. So, what shall we do, good to post? --Tone 15:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I think it is good to post now. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not ready the article talks a lot about the smouldering conflict between the two states, and covers a number of events in 2011. The only thing I could find which was recent was the sentence fragment "In early March 2012, with the Sudanese Air Force bombing parts of Pariang.". Given that there seems to be a history of minor conflict between the two, I'm not sure it's really front page worthy. The May 2011 seizure of Abyei sure, but that was a year ago. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not ITN worthy, as this is a long-simmering conflict, since the separation of the two states. Crnorizec (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * VBorders were crossed and acknowledged this time. which hasnt happened since independenceLihaas (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, but in the following form:South Sudan's troops pull out of Sudan's oil-producing Heglig area, easing tensions after two days of clashes between the neighbours threatened to escalate a simmering conflict. (Reuters)Oleg-ch (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Abkhaz election

 * Comment: Most elected candidates are independents, so the blurb "X wins a plurality" won't work as in elections where parties play an important role.
 * Ofcourse it can/...the plurality will be the iggest party. Note- the independends are not ONE body of independents they are all independence of weach other. so thats as good as 1 seat for a "party"Lihaas (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't make sense to claim that a party "wins" the election with four out of 35 seats. That's not what I'd call "winning" an election. I don't know anything about Abkhazian politics. But I assume that most of the "independents" are pro-government, while this National Unity Forum seems to be oppositional. If we say they "won", it creates the impression that they had beaten the pro-government camp (consisting mostly of formally independent politicians), what in fact is — presumably — not the case. --RJFF (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed...how about achieves/gets a plurality?Lihaas (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait for the nomination and confirmation of a head of government. That would solve the issue raised above. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That won't happen, as Abkhazia is — as far as I know — not a parliamentary system and the PM is not determined in the parliamentary election. --RJFF (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Drop the word plurality. There was a discussion on it in Wikipedia a couple of months ago. It's only used in some parts of the world, and not in others. I can't tell you where it's used but I can certainly tell you it's never used in my country. The name of my country doesn't matter. I'd never heard of it until I saw it here. Is it used in Abkhazia? And what does it mean? (Since many readers will never have heard of it, you really need to define it.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what the wikilink is for. More readers probably know what a plurality is than what Abkhazia is. --Golbez (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are places where it's not used, there must be another word available. Why display the arrogance that your word, unknown to many, must be used? HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you know of a single word or simple phrase that can replace it, go for it. Why display the arrogance that the word you're unfamiliar with is not the best word to describe the phenomenon simply because you're ignorant of it? --Golbez (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relative majority. --RJFF (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I must say I'm quite familiar with the term "plurality", and I'm from the same country as HiLo48. I can't think of a better word or phrase to describe this, and the wikilink (which should be piped to Plurality (voting), by the way) should suffice to explain the concept.  I ♦  A  07:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How arrogant of you to have a more developed vocabulary than HiLo. --Golbez (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where I come from bullying is illegal, but if it makes you feel better.... HiLo48 (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I have sympathy with the idea that Wikipedia is a portal to democracy around the world; as it stands, I am unconvinced that we should open the door for nations whose existence is marked with...shall we say "certain doubt"? doktorb wordsdeeds 20:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Abkhazia is a region of Georgia, recognized as a state only by Russia and Hugo Chávez. The comparison to Kosovo, which is recognized by most of the world, is inadequate and biased. Crnorizec (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it's recognised by six UN member states, not one and one man. GRAPPLE   X  20:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Kosovo isn't recognized by "most of the world", but by 89 UN members, which is 46%, so slightly less than the most basic qualifier of "most of the world." And if we're operating by population, it's nowhere near 'most'. --Golbez (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * you are right, most of the first world is the correct statement. unlike Abkhazia. Crnorizec (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well sure, if you keep moving the goalposts. Not sure how the rest of the world will feel about their diplomatic recognition counting less than the first world's. --Golbez (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. ITN has posted the elections of both absurdly small states (Kiribati) and mostly unrecognized states (Taiwan). If Wikipedia is indeed "a portal to democracy around the world", then neither Abkhazia's size nor its diplomatic status should disqualify it. Shrigley (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose to present a party that might have won four out of 35 seats as the "winner" of this election. The "winner" of the election is a bunch of individual, independent candidates and not a party. If no one here knows how to find out who and how many of them are "pro-government independents" or "pro-opposition independents", the traditional blurb "X has won a plurality" or "X has won the election" is not applicable. But if we don't know who has "won", then what are we going to report? "An election in Abkhazia has taken place"? That's not very interesting for ITN. Unlike elections in other countries, this election seems not to have any impact on who is the head of government or which party or political force has the power in this de facto country. By the way, it surprises me to read that Wikipedia is "a portal to democracy around the world" That's new to me. I thought that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view.--RJFF (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- The comparison of Abkhazia to Taiwan is absurd. The states recognizing Taiwan dwarf those of Abkhazia 23-6. This election is not front-page worthy. &mdash;Bzweebl&mdash; talk 00:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments: (1) Being a disputed state is not a disqualification. I quote from the ITN/R page criteria for elections: Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.So instead of outright dismissing it, lets discuss this on its merits. (2)' Irrespective of how many states recognize and dont recognize, Abkhazia is de-facto independent and no longer under Georgian administration (unlike for example, Tibet which claims independence but is still under Chinse administration). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If enough people say it's a disqualification, it's a disqualification. It's how consensus works.  Hot Stop UTC 01:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The criteria says that being a disputed state alone shouldnt be a reason for disqualification and I was hoping it would require enough people to say because of xyz other reason it is or isnt notable, and not merely say its a disputed state and hence its disqualified (when it clearly isnt according to the guidelines). But sadly what you say appears to be true. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Ideally we should report any election or head of state change of any entity that claims sovereignty. If they are capable of having elections, why not report it? Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1] 03:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Abkhazia is effectively a sovereign state, as it has control over what it claims to be its territory. As this is the first election since its recognition by other states, it seems like a logical choice, considering the lack of other updates in recent days. Article is also in reasonable shape. Also, plurality should link to Plurality (voting).  I ♦  A  07:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the piping to plurality (voting) in the blurb. EdwardLane (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction: Russia has control over A.'s territory. Crnorizec (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose a country recognized by only 3% of UN members isn't important enough to be featured here. Hot Stop UTC 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a measure of importance though. Lets say the western US declared itself independent and had relative sovereignty over its claimed territory, but only a few UN members recognized it. Would we ignore elections from such a massive country? This might be a poor example, but there are factors other than UN member recognition when talking about importance. Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1] 18:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of hyperbole I missed while I was gone. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.  Hot Stop UTC 01:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Abkhazia's recognition, while limited, is still valid, and is not grounds for automatic dismissal. The region is of interest, and the article seems grand for main page linking. GRAPPLE   X  12:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it? And what news does the article tell you? That the election has taken place, a bunch of people of unknown political affiliation have been elected and Georgia and the U.S. think it's illegitimate. That's neither new nor interesting. --RJFF (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove Syria sticky?
Might be time for another discussion on Syria. I do honestly think we're now at a point where any major offensives can be considered on a case-by-case basis. There is no daily news that would currently pass ITN/C to justify the sticky remaining. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think we can remove it and reconsider reposting it as the situation develops further. --Tone 13:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Tone.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FULL agreement. As the last rejected nom, btw. Now there ar eminor issues of warnings/shootings, etc. Nothign mahjor (though at the time of my nom there was a big breakign story after i posted)Lihaas (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * reset timer?Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We reset the timer when we post an item, not when we remove it. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Was reset for the update to mali (not a new post)Lihaas (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouting not required. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

\::::Were the debidels too high? Iwas just typing with caps lock and dint want to redo.Lihaas (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Object There has been no justification for a Syria sticky for some time. There is no justification for one now. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion was to remove the existing sticky, not to introduce a new one. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, oops, sorry, I was trying to read three things at once at the time. In that case, SUPPORT ! :) doktorb wordsdeeds 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Repost? that the "UN human rights chief accuses syrian authorities of targeting children", might be a (significant?) new development - reported in this article by the BBC. EdwardLane (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Nominate a new item or nominate a new sticky. Don't call for a repost here. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK understood, thanks. EdwardLane (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] James Cameron's Deepsea Challenger

 * Support - As an author. One of the last frontiers on earth has been reached. (Also the historic first tweet from the deepest point on earth) Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 23:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this really true? People have been down there before, right? Speciate (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - needs update The first tweet from the bottom of challenger deep isn't the news part. Maybe wait until they come back up and release some scientific details. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Begrudging support . If it keeps him out of film-making for a while, I guess it's worth it. FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Striking support. I didn't realise that there was no first or record involved in this. Probably now neutral or weak oppose. FormerIP (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First solo. We posted every shuttle launch, this is far less routine. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Update needed first, but shouldn't the emphasis be on the accomplishment of being the first solo person to reach the deepest point on Earth? Akin to Lindberg's solo flight? Rhodesisland (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's definitely an interesting story, but I don't think it's significant enough of an event to be ITN worthy. Had he been the first to make the decent, It would definitely be worthy, but he's the third person to reach the bottom(Jacques Piccard, Don Walsh in 1960). The fact that it's the deepest Tweet ever recorded is a neat fact, but not a historic event (After all, we've already had astronauts tweet from space!). If it was to be put up on ITN, I would agree with Rhodesisland: the blurb should be more along the lines of "James Cameron reaches the seafloor of the Challenger Deep in the vessel Deepsea Challenger, becoming the first person to do so in a solo voyage". - Anc516 (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not news, it's a vanity project by a man richer than the east coast of Africa. It might be "notable" in the sense of being "unusual", but not in the sense of "being important". It's not for the front page news section at least. Might fit into DYK at a pinch. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The voyage stage was not of such length that the solo element is notable: 5 hours in a small room on one's own is not remarkable. Lots of short-term publicity because of who he is, but in terms of achievement/outcome/discovery, this seems to be a rich man's toy rather than important scientific development. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting story...the news has international coverage. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  06:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Covers a niche market of science and exploration all in one go.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its NOT ITNR
 * Also what sort fo ITN reasoning is "if it keeps him from making movies" ITN it not an op-ed nor does consensus vote count
 * We should also cite it as the first to do so making it more notable.Lihaas (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I really have to disagree w/ Kevin McE --and that's not something I do often. This is the first in a new way of exploring the deepest levels of the ocean. Earlier I compared this dive to Lindbergh's solo flight, and that comparison seems very apt to me. Yes, Cameron wasn't the first, neither was Lindbergh; they were both the first to do so SOLO. I don't think people in Lindbergh's time thought his feat was "rich man's toy rather than important scientific development" even though all he did was fly across the Atlantic. In comparison, Cameron took scientific samples, videos, and documentation of an area of our world that we know less about than we do the Moon or Mars. The scientific knowledge that we gain from his trip may not be realized for years, but it will be vast and important and this dive is just the first of several dives to come. Have we become so cynical in our modern age that we won't recognize that fact just because of who the explorer was? I certainly hope not. 182.173.212.21 (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support While not first, this is still a significant technological achievement - after 50 years, there is again a sub that goes that deep down and it's better equipped. And that's only the first of several subs being currently developed, so this seems to be the beginning of a new era of deep sea exploration. --Tone 09:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case re-reworded blurb for notable
 * Im also with FormerIP now as neutral to wealk opposeLihaas (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I could have dived to the bottom of the ocean in the time this has taken to be discussed.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - This is an engineering milestone equal to the moon landing. The fact that it is Cameron is beside the point; he piloted a vessel deeper than anyone else in history to 16,250 PSI of pressure, solo. Never mind that Cameron designed it himself.  Never mind who paid for it. I suppose you would have said "big deal" to Armstrong on the moon too. "Yawn, bad audio." If you actually use your brain and think about it, it is truly remarkable, notable, and it absolutely deserves to be on the front page. --Brad Patrick (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * support - If a rich man build a solo ship and flew to the moon, it would be notable, even though we've been there. Hell, if the US, Russians or Chinese land a person on the moon, we'd probably post that. There have been more than twice as many trips to the surface of the moon by humans as there have been trips to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is one main issue here — James Cameron. Some of the opposes/supports are based on the fact that it's him. Others are based on the fact that on its own, it's notable. We need to separate the two, or a consensus will be hard to find. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I oppose (albeit weakly) if James Cameron is mentioned — but would support posting the achievement in general, without reference to Cameron. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what's the compromise blurb? --Tone 18:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment You will see from my talk page that I have been called ignorant for voting Oppose to this nomination. It is remarkable that someone has considered such a retort to my vote here. I am not impressed by a celebrity driven 'event' making the first page of Wikipedia and make that quite clear again. That an editor has chosen to name call as part of a cheerleading exercise for a film director's vanity project is staggering. I urge Administrators to consider this uncivil act as part of the process in getting this story past the nomination stage. Is this REALLY an achievement? Should the front page REALLY feature a sham act of nonsense ("First Tweet sent from the sea!") that brought about an unprovoked verbal attack on a long-standing editor? doktorb wordsdeeds 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even more astonishingly (and unfortunately), the comment's come from Brad Patrick. I know he's no longer a WMF employee, but still. Wow. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * alternate blurb might be something like this? EdwardLane (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Deepsea Challenger completes the first solo voyage to reach the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench, the deepest point on earth.


 * Weak Oppose, would support if James Cameron was removed from the blurb. Karl 334  ☞ Talk ☜  18:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, given the fact that we didn't have new posts for more than two days (apart from Mali update) and that there is a rough consensus for this story without mentioning Cameron, posting. Feel free to modify. --Tone 19:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Tone - it shouldn't matter or be a consideration that no story has been posted for x number of days. I'm not going to drag this out, that said. I think my support for nominations runs at 7 out of every ten; this is not one of them. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. Well, the story is now featured as an engineering achievement and there was a considerable support for this part. --Tone 20:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment to the detractors who cares if it was James Cameron? It was the first solo dive, the first dive in more than 50 years, and spent more time on the bottom than Trieste. We post an endless parade of celebrity and sports trivia here. Is the first solo dive (and second ever manned dive) to the bottom of challenger deep somehow less newsworthy than 100 centuries in cricket? Really? I'm honestly shocked at the outward display of contempt to this story which I expected to be an easy pass. PS: My IP changed, I used to be 76.18.43.253. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Really, it being James Cameron should have very little to do with this. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Who posted this? O_O --Τασουλα (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Senegal election

 * Support- Wade has conceded to Sall: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17508098 --Simfan34 (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- National presidential elections always belong. &mdash;Bzweebl&mdash; talk 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not ready. The article currently has an orange tag and no second round results and only provisional first round results (i.e. there is no update). FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready: Results are there and so are reactions. I'd suggest to illustrate with a picture of president-elect Macky Sall (File:Macky Sall .jpg) --RJFF (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter Cruddas

 * Unsure support. I don't like David Cameron either. Maybe wait and see how big a story it feels tomorrow. FormerIP (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose (for now) the resignation of Cruddas alone isn't notable enough. Let's wait and see if there's more fallout.  Hot Stop UTC 05:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The blurb should not use colloquialisms. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Might", "could", "may" - this story is one small part of a whole. I agree that party funding and donations are a prickly subject. But to put this on the front page is a bit blowing up an acorn to call it a pineapple. There is only one person involved here, which is not enough for front page inclusion. What I would suggest is a nomination for a real reform of party funding. It is borderline biased to support this current nomination doktorb wordsdeeds 10:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose File under Slow News Day.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This isn't even the biggest UK politics story of the week. It's an internal party matter - albeit a pretty embarassing one. And if we do run such a story, can we not use the slang expression 'Tory'? Like 'GOP', it's not suitable encyclopedic language for a headline/teaser. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

[Updated] Mali update

 * Following the coup days ago, the African Union has suspended Mali until things get back in order. I think it's a development big enough to update the blurb. --Tone 09:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikilink at African_UnionLihaas (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Marked ready for blurb change/ article/s are set.Lihaas (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I even moved it one spot up as the newest other item was from 22nd. --Tone 13:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dubious consensus but timer was red and noone else cared so ill leave it...btw- mine wasnt a support or not just an added suggesting IF ;)Lihaas (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Israel bans skinny models

 * I found that mentioned at Size_zero so I've added that to the template above. EdwardLane (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. FormerIP (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment outdated — the law was passed on March 20. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not stale yet though. It can still go in as our 4th story (at the time of typing). FormerIP (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral I just can't see this as being ITN worthy on its own merits. At the same time though, I recognize this as an exceptional case, so I can't make up my mind, hence neutral. --Τασουλα (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose An interesting item, but with more symbolic than actual repercussions. If there is a separate article, I'd definitely suggest DYK as a place more fitting for this.  Spencer T♦ C 20:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - on the assumption that this is indeed a legal first. It would be nice to get a cultural item on ITN for a change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with ThaddeusB, maybe hold to April Fools Day having a bigger impact than most other stories proposed for the day, plus the interesting hook. Secret account 05:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * hmm, good April Gools story...im tagging as holdLihaas (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I rather see more communication before tagging as ready, but this discussion shouldn't be archived until we find consensus for an April Fools posting. Secret account 17:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Mahon Tribunal concludes

 * Support (This place is moving slow today...) big political corruption story in Ireland, and encase anyone cannot be bothered to click the link the Taoisigh "is the head of government or prime minister of Ireland." So yeah pretty big. --Τασουλα (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The culmination of a significant process, and the findings themselves add to that significance. —WFC— 16:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know enough about this to vote, but there are quite a few unsourced and, given the context, possibly sensitive statements about living people in the article. FormerIP (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Like FormerIP above I wonder if some of the statements made about living people could not do with being triple-checked and then some (perhaps by a neutral editor or BLP expert in these things). It's a highly significant report and very important news event. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose unless something coms out of it...a tribunal with conclusions is not newsworthy...hordes of intl tribunals regularly release findings (did we post BICI?)Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan won 2012 Asia Cup

 * Oppose - event not notable enough. Only 4 teams were competing. Karl 334 <font color="Red">☞ Talk ☜  16:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose very minor event in world cricket. --Dweller (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Yes. Minor event, and I'm a cricket tragic. When I was at university we used to play a game looking at the sports pages of the papers to find articles that never mentioned what the sport was. Note that it took until the second Oppose for it to happen here. HiLo48 (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Unfortunately, the tournament is not that notable within cricket itself. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Malian coup



 * Support. Is there any free image we can use? Ms. Vonn needs to take a break. :D --BorgQueen (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A map or MNLA logo?Lihaas (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, actually we have a picture of the president. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Duh! i say this as i edit that page ;(
 * Anyhoo, article is ready...someone can markLihaas (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support A change of government would be sufficient in itself; a coup, doubly so. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Marked ready. I think there is a free image of Toure here File:Amadou_Toure.jpg. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Barely three hours after this was first nominated? That's hardly enough time to form a suitable consensus. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * the article, pendng consenseus goes withotu saying.Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I was coming here to nominate it - having a big impact on stocks for a gold mining company there too according to the BBC and France suspending cooperation according to reutersEdwardLane (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious support. A coup is one of the most significant and notable events that can happen in a county. Nanobear (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Caution we need to be very careful with coups: they are the kind of thing where facts can change quickly, the situation can reverse or facts that were well known at one point turn out to be completely wide of the mark the following day. We are reporting this as if it has happened in a definitive and irreversible sense.  However, I note that the whereabouts of Amadou Toumani Toure are unknown and the army elite force are believed to be still loyal to him.  That doesn't sound conclusive or decisive to me: in fact the only reason it appears people are calling it one way or another is based on the claims of the National Committee.   There is obvious notability here but we need to be completely sure that a) what we report is factually accurate and b) we are not simply rebroadcasting the propaganda of one side.  If in doubt I suggest it is better to say nothing on the issue. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC).
 * A failed coup is notable too. Intl reaction are from ECOWAS/UN, France, etc. (global, supranational, and regional players. means somethingLihaas (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. This does look ready and it's ITNR+. If there are further developments that mean we should change the blurb, then we can change the blurb. FormerIP (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. The consensus seems to be clear. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

LEDA 074886

 * Interesting, but the article is too short at the moment. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Falciano del Massico (April Fools Nomination)

 * Comment - It may be worth nominating this at DYK's April Fool's Day section. See T:TDYK (bottom of page). Mjroots (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny, but ITN isn't actually going to reflect April Fool's Day anyway. The other parts of the main page are only up for a day so they can be specifically designed for April Fool's, but ITN changes whenever a story happens to come along (it can go for a day or more without any additions whatsoever).  Swarm   X 22:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ITN has always taken part in April Fools in the past. There is no reason why it shouldn't this year. If it is only for a day, new stories can wait. -- Plasma Twa  2  00:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose all April Fools nominations as disruptive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently ITN is the only section on the main page without one "true but unbelievable" post for april fools (see: Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page). In my view not putting up one funny item, which is what we did last year, would lead readers to believe that the the normal news stories are jokes. This nomination is to get this discussion started now so that there isn't the big commotion on April 1 like there was last year. --Found5dollar (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - the story can be pulled from ITN at the end of the day. I don't know where some people got this idea that ITN agreed to to participate in April Fool's Day, but such has not happened.  Typically, ITN has featured about 1 "funny story" - some years it has been all funny.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose ...for exactly the same reason as Strange Passerby. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not keen on this particular blurb (I agree it would make a better April 1 DYK), but it would be good to have an April Fools story. FormerIP (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support under a different wording—perhaps simply "Italian comune Falciano del Massico passes a law banning death" (perhaps adding "due to financial concerns", which is true, to make it a little more bizarre-sounding). GRAPPLE   X  19:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Abel Prize

 * Comment. I'm not completely opposed to this being posted, but think its position as ITNR is highly questionable. So, I think it makes sense to ask for more than a one-sentence update. FormerIP (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Abel Prize is a very prestigious and important prize in mathematics, and we generally lack more representation of it in the ITN.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The minimum update requirement is five sentences with three citations. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: What's needed in the article is a description in Endre_Szemeredi about his work that was deserving of the award, with a reference or two.  Spencer T♦ C 21:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I got swamped with real-life work yesterday, and couldn't spend time on this. I've expanded it a bit and added a couple of references, I hope that should be ok. Abel prize is possibly the most prestigious prize in mathematics (covered by all major news sources), and I think it definitely has a place in ITNR. I hope I wasn't too late, <font size="4" face="Brush Script MT"> S Pat talk 17:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Einstein papers to be published online

 * Support but it is best if the update has a couple of more citations. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added two more unique sources to both the article and above. Does that help?  If there is something else you need me to do, let me know.  -- Jayron  32  23:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Forgive me, but this is basically a website launch, interesting though the contents may be. It's not even quite correct that they are publishing the collection online: "At present, only a selection of documents ... are available". FormerIP (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like the idea of the papers being released. However, the story is more of an event than the papers are, really, so I can't see this being on the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 02:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Guerrero–Oaxaca earthquake
- Strong earthquake in Mexico with 7.4 magnitude. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  18:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see 2012 San Juan Cacahuatepec earthquake is in a much better condition. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the change. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose While a strong earthquake, there have been no reported deaths and few reported injuries.  Spencer T♦ C 20:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support now. Two deaths confirmed (one indirect), over 32,000 damaged houses, and it is being investigated if a new volcano is being formed. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  05:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Australian rules pioneer Jim Stynes dies

 * I don't know much about Aussie rules football, but this seems good to go up there, seeing the media coverage. Would be better if the blurb was shortened.  Lynch 7  19:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes :-) HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose but, since there will be a state funeral, I would support posting when that takes place. FormerIP (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to your reasons for opposing. I very rarely nominate stuff here, and thought hard about this one, so I'd like to know why. HiLo48 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Originally, I was going to flat-out oppose on the basis of significance of impact, but then I saw mention of the state funeral, which changed my mind. But I think, given the two options, that the funeral will make for a better occasion to post. FormerIP (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would ever nominate any other Australian football player death. To me, this is probably the most significant individual player death that could come from that sport. (And he didn't even play for my club!) He was a lot more than just a player, and achieved great things off the playing field too. Do you ever support the death of any player from any sport being here at ITN. We seem to have plenty. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I supported Gary Speed and, like I say, I basically support this one, but think a state funeral trumps the announcement of a death. FormerIP (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support - if the blurb is changed. ('a giant' removed and last statement about continuing leadership removed) Otherwise definitely notable enough for ITN. Karl 334  <font color="Red">☞ Talk ☜  20:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The "giant" bit was extracted from one of the sources, hence the quote marks. I was trying to emphasise how significant Jim Stynes was. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note. The funeral will take place on 27th March. At the moment, the update seems to consist of the unsourced sentence "Stynes died on 20 March 2012, aged 45". FormerIP (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So why didn't you add one (or all) of the sources mentioned in the nomination above? It's OK. I'll do it now. It won't take me long. But complaining like that really isn't a good look. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a complaint, HiLo, it was just an observation. Thanks for doing a proper update, if it was you, although I think four citations for the date of death is a little excessive. FormerIP (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. It's just that we now have two posts here (another one below) suggesting that the article needed a better update. The guy was dying of cancer. That was already in the article. Then he died. That article was updated with that fact. Apart from adding sources (and maybe I did overreact there), what else is needed? HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, now we also have information about the funeral plans and some reactions to the death. I think that's what we normally expect from an update, beyond "and then he died". FormerIP (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Support, I honestly don't see the difference between his death and Joe Paterno death which we didn't post. But it's basically unheard off for an athlete to get a state funeral from a major country like Australia. And sources like this and this shows that he's seemed like a huge figure in his sport. Needs a update, and a better blurb. Secret account 22:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Firstly, what kind of update would you proposes. The article already had the bit about him having cancer. Now he's died from it, and that fact has been added to the article. So, what else? And, as I said above, I don't do this often. How can I improve the blurb. (I hate non-constructive criticism!) As for Joe Paterno, wasn't he really old when he died? And there was considerable debate, even among fans of his game, whether he really was one of the greatest. Long serving, yes, but successful? Stynes was a lot more than your average footballer. HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. A Brownlow Medal, an AFL Players Association MVP, Melbourne Football Club Team of the Century, multiple best and fairests, multiple All-Australians, Australian Football Hall of Fame, Victorian representative – all after first playing the sport at 18. He became a pioneer for gaelic players to come over and play the Australian game; many clubs now have Irish players on their lists. But it's his work after football that is really inspiring. He founded the Reach Foundation to help at-risk teenagers and was twice named Victorian of the Year for the work he did with Reach. Later, he became President of the Melbourne Football Club and I don't think it's an understatement to say that he saved the club well also fighting brain cancer. Stynes was a great footballer and an even greater person, certainly the greatest I've ever had the chance to meet; my words can't even begin to do him justice. I've been pretty emotional about this over the last few days and I've tried to put this into words a few times and failed. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to vote on it, but it would be great to see him up on the main page. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jenks, that is terrific. I know that non-fans of the game are not likely to appreciate how great this man was. But I do wish that they would read and learn. HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings
Three Four people were killled and two were injured after a shooting in a Jewish school in the city of Toulouse, France. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  08:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Meh. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose We're not a news ticker or the PA, so this shooting (as tragic as it is) does not have enough about it to justify front page prominence. In short, "Meh" doktorb wordsdeeds 10:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Death toll now stands at four from this event, which is being linked to two incidents in the past few days in the same area in which four north African soldiers were shot, three fatally. School shootings are mercifully rare in Europe; this is a genuinely exceptional event. And while I fully respect other wikipedians' right to !vote 'oppose' here, I for one would prefer it if (probably) anti-Semitic murders were not greeted with responses of 'Meh'. Have a little decency, please. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but to be frank, anti-Semitic murders are still murders. If it was four WASPs or four African-Americans or four South Asians I'd still say "meh". It has nothing to do with their ethnicity — for you to suggest my oppose is based on that is ludicrous. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. My view stands, even if you omit the suggestion that the killings were anti-Semitic. 'Meh' is no argument for opposing the posting of this story, and it's a fairly pitiful response to a multiple murder. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per AlexTiefling. Also, "Meh" is not a valid reason for opposing. I say wait to see of any developments. --Τασουλα (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, agree with 'meh' votes. Antisemitic violence especially in the United States, Europe, Middle East or anywhere for that matter is not significant. Tragic but with a death toll of 4, it surely doesn't belong on ITN. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anti-Semitic violence of this nature is most certainly not common place or insignificant. Though at the moment, it looks like this might be one nutter. No real link as of yet.--Τασουλα (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Late night so I can't be bothered finding sources of Google, check the Antisemitic article, I'm pretty sure antisemitic sentiments and ideas are quite high in Europe which should correspond to violence to an extent. I shouldn't even be arguing that last point because an antisemitic motive is speculation, the perpetrator hasn't even be caught yet. Oh right, I brought up antisemitism, anyways I agree with Strange Passerby, these are simply murders or a random shooting spree and classing them as a racially or culturally motivated murder is speculation hence why it's insignificant. YuMaNuMa  Contrib 11:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The motivation doesn't matter. By my calculations, these three incidents between them account for 1% of all expected murders in France this year. Spree shootings are not commonplace here in Europe. The murder rate per capita in France is just 22% of that in the USA. My current recommendation is wait and see. If there's a police statement formally linking the three incidents (see below - AT), we should update the article to reflect this, and run a headline that covers all three. If not, continue to wait and see what's said about this incident. It's worth noting, though, that according to the BBC, the city of Toulouse is in a state of lockdown as police scour it for the gunman, and President Sarkozy has described the event as a 'national tragedy'. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor are federal or even state corruption cases in Australia but generally corruption is common in the globe thus making it insignificant to Wikipedia's ITN section in most cases. Issues must be looked at from a world view when considering its inclusion in ITN, I know this hasn't been the case for all the incidents we post up there but it should. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * dear lord yet another RECENTISM article for wikinews!Lihaas (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. This is clearly more notable than an ordinary murder.  It has drawn immediate international reaction.  The ethnic/religious angle will draw interest from many readers.  Even without ethnic angle, isn't a multi-death school shooting in France reasonably rare?--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If the shooting was inspired by antisemitism or racism, then it should be posted. France is a powder-keg for Jewish affairs so this kind of event is noteworthy. France is considering the attack as an act of terrorism, rather than a homicide. Wikifan Be nice  16:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - for the possible line to antisemitism. And per the heated reactions already made by Israel and other states.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. per johnsemlak and wikifan. not just another shooting.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment According to the BBC, the police are now formally treating the three shootings as linked. I think the wider article should be the one we link to from the home page. Arguably, the specific one about today's shootings should be merged to the other one; otherwise, I think the accusation of recentism might have some merit. But this is clearly not everyday street crime; it is not being treated as such by the authorities, or by reliable media sources. I continue to be unmoved by 'meh' as an argument in any case, but especially this one. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The news event ought to be the linking of the three shootings, rather than the last of the three happening. (e.g. Police in Toulouse, France, launch a manhunt for the perpetrator of 3 recent shootings, in which 7 people have died.) --FormerIP (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is, in my opinion, the strongest treatment of this material. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The merging tag has to be sorted out before posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose there is absolutely zero evidence that the attack was ethnically motivated. Even if it was, that has absolutely zero relevance to the notability. Four kids are dead and that's sad, but we make a sour face for school shootings all the time. If some group claimed responsibility for the attacks then it would be noteworthy, but for now, it's just another random tragedy. That the victims were children is meaningless. I urge restraint on behalf of the admins to consider this as the every day tragedy it is, and not give in to the random drive by supports fueled by media hype that this was a Muslim attack on Jewish children. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My support is not based on claims of motivation. (Contra the claims of a Muslim perpetrator, I've seen it asserted that Muslims have also been targeted.) My belief in the notability of this incident is that it is a dramatic, high-profile series of killings, all attributed to the same culprit. This is not an 'everyday' tragedy, this is an exceptional event. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support if merged, oppose if not. The notability here is that people have been shot dead in separate incidents, days apart, in a developed country, and by what is believed to be the same culprit(s). That the latest set of victims were civilians and that anti-Semetism might have been a motivation are both factors which have added to the interest in this outside France, but they are not the decisive factors. It is the link between the shootings that takes today's incident from a tragic but nonetheless non-ITN one, to something that probably merits posting. —WFC— 20:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * support only if merged, otherwise oppose. I agree with WFC here - the ITN worthy notability is multiple attacks taking place over several days, not the latest deaths in isolation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support if merged and wait. The link between the two incidents has been 99% confirmed. If proven to be a hate crime, since they're suspecting some Paratrooper who has been evicted from his unite in Toulouse for NeoNazi activity (precisely for this image), then this incident could drastically influence France's presidential campaign which has been, so far, plagued by overtly cynical xenophobic remarks. --Tachfin (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - the shooting at the Jewish school by itself is not notable enough, should be merged in an article about all the shootings in the area. If so, I support adding it. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support if merged - so we can have something more substantial to link to. 3 coordinated killings makes notability. Oh, and on Alex above and the "meh": so being so touchy. Just because they're Jews doesn't meant the killings are necessarily anti-Semite - we're not here to be emotionally correct but down to the point. Voomie (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that 'meh' was an inadequate reason, and a pathetic response to murder, whoever the victims had been. How often do I need to say this? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * France has raised Vigipirate to "scarlet", the highest possible level, which is not equivalent to martial law but which is pretty close; all the presidential candidates have suspended their campaigns. "In the wake of two three spree killings in Toulouse, France raises its Vigipirate terror alert system to 'scarlet', the highest possible level." DS (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Posting a such shooting perhaps does not suffice for ITN, but it's much more significant and clearly sufficient if we post the whole series of shootings. I also support a merger between the articles, though it's an issue that should be resolved on the correspondent talk page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. If this story is going to be posted before it goes stale, someone with tools is going to have to be bold and close the merge discussion. FormerIP (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and BOLDly closed the discussion and did the merge. I won't promote the story myself as I would prefer another admin "OK" this action since I did just violate convention by closing a discussion merely 24 hours old. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article was merged. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  07:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The story is moving on now (the suspect is under seige) so should probably wait a bit. FormerIP (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support posting this with an appropriate text once the siege is over. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it's good to go now. Suggested interim blurb: Police besiege the building occupied by a man suspected of shooting dead seven people in Southern France. Once something has actually been posted on ITN, we're usually relatively good at keeping the story up to date. —WFC— 20:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit too transient a state-of-affairs to be our blurb. Suggest waiting until he is arrested (hopefully he won't blow himself up) and post something beginning "Police arrest the man...". FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully understand why you say this, but the consensus was to post something, the shootings themselves are old news now, and the siege itself has formed quite a large part of the event. Nonetheless, I would urge an update once the siege is over, which could be in the next couple of hours. —WFC— 22:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I added a heading to the nom so interested parties can fill in a blurb, sources, etc. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. The last ITN update was 2 days ago and we really need it now. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The main page blurb should be updated now as the building is no longer occupied - Merah's death is confirmed in the article. Brand meister talk   12:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Bell and Astral Media acquisition

 * Comment This is something that I would like to support, but the acquisition was principally announced on 16 March and we already have the earliest news in current ITN that happened on that date. It's also weird to me the article about Bell Media to lack general financial information and have a much shorter copy than the other about Astral Media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We could push this discussion back to the other discussions on 16 March. I logged in today and was surprised to find that it hadn't been included in the news, so I suggested it now. In regards to your comment about Bell Media's financial information, I think a lot of the information is held at the parent company's article page, Bell Canada. Thank you for your comments and I look forward to other people's comments (and hopefully support). Regards,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  22:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So far we use to nominate new items under the date of nomination, not when the event happens. But let's first see more comments and then come up with any conclusion. Best.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose in pure business and $ terms (CAD is same as USD) this takeover isn't all that big compared to some recent ones. We should limit takeovers to large multinational companies only where $ amounts are exceptional. -- Ashish-g55 00:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

2011-12 Biathlon World Cup concludes

 * Support Nergaal (talk)
 * While in principle I could support, there's an ugly orange tag at the top of the article. And there's really little text (though the skiing article is not really prosaic, it's still better structured.) Talking about winter sports, what about 2011–12 FIS Ski Jumping World Cup? A very popular, though mainly a spectator sport. Though it could have some prose as well. --Tone 14:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Alpine skiing

 * Lindsey Vonn and Marcel Hirscher win the 2012 Alpine Skiing World Cup.
 * We've posted the results last year as well. --Tone 19:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Probably the most popular individual winter sport. Biggest event in the sport, other than the Olympics. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * support - biggest event in the sport.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support We definitely need to have more news about winter sports and this one fits well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of King of Tonga

 * Support as he was reigning head of state at the time of his death.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The same reason. אצטרובל (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not denying the veracity of the story, but it appears to be an unconfirmed death by the looks of the article. Also, part of the update consists of an incomplete sentence. --FormerIP (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - death of current head of state. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support provided we can get a confirmed report and update the article appropriately. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently an editor hs ownership issues on his version and the need not to cite what he does.Lihaas (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Ready to post when the issues with the article get sorted. --Tone 19:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * can you he;lp discussion consensus to resolve...i stuck with his abject refusal t for the need to cite RS sources and to stick with the version as if he OWNS the article.Lihaas (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, in that case, let's wait for a couple of hours so that RS appear. --Tone 21:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weve got a discussion and accomodation but one user demnds to have his way as the "Status quo" (and hypocritically tell me wont hae "my version" as the status quo), refuses to cite, refuses to accomodate by OTHER editors on the page. One of which gave the perfectly reasonably statement "you could just wait until the facts are known" which is exactly what im saying to cite it with no issue of either contnt.
 * It is ready to post if someone wants to help this out. (which is being blocked by adamant refusals to accomodate)Lihaas (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So what't the thing with succession now? It would be nice to mention the successor in the blurb as well. --Tone 10:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed as sucessor not as monarch 9what the abusive diktats of WP editor seems to believe that he doesnt need anythin gbut his word.Lihaas (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, well, posting without mentioning the successor then... --Tone 14:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support it's being reported by CNN . Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment shouldn't this be below skiing in the template? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] German presidential election

 * New President of Germany elected, article updated. Support posting now. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The update is currently too short. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a perfectly adequate article about the event (election) (German presidential election, 2012) and additionally a perfectly adequate section on the election in the relevant biography. The entire article German presidential election, 2012 relates to the election/event that took place today, not only the material on the most recent developments. When it comes to the actual voting today, there is hardly much more to say. Do I need to point out examples, one after another, of events posted with much shorter articles and less updating? Josh Gorand (talk)
 * Thanks for the detailed reply. Very well, I will let another admin judge that. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. The update of today is short indeed, but not much can be said, as pointed out above. --Tone 16:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Six Nations Championship
Wales won. Nergaal (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Won what? Tiddlywinks? <Small>(Yeah, I know I could click the link, but if you want your obsession to have any chance of being posted, you'd gain a lot more support by telling us.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's ITNR so no justification is needed. Support per ITNR.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good manners and common sense would dictate one simple sentence of explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With ITNR needing no justification, not usupport is needed either.
 * Anyways still need a quality update and blurb...hence there is the template ;)Lihaas (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm....OK. Support anyway ( Slowly backs out of the room, not turning her back ) --Τασουλα (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest a blurb of 'Wales win the 2012 Six Nations rugby tournament'. --109.150.46.137 (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not Ready the article is all results tables and bullet point sports trivia. Could use a few paragraphs, or at least one per week. Finally a word or two about the format of the competition in the lead would help a random drive by reader understand what happened. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, but I think that adds up to a vote of not ready, rather than a flat-out oppose. FormerIP (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, vote changed. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Julian Assange running for the Australian Senate
Nominator's note: Considering the political importance of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange around the world, this is of significant importance.
 * support - definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, If he wins a seat, and actually takes it then come back, but my understanding is he has not even picked which state to run in; so this just has the feal of "I've not been in the news for a while, what can I say on a weekend that will turn what otherwise would be a slow news day that will get me reported on." type of a press statement. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  00:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, but in the case he does win a seat the more prominent news would be which party won the election, so it would be best to show this news at the current time Iamstupido (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Meh, leaning oppose. I've been watching the Australian news shows this morning and it's definitely not being treated as major news; more an amusing note that gets tacked on at the end of the real political stories. He hasn't even decided which state he's running in. Jenks24 (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe the wording needs fixing. But then it wouldn't seem so exciting, would it? That News Ltd report is typically tabloid and sloppy, but part of it gets the wording accurate - Wikileaks has declared (on Twitter) that Assange plans to run. There's a better source attached to the article - http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/wikileaks-assange-plans-bid-australian-senate-15943337#.T2UyoMVBmSp. Assange hasn't announced anything. The election isn't until next year. Nominations are not possible yet. Let's not get too excited. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You really don't get Wikipedia, do you? "Let's get too excited" is our unwritten sixth pillar. ;) FormerIP (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, considering Wikileaks is headed by Julian Assange, unless there is a significant reason not to trust this Twitter account we can say that it is as if it is coming from Julian Assange himself (sorry for that mangled sentence). Iamstupido (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth telling non-Australians that our Senate elections always attract a lot of candidates, many of whom have no hope of getting elected. The record was 264 candidates listed on a ballot paper for New South Wales, measuring one metre by 700mm, quickly nicknamed the ‘tablecloth’. Regulations have been tightened up a little since then, but a number between 50 and 100 candidates is still common. From those 50 to 100 candidates, ten Senators are elected. Party voting "instructions" typically control the first seven or eight successful candidates, but luck of preferences can lead to unexpected results for the tenth place. So we'll never know until a couple of weeks after the election, probably around the middle of next year. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Someone announces he will run for... Not sure that he will really run. Not sure that he gets elected. The election date is not even fix, so the registration of his candidacy is impossible for the time being. Definitely not for ITN --RJFF (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not news, it's a press release, and Mr Assange is getting to the point where he's better known for those than anything else. This is not for the front page, this is for the recycling bin doktorb wordsdeeds 03:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a publicity stunt, not a piece of credible political news. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Ottawahitech (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know it is not a vote. Where can I read how one can express their Support for an article to be included in wkipedia's In_The-News? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You should state your rationale. Why does it deserve a place on ITN? --BorgQueen (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Consistency people. Where did User:BabbaQ get this treatment above, or is "definitely for itn" a suitable rationale? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Pope Shenouda III

 * Support as he was very important figure in the Orthodox Christianity.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Kiril. His death was the top story in all Arabic channels I've watched today.  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this goes without saying. Should be posted as soon as possible.--  R a f y  talk 21:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Internationally significant religious figure, with personal relevance to the continuing troubles in Egypt. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak to middling oppose. I don't think it goes without saying at all. He was 88 years old and head of a church - but there are a lot of churches in the world. FormerIP (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dont care but FYI the arch bishop of canterbury {sp} stepped down. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose albeit not strongly so. The Church of Alexandria is distinct from the main Orthodox Church and has been since the dark ages.  We're talking about a church of ~15 million adherents, most of whom are in Egypt.  The comparison to Rowan Williams is a good one - he represents more adherents and a much wider geographical scope, although I would acknowledge resignation is perhaps less notable than death in office. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Would definately support the posting of a ne w head of the anlican church (probs sbhuld be ITNR)
 * Also: query would be more notable if figures from al nour, etc show up at his funeral? any word there yet? March 14 figures were there for Fadlallah's fneral (even March 14 christians)Lihaas (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per above, but suggest a change in wording to: "Pope Shenouda III, the head of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, dies at the age of 88", just to make his position a bit clearer.  I  ♦  A  03:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * support as notable and globalised where the eastern church (in egypt, the original christians eeven) is rarely mentioned...i would, however, add hisreplacement if there is one or how it will work.
 * That said the article is ATROCIOUS with pov/unsourced buts everywhere and the update is poor.Lihaas (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Unquestionably for in the news, important religious figure and dying in office too. Egypt's Christian minority is large and well spoken for. --Τασουλα (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The article needs more sources as most of the article is without refs. However, the parts about his death are well-referenced. I believe posting now would lead to significant article improvement. What do you think? --Tone 10:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well. I'll keep an eye on the development once it's on the Main page. --Tone 10:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Lihaas and Tone, the article is indeed in need of some updating in the sauce department/General POV Τασουλα (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * POSTED? you (general, not specific) talk of updates to articles and this has TWO sentences, one of which is a media tag line "died on X at age Y"
 * supports on ANY ITNC are always subject to the quality of the update not the vote counting consensus for it. (as with bahrain which was remove due to the hideous tags)Lihaas (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot make out most of what you have typed. Can you please check/proof-read before you post? doktorb wordsdeeds 11:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well anyhoo instead of sitting and arguing over here at ITNC at least went out and did something to the article...should et a barnstar ;)Lihaas (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, guys. Now the article is much better! --Tone 16:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone URGENTLY lock the article per evidence at Requests_for_page_protection
 * ps- guyS? not guy? ;)Lihaas (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Semiprotected for 24 hours. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * THX, but funeral on Tues should get worse...incidentally we can update blurb then tooLihaas (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Death of John Demjanjuk

 * Oppose he wasn't exactly a significant Nazi, suggest recent deaths. I was totally blown away though by reading this. How does Israel have jurisdiction to execute Nazi war criminals? Convicted, then overturned. Mistaken identity? All this for a prison guard. I don't condone the Nazis or their actions, but this guy was put through an extraordinary amount of BS. Also oppose convicted in the blurb, total sham. Anyway.... --76.18.43.253 (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost everything you write is jaw-dropping. Yes, he wasn't Mengele, but his case was incredibly notable, over a very long period of time. Your rant about Israel continues the jaw-dropping - a US court decided Israel had jurisdiction... and he wasn't executed by them. Best of all, "this guy was put through an extraordinary amount of BS" - tell that to the tens of thousands of people for whom he was convicted by a German court of being an accessory to murder. None of which has anything to do with whether this story is of sufficient notability for our Main Page. --Dweller (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep emtions aside and comment on CONTENT not editor per NPALihaas (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support One of the most notable war crimes stories in the world over a period of about 25 years, as his case was heard by various courts in different countries. His name will resonate with people all over the world. --Dweller (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * support - one of the more notable nazi criminals.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - An evil bastard, but a relatively insignificant one. More to the point, the fact of his death adds very little to the story, and has no further newsworthy consequences. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - He died unsurprisingly of old age (91) and it is not foreseeable that his death might have any major impact. --RJFF (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose to man y deaths for ITN...Shenouda is undoubtedly more notable.Lihaas (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Execution of the Minsk Metro bombing convicts

 * Oppose. People are executed all the time. Deceased doesn't even have an article. I'm not seeing any significance whatsoever. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Belarus is the only country in Europe that retains capital punishment. Deceased doesn't have an article because of WP:ONEEVENT. Brand meister talk   12:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So? There are still 40 other countries worldwide that still execute people, I honestly don't think geographical boundaries should ever come into discussion in anything not related to geography. When assessing accidents or disasters we already get too much of that and IMO it's not a good precedent to set to say "it's Europe, where it doesn't happen". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Strange, executions are routine. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If there were major protests from European countries threatening relations to Belarus then maybe, but most of Europe already has poor relations to Belarus and consider it a dictatorship. This is just another execution in the World. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. It was an extremely significant event and its judicial resolution is, therefore, also of major significance. Iamstupido (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * support execution for an incident like this is rare anywhere be it the usa, india, etc. (Even china?). Only Iran and Jundulllah come to mind, which i believe we posted. ALso we can use the said article aboe with a section on investigation/trial/.execution/sentenceLihaas (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is not notable that a country which uses capital punishment has used capital punishment unless there are circumstances which mark out the crime and its sentence as particularly unusual or extreme. In this case, as has been articulated so well above, this story ticks very few boxes. It's not enough to justify front page prominence. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For an ACTUAL intl notable incident like this? (never mind f the case was roughed up, in which case its MORE notable)Lihaas (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] East Timor election

 * Support with update. Brand meister talk   10:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2nd round in april...Lihaas (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Sachin Tendulkar's 100th century

 * Support As nominator. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Also front page news on BBC, Al Jazeera. (@nominator: you beat me to it by seconds...) <font size="4" face="Brush Script MT"> S Pat talk 12:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have previously posted when people (including Tendulkar) have passed the biggest records in a particular sport. IIRC these have included, in cricket: most Test runs or wickets, and first ODI double hundred by a man. This new record is not of the same order, being a slightly artificial combination of two other stats (Test and ODI hundreds), a metric that received little or no consideration until Tendulkar approached this 'landmark'. While any story involving Tendulkar will garner a great deal of excitement in cricketing circles, I don't think this is the sort of really top record that attracts more widespread attention.ReadingOldBoy (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Significant landmark in cricket which probably will never be achieved or overtaken by any of the current players. After Ponting's retirement, Kallis is closest with 57 but he's already 36. ReadingOldBoy has a point while saying that its definitely a new metric, but I would think that is because nobody else has come close. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The fact that several current and former cricket greats, the ICC chief exec and the Indian PM issued congratulatory statements within minutes should count towards notability within the field (if there were doubts about that). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

*Support landmarks are there to be broken and before they can be broken they need to be established. This is a unique cricketing achievement. Leaky Caldron  13:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Clearly, this is a significant sporting news story. It's not really like setting any old record, because it's a first. The blurb should mention Tendulkar's nationality rather than who the opposition happened to be. --FormerIP (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Massive news in a large part of the English-speaking world. In the UK, the BBC even interrupted live radio to cross to the ground, despite the fact England weren't playing. It's currently the third top story on the world edition of the BBC news website --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I agree with FormerIP. Drop the opposition and venue and give the extra space to saying he's the first to achieve it. The blurb currently reads like it's a humdrum everyday occurrence and he's just the latest to do it. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Historic cricketing event, first time it has ever happened, likely to be the only time as well. Has widespread coverage in the media.  Agree also with the above comment by Dweller. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Further Comment The suggestion that this establishes a landmark seems somewhat crystal bally, and raises the questions of why 50, for example, international centuries wasn't a landmark and why this metric is only of interest now that there is a particular arbitrary landmark, unlike total Test centuries where a batsman's total is of interest regardless of how many (or few he has). We don't know if this establishes a new benchmark, total international centuries, or whether (as I suspect) now that Tendulkar has his hundredth we go back to never talking about this business of adding Test and ODI (and presumably 2020) stats up. 137.222.184.119 (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Landmark = "a significant or historic event, juncture, achievement". I didn't mention benchmark - which is a different thing. Did you forgot to login? Leaky  Caldron  14:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your speculation and questions are themselves the crystal-ballery. The facts are as follows: 1) someone has become the first to achieve something 2) reliable sources are hailing the achievement. You're welcome to have your own opinion as to whether in the future this will be regarded as important - we can only deal with notability now. And now it's pretty dang notable. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is arbitrary, but it isn't exactly random. It's 1002 runs at international level in blocks of 100. You don't need to be anal about cricket to know that's a very significant achievement, given that scoring 100 runs in a match once is a measure of a achievement in itself (Century_(cricket)). FormerIP (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is scheduled as WP:TFL on Monday. I'm not for a second opposing on those grounds, just thought I'd point it out. —WFC— 14:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, if this does go up I would expect the list to be bolded, as it is clearly the primary article. —WFC— 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support It goes without saying that this is a massive achievement, and one which will grab attention in numerous countries across the world, and not just English language countries for that matter. For a sportsman to reach beyond the records in the way that he has is hugely notable. It is a fantastic achievement - to hit 100 runs in a single match is room for applause, for heavens sake, so you can see why this has to be on the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 15:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * comment the article is NOT updated...tjhere is ONE sentence of prose on the article and tidbits of trivia stats elsewhere and repitition all over.Lihaas (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I generally oppose sports trivia. What if someone bowls 100 perfect games? Pitches 100 strike out baseball games? Plays 100 shut out hockey games, or whatever other arbitrary gauge of success is used for XYZ sport. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Those analogies might work if they are all things that have never happened before. --FormerIP (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no maximum, so every time someone breaks the old record, is it also news? Has anyone ever scored 99 international cricket centuries? Presumably Tendulkar isn't retiring, so what happens when he scores his next one? Is every one of them news? I think not. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't a new record in the sense that he beat another cricketer's record of 99 (other than his own total of 99). But the significance of "100" in any sphere, not only sport, is a well established achievement marker. Leaky  Caldron  16:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And, it should be added, especially significant in cricket. --FormerIP (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment separate from my oppose since this will probably go up. The update is short and very hard to find in that gigantic article. It's buried in the section "2011 world cup and after". Again, if I'm a random drive by reader and I see this on the main page and click the link, I should be able to find the newsish bit easily inside that giant biography of an article. It should maybe include some details about the match where he achieved his 100th century. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed 100% per my comment above...nand if there are reactions that could get a good 2 paras to the section.Lihaas (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment-Article updated. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 16:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ian Chappell]] is not happy with Sachin's performance after India's tour of Australia..." can be moved to the 100 100 section as a buildup, else its not notable here.
 * "This benchmark of Sachin is unlikely to be surpassed in his lifetime" is crystal ball and media sensationalism...we dotn need that.
 * "conquer this feat" is horrible wording and pv..."achieve" woul be better.
 * The artilce is horrndous an dnot B class...needs trimming but we can do that after the article. Reactions would do till thenLihaas (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

New York frog

 * Oppose: This seems rather insignificant for this kind of topic really, and giving it special treatment because it happens to be in the US isn't on. --Nutthida (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Amphibians are mostly in the news now for going extinct. Finding a new species in such a heavily developed city is impressive, be it in the US or elsewhere. CMD (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * True, the US details are irrelevant...reworded blurb. Although it definately needs the identity of the new species not the vague "leapord frog"Lihaas (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The new wording does not catch the fact this happened in a urban, heavily populated area. "In the United States" can be in a very remote place. Hektor (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The species doesn't have a name yet. I agree that we need the blurb to mention it's in New York City. CMD (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Donev.Lihaas (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments: The article needs more citations. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It seems like a new frog is discovered every other week, and it's only a few weeks since we last posted one. --FormerIP (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment:This would be a lot more significant if this was discovered in a region that say, has seen a decline in amphibious fauna over the years. --Nutthida (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Urban NY?
 * hough if the above is trye then id oppose tooLihaas (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support "The scientists noted that the center of its current known range is actually near Yankee Stadium in the Bronx." seems to me outstanding. New York is a global city, so the discovery is remarkable in terms of what we now about nature within our cities. -- ELEKHHT 03:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The discovery of cryptic species is a common event in biology. Also, since the species has not been named nor formally described, we really can't have an article on it, per WP:RS. So, we have a nameless, undescribed, articleless "species" that looks exactly like regular leopard frogs, but croaks only once instead of thrice. Speciate (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Moldovan election

 * Oppose per my reasons at this discussion. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose inconsequential everywhere except Moldova. Leaky  Caldron  13:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These are not valid opposes. It's ITNR. Hard cheese. FormerIP (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They are, because the ITNR criteria were not decided on community consensus. So ITNR cannot be used an argument to post all these articles per se until it gains that legitimacy through consensus. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you really think that's the case, you need to boldly delete the guideline. Because when I refer to it, it tells me quite clearly that this story qualifies. --FormerIP (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Moldovan_presidential_election,_2011–2012 needs more updates.  Spencer T♦ C 14:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Like what? theres a massive sourced paragraph and result? what else? Also reactios now Added more reactions and protests, etc...should be ready now.Lihaas (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support once the article gets a significant update. To call Moldova, with a population of over 4 million a very small country is ignorant at best. That is more than half of the US states and is ~40% of the population of Greece which we have been posting about every month, In addition, this crisis has been going on for a year now, and it is not often that a country goes without a president for a year. Nergaal (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * comment someonemar ready pretty pweese...;)Lihaas (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. The election article is a long one, too bad that the president's one is merely a stub... --Tone 19:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Was just created yest. Piyu i missed out...should havd caught it early like Andorras presient and the nobel peace laureate ;)Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

ISAF helicopter crash
Comment No article on the crash itself. Brand meister talk  22:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian C-130 Hercules plane crash

 * support - rare. for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2009 C-130H Hercules crash. Marcus   Qwertyus   00:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Firstly, the article is not ready at all (stub), it does not yet adhere to the first criteria of ITN; 'the quality of the updated content'. Also, in the light of the Swiss crash that killed 28 being pulled on news event notability grounds, I don't see any reason why the death of five soldiers would be significant, no matter where it happened. --hydrox (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with a swiss traffic accident? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Think I answered your question already. The Swiss crash was pulled from ITN on notability grounds. --hydrox (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose the plane is obviously a loss, but without wreckage there isn't much of an article to write. No data recorder, etc. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Contact was lost? So no official confirmation that the plane crashed resulting in fatalities? Until something happens this shouldn't even be a candidate. Wikifan Be nice  03:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * comment this alogn with averything on the template at the bottom of the page (this is nt 2011 btw) shoul be nomd for deletion as NOTNEWS and moved to wikinews (with that belgian rubbish)Lihaas (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The search has been called off. All five passengers are believed to have been killed in the crash. The aircraft was completely destroyed. Updated blurb. Nanobear (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Crushing onto the highest mountain in the country is fairly interesting. Grey Hood   Talk  20:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Bo Xilai removed from office

 * Support. It feels like a long time since we last has a China story that wasn't about flinging something into space. Just to note, though, the BBC news homepage differs depending on where you are in the world. This story isn't on the homepage in the UK. --FormerIP (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to me an important event in China that does deserve worldwide attention + article is in a good state. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  18:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I'm on the fence on this one, but leaning towards oppose.  "We haven't had a china article in a while" seems like a poor rationale; the subject itself seems to be of marginal ITN suitibility; it seems to be a run-of-the-mill political scandal.  The subject doesn't seem to be an active member of the national leadership, he was a leader of a local communist party who was being groomed for future leadership.  Certainly, a major development, but not earth-shattering.  I'm not strongly opposed to this, but I would not miss it if it didn't make ITN.  -- Jayron  32  19:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He was/is a Politburo member. FormerIP (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reasoning. I am confident about this item being posted because a) Bo is much more than just a regional official. He represents an entire segment of China's political establishment, and his stature and fame is greater than any other regional official in the country. His downfall effectively means a total re-orientation of the Chinese political world. Unfortunately the blurb cannot encapsulate that in one sentence. CNN, NYT, and BBC had this story as their top story on their front page at some point in the last day. Many media outlets have described the event as sending "shockwaves" throughout the country. It is really quite unprecedented. b) The article itself is updated, well-written, and informative to our readership. This is a topic where people are likely to visit Wikipedia rather than another site because the English-language sources on the matter are disparate and often inaccurate. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia's treatment of this matter truly better than the individual news articles? What segment of China's polity does/did he represent? Speciate (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll let Joseph Fewsmith speak here: “This is a critical political issue, perhaps the most critical since 1989,” Joseph Fewsmith, a scholar of China’s senior leaders at Boston University, said in an interview. Mr. Bo’s Chongqing policies, Professor Fewsmith said, could pose “a challenge to the direction of reform and opening up as it has been implemented since the Deng Xiaoping era.” Colipon+ (Talk) 03:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not an answer to my questions. Speciate (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have much knowledge of Chinese politics, but according to our articles he represents the "Chongqing model" and the "red culture/red revival movement". Jenks24 (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Broadly speaking he is the poster boy and spokesperson for China's political left. The group that wants to go back to state control over the economy and socialist redistribution of wealth. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment We rarely post sub-national elections, nominations, resignations or dismissals. However, where the article is of outstanding quality, while providing valuable insight to a notable news event in a topic (e.g. Chinese politics) largely obscure to a large portion of the readership, the rules should bend. --hydrox (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a real political scandal that has rocked China's top leadership and preoccupied them for weeks. Leftist and strong contender for the top echelon of PRC politics; his decisive ousting dramatically shifts the balance of power in the next government. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The media always tries to hype the scandal du jour, and at first glance this seems like a municipal matter, but after reading the article I have some idea of the implications. The topic is more interesting than most of the ITN fare—underrepresented, too—while the updates are more than enough to establish this event's significance. Shrigley (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Suggest alternate blurb:
 * "Bo Xilai, Chongqing Committee Secretary of the Communist Party of China, is abruptly dismissed from office following the Wang Lijun incident."
 * It's otherwise not clear to people not familiar with Chinese cities where this has occurred or which 'communist party' is being referenced. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  04:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You can always pipe. Speciate (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think easter eggs are necessarily the right way to go, particularly considering screen readers and printed versions would ignore it altogether. I don't think it's unreasonable to be clear what country we're talking about in the blurb text itself. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  06:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Mild Support I prefer the second blurb to the first one - but not much in it. The political stance of china one way or another is clearly significant enough that I think an event that reveals a "major perceived swing" should make ITN. And it sounds like a major swing (but as I don't know enough I'm only going for "mild" support. EdwardLane (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't make the blurb too long. It clutters the section of the main page. New Blurb suggestion: In China, the Communist party chief of Chongqing, Bo Xilai, is abruptly dismissed from office. Do we really need to mention the Wang Lijun scandal? It's a lot in one go. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support with null's blurb. This is a major development in Chinese politics, it's just doesn't seem that way to someone living in a western democracy. Much more significant than simple municipal politics. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Bangladesh Ferry Accident
comment I didn't nominate this as 'just' another horrific traffic accident wasn't really world changing, but yes if the bus crash makes it through the 'other stuff happens' criteria then this should be equally notable. EdwardLane (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I seriously object to any arguments along the lines of '5 Bangladeshis is worth at least one Belgian'. What logic is that?  Are we conceding that South Asians are worth less than Europeans but not that much less?  Let's just treat the two stories as separate incidents and best judge them on the same criteria, considering article quality and relative notability.  I'm not an expert on the matter but I believe fatal boat accidents in Bangladesh are common.  According to this surely incomplete list, this would be the ninth recorded maritime disaster in the country with 100+ deaths.  However, land transport accidents (rail and road combined) in Western Europe aren't unheard of and have been posted at ITN.  I'm inclined to support this nomination pending an article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't consider supporting before an article has even been written, but am inclined to agree with the nominator's argument on relative notability. —WFC— 18:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, at current exchange rates, it's 13.67 Bangladeshis per Belgian. (And a whopping 3.1 million Bangladeshis per Pitcairn Islander, due to inflation in today's Pitcairn-heavy investment market.) --Golbez (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONG support per nom...if that rubbish below is worth anything than this is more tragic (since tragic is a reason to poston ITN) (twitout which it would be 2-1 on a article that is poor.
 * Ofcourse, this depends on the quality of the upadate...although that standards beeen shot to cra.p.Lihaas (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I find Lihaaas' attitude to be bitter, resentful and wholly inappropriate. We're not competing against each other here, we're supposed to be deciding each nomination on merit. Your recent output has been particularly grating, and this recent nonsense has been in bad taste. Due to WP:POINT I cannot oppose this nomination for the sake of it, though you are not helping your argument one bit doktorb wordsdeeds 18:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * MY attitude? offensice? it says "per..." and supported by comments above lets not resort to ad hominem attacks on individuals!
 * Incidentally, i did not swear at itn for frustration at the process as another has recently done here.Lihaas (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am yet to form an opinion on whether to support this or not, given that it isn't very uncommon for these kinds of incidents to happen in the subcontinent. But I take objection to the nom's comments on "5 Bangladeshis equal to 1 Belgian" or whatever, though the comment probably was intended only to compare it to the Swiss accident.  Lynch 7  19:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment agreed, the "5 for 1" stuff is entirely unnecessary. Let's not start !voting for ITN items with an immediate dig at the process, utterly pointless.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify myself: I agree that each nomination is to be treated separately, and without an article and an update, this has no shot at going up on ITN. But if a threshold regarding notability is being set, then that has to be applied uniformly. I've witnessed previous nominations regarding incidents involving loss of life in Africa, Middle East, South America and Asia being opposed on the grounds of "that sort of stuff happens there all the time". So clearly, life a person from these regions is not being valued here on ITN as being equal to one from the developed world. I'm from the Subcontinent myself, and have no interest in portraying a South Asian life as being worth less than the life of a European, but sadly, that's the measure thats being used here at ITN. So, all that I was trying to convey was: Even if you were to take that measure and given that (1) the European motor accident is regarded as notable (its posted now) and (2) a ferry sinking is more uncommon than a bus accident, this incident in Bangladesh should satisfy notability unless you are saying 1 European life is worth more than 5 Bangladeshi lives. I know its jarring that value of human lives are being compared like this, but its more jarring to hear that lives of people from your region does not even compare. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently not just ITN, as no one (including you) has seen fit to actually write an article about this event. Perhaps, instead of offering preemptive recriminations for not posting something because it involves "other" people, we could satisfy the fundamental requirement for posting, and then, y'know, see what happens? Instead, you annoyed many people who otherwise would agree with you. --Golbez (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I have my own reasons/limitations preventing me from contributing to the article right now. Its not uncommon for the nomination to be made and then for interested editors to step in update the article and I just wanted to establish notability while making the nomination. But I agree with you that my comment would perhaps have carried more weight if backed by some contribution. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * for what it's worth I've created the stub MV Shariatpur 1 EdwardLane (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Victory at Idlib

 * Oppose As ever with these things, it is one blip along a very long road. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A blip? taking back the FSA's link to turkey? its a turning pt.Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Syrian conflict is currently a sticky; we do that so we don't have to post ever single development as its own item. Certainly, if something really huge went down (such as the fall of the Assad government, or conversely the capitulation of the opposition), it may merit its own ITN entry, but the result of every battle and seige need not be noted.  -- Jayron  32  19:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its also the 1 year anniversary as the key outpost is recaptured...turning point? not just "every single incident"Lihaas (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anniversaries don't carry any special significance. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, how do you know it is a turning point? What if nothing comes of this?  We can't predict a change to the status quo; it is only in hindsight that we can declare any particular event a turning point.  Since a) ITN isn't based on what we think the future may hold and b) We also cannot have the historical perspective to decide what events really were turning points, such an idea doesn't lend itself to any reason to support an ITN entry.  -- Jayron  32  19:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Question update? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] First verdict of the International Criminal Court
EdwardLane (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * comment updated source links above (and support as nominator ) EdwardLane (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * nothign wrong with that wikilink... thugh this is not the FIRST verdict of the court...fist in teh subject maybe, but it and its sub-courts have done so. Lihaas (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am just quoting the news reports saying it was first for example the BBC says "It is the court's first verdict since it was set up 10 years ago."
 * Yes my bad...ICC/ICJ are different. Though who ran those kangaroo courts in Tanazania for rwanda and serbia, etc?
 * Also whats the main article with update? the person or court you want to be bolded?Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No Particular opinion I assumed ICC would get bolded but given that there was the option to suggest two articles and both looked interesting I included it in the suggestion. If just one then ICC I think. EdwardLane (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * i thought his article . would/should be more focused (since its his main status now) and thus a bigger update. ICC wuld be general on the court with mention of ths. but its only a suggestion, either way. Anyhoo i support tooLihaas (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support After ten years, the first ruling by this Court is highly notable, even if we disagree on whether the subject of the announcement itself is not ITN worthy doktorb wordsdeeds 12:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support important moment in the history of international justice.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but the blurb needs a lot of work. --Golbez (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you care to suggest an alternate blurb - I'm only a newby at this EdwardLane (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The International Criminal Court in the Hague finds Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of guilty of human rights violations, setting a precedent on the military use of children. If we highlight Lubanga, I'd like to see a bit more update. --Tone 17:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I like the blurb by Tone immediately above, and I think Lubanga has been sufficiently updated to be highlighted. If the original blurb is to be used, please fix the incorrect use of "it's".- gadfium 18:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ah yes thanks for spotting the grammar error, and yes I agree the Tone blurb was better EdwardLane (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I recommend adding a wikilink to Military use of children to this one. 83.80.170.157 (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It was suggested but didn't make the posted blurb - the posted blurb could be tweaked to say "conscripting Child soldiers" instead of "conscripting children", (Child soldiers is a redirect to Military use of children). But I'm not sure this is the place to alter existing posts. EdwardLane (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

[Pulled] Belgian bus crash in Switzerland

 * obvious oppose this is NOTNEWS...all these rubbish articles about bus/train crashes are going to end up being orphans. Some failed attack in the western world...its not encyclopaedic. God now that Brittanicas gone so will educationn vfavour os social media ;( Lihaas (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support One of the worst incidents of its kind on mainland Europe. A very tragic accident indeed and one where the severity clearly (though tragically) meets our policy on the subject doktorb wordsdeeds 12:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support if it is covered by ITN policy. I don't understand the intemperately worded oppose. Leaky  Caldron  13:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tragic it maybe, but tragedy is not ITN. So how was this "covered by ITN policy"? Just saying it is doesntmake it dso.Lihaas (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator. Crnorizec (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Valais police chief Christian Varone described the scene as "like a war". Marcus   Qwertyus   17:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats case switzerland has not seen a war.Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 17:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * its been 9 hrs, were not short on timer.../lets give it time for others across the world to wake up (9-18 o clock is only european time so theresd obviously be support). its NOT a minority topic and it only has 3-1 support (bearing in mind we dont vote count for consensus so "per nom" doesnt hold much water. The blurb needs work too...and there is a tag on a massively unsourced section (The same reason bahrain was removed)...thre was also on,y TWo sources at the time of posting. Is thre a REASON for the post? articles get shot down for lack of posting/
 * Further, the article is poor. ONE source for the main section 1 para tentences. needs organisation and further sources...again time is not against usLihaas (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Lihaas. This is one of the worst ITN articles I've seen, quality wise. A bus crashed. Some kids are dead. That's about it. Lets just let any old piss-poor article through to the frontpage. Where's the quality control?  Lugnuts  (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that it should be pulled, it's an awful article, almost completely unreferenced. C628 (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, looks fine to me. It's the minimum, yes, but it works. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  21:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Pull Really? A bus crash? I can probably find one of these a day somewhere in the world. Please take this down ASAP. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that it's up, there's zero harm in it remaining. It won't damage Wikipedia's reputation, the article is sound. --Golbez (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pull - Yes, it's already been posted, but... this is an awful precedent to set given how many people die in unreported automobile accidents every day.--WaltCip (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * there is much more clearn consensus for this article to be pulled..."leaving it up there becasue it is" would mean nothing should be pulled. bahrain o f which was much better. this is an abuse of authority. tagging as schLihaas (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Pulled per consensus. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Repost Sorry, but pulling is a hideous decision. Consensus? WHAT consensus? One IP and a user who follows up without good reason? This is as notable as any incident of its kind, indeed it is one of the worst accidents of its kind in mainland Europe. Are we now saying that European deaths are LESS notable than others? Repost, now. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not questioning the notability. It IS notable, but the article is (or was) in a terrible state. Certainly not something that should be on the frontpage of this website. It was poorly written and sourced and does more damage to the reputation of WP. Happy for it to be posted back up, once the necessary expansion work has been done.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthere there was very weak consensus to post in the first place (on for 9 hours of European day time) with 30-1Lihaas (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While we're climbing on the discrimination bandwagon, is the opinion of "One IP" less valuable than a registered user? This is a tragic but utterly mundane accident. It's not impacted anyone or anything other than the deceased and their families. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support and repost. There was no need to pull it; consensus to post was there; it was a top news headline, it was a relatively large auto accident for the region; it had a decent article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good pull the article itself is overhyped now titled Sierre bus disaster. What is the level of death and destruction to call a bus crash a disaster? c'mon the average plane crash article here has about 5X the death toll here but few are titled "disaster". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Disasters" kill more than 28 people. --Golbez (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good use of wiki markup!. You forgot the Costa Concordia disaster, because exploding space shuttles and gigantic cruise ships sinking are clearly of the same caliber as a mundane traffic accident. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly some sort of wrongheaded thinking has developed among editors interested in crashes/riots/accidents that requires them to always end the titles of their articles with the word "disaster". Speciate (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Rare earth

 * Wait The result of the case is what will be historically important. HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Encyclopedia Britannica

 * gaWeak support. Possibly a bit navel-gazey. --FormerIP (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fringe support per FormerIP... On the other hand, it is notable, but would it give the appearance of a conflict of interest?--WaltCip (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support pending update The end of the oldest printed English language encyclopedia is noteworthy. Don't see any good update. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support once updated. Nergaal (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is huge. Britannica was one of those rare printed works that thrived across both the UK and American English markets. It may mean little to younger editors here, but I suspect it was a big thing for older editors. The print version also utilised the door-to-door sales model in a fairly aggressive way. For it to disappear is one of those notable moments in history. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I agree with FormerIP: if we were not ourselves an encyclopeadic project we wouldn't even be considering it. How many other publications of similar standing have gone out of print or gone online-only?  The nearest comparison I can think of would be the Oxford English Dictionary which wasn't even nominated when it made a similar announcment back in 2010.  If anything that is more authoritative within its subject domain than Britannica ever was.  Would it have stood a chance if it had been nominated?  I very much doubt it.
 * What then is really stand-out about Britannica, apart from an implied and probably misplaced "we've done that" schadenfraude? Crispmuncher (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Well, it was the first encyclopaedia in the English language.  FormerIP (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...although I was misled by the WP article. There is an older one . Which just goes to show what we will be missing... FormerIP (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support if updated. wikipedia being encyclopedia has nothing to do with posting this. Britannica has been there for 244 years, that alone is enough of a reason -- Ashish-g55 02:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't important? Why? Simply put they aren't stopping publishing their Encyclopedia's; they are just stopping publishing on paper. Is it important news that they are 'getting with the times' and not publishing paper books anymore? No it is not. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Definitely news-worthy, and related to Wikipedia.It would be wrong of us not to mention it. --Elonka 05:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per HiLo48. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">– Maky  « talk » 05:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If they weren't our "competitor" I seriously doubt we'd even be having doubts about its ITN worthiness. When's the last time a 240+ year-old publication ended its run? This is unprecedented as far as I know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But it is still being published. And how is this a minority topic? Crispmuncher (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC).
 * The OED, which is of similar age, announced its move to electronic only format a couple of years ago. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The OED is half the age of Britannica and was published much more infrequently. None-the-less I would have supported an OED blurb too.  The story is both a business and a cultural item, both minority topics. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Looks a bit like navel gazing to me.  Lynch 7  10:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I have great sympathy with the oppose votes here, though ultimately cannot agree with them. Looking at this incident in the wider context, it is a very historic announcement, another step from "old" to "new" in the way an incredibly important product is made available. The symbolism alone is worthy of attention. I can see exactly why people are nervous about highlighting the news on the front page - but let us be clear, Wiki has been around for years, it's not as though we can gloat about this development. Rather front page prominence is merely underlining the development of access to information doktorb wordsdeeds 12:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. The consensus appears to be clear. The update meets the minimum requirements. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Trivial, perhaps, but starting the blurb with the word "after" is not really great English. --FormerIP (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaza-Israel

 * Look, I hate to say it, but the Israeli-Gaza conflict has been somewhat of an ongoing murmur over the past year, or even past few years. There's no "wow factor" here. Posting an ITN story saying essentially "the two countries are attacking each other" is essentially redundant. In any case, every time anything Israeli-Gaza comes up, the nomination commentary essentially devolves into an argument between "the Israelis started it" and "the Palestinians started it".--WaltCip (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless something marks this particular set of attacks out as anything significant. Newsworthy ≠ ITN-worthy. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Genuine peace there, with sincere intentions and compassion from both sides, would be news. This isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - major escalation of the conflict.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Query When was the Israel-Gaza conflict last featured on ITN? My reason for asking is that I think ITN-wise this particular incident is borderline: it could be posted, it could not be. I therefore think it's appropriate to consider the weight we have given to that conflict recently, and see whether it is proportionate to other ongoing conflicts (relative to what has happened in each conflict). —WFC— 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Death of Sherwood Rowland

 * Oppose - I generally don't think we should feature people dying of old age, no matter how relevant they once were. Thue | talk 13:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense at all. What makes a death newsworthy is not how surprising it was but the importance of what has been lost. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I agree with Thue. The significance isn't from their accomplishments in life, but rather the impact of their death. If Rowlands death meant an immediate impact to climatology then support would be easy. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support we post all sorts of artist's deaths but rarely Nobel prize winners. Let the tabloids take care of the artist side, but an encyclopedia take care of the scientific side. Nergaal (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction, we only post globally known pop artists deaths (especially if they were at their height in the 1990es), not actual the deaths of actual artists.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support As per Nergaal. Reanimated X (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the last 10 years, there have been 116 Nobel laureates created. Assuming they die at the same rate, we would have a Nobel prize winner up there once a month: do we want the words "Nobel prize winner" on ITN for about 20% of the year? It needs more than being "merely" a laureate to be ITNworthy. Kevin McE (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for his accomplishments (not merely Nobel prize) and I found it personally interesting.  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as per Mohamed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibart (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support notable in his field, we need more major scientists deaths than entertainers. Secret account 16:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Salvador election

 * Nice work. However, before I post, could you update the ARENA's article with a sentence or two and also the party's leader Alfredo Cristiani? Though it's not a strict prerequisite, it's good to have a brief update there as well, since we'll most likely feature his photo as well. --Tone 08:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dont need cirstiani as he wont get much possibly speakship of the assembly) Will do to ARENA
 * For change of pic we can swqap with Belize if need beLihaas (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We've had Belize picture already. But I see, it's unlikely that Cristiani will form the government. Typically, the ITN blurb reads "X party, led by Y, wins..." So I'd like to hear some more comments on the blurb. --Tone 08:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no govt formation in the presidential system in place here. Not the same way as parliamentary systems. As in Peru, where humala decides the cabinet and puts a pm (although ES doesnt seem to have a pm even). Jusst control the legislative agenda (though Funes is gonna be a lame-duck now if he cant rope in one of the smaller parties for the 1 seat majority needed ;))Lihaas (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The plurality blurb seems OK to me. The alternate would be to list the # of seats won by the main two political parties. I don't think it would be appropriate to say "led by X" in a presidential system, as the X does not become the country's leader. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well, posting. --Tone 15:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ARENA is the WP:Common name...Thi s is a unilateral unexlplained edit
 * IF need be can ad "leader pictured"Lihaas (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The adjective of El Salvador is just Salvadoran, not "El Salvadoran". Could someone please change? --RJFF (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * True, BUT i think thats just for the lay [idiot] reader ;)Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Per the manual of style, the word 'plurality', needs to be at minimum pipelinked to Plurality (voting). Better still for the blurb to say something like "The Nationalist Republican Alliance wins 33 out of 84 seats in the Salvadoran elections" as it imparts more information without using any national variety of English. Petecarney (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with plurality (and we used to do that), but no need for seats. no precedence either.
 * But somoene [elase revert that edit and put ARENA backLihaas (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * " Nationalist Republican Alliance" is fine; it'll be like "GOP wins the 2008 US congressional election" if we'd use "ARENA". AJ used "Nationalist Republican Alliance" the first time it appeared on their article, so should ITN. – H T  D  08:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * GOP is NOT the common name. its known as ARENA in the geenral public not just amongst pundits. In fact using this incarnation would be like using GPO.Lihaas (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Nationalist Republican Alliance" is the common name; otherwise, the article should be at ARENA (political party). Another analogy would be using "Lib Dems" to refer to the Liberal Democrats; people refer to the Liberal Democrats as "Lib Dems" all the time "SDP" to refer to the Social Democratic Party in ITN blurbs; it is universally known as "the SDP." (BTW, "ARENA" in the parenthesis doesn't serve any useful purpose in the blurb. It should be removed. Also, a link to Plurality (voting) should have to be there to appease the BrE speakers.) – H T  D  14:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Alkozai massacre

 * Support, but - needs to be updated with a specified blurb here of course. But it would be interesting to see the "fallout" of this. Developments could happen quickly. --Nutthida (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose on its own, in the larger scheme of the war not particularly notable. However I would support iff violence erupts. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Very significant event making big headlines. Likely to have huge consequences for the Americans: it's very likely there will be retaliatory attacks. Also, this will probably have big consequences for the American military: they need to implement disciplinary measures to bring their soldiers back under control. Nanobear (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well thas not for WP o decide what needs to be done and SOAPBOXING is not the place here.
 * At any rate, the article could use background/see also on the Quran burning as its in close proximity.Lihaas (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

*Oppose: Support: US-led military action has killed 9,415 (low estimate) - 29,007 (high estimate) civilians since the war began (out of a total of 17,611 - 37,208 deaths due to insurgent+US-led+unattributed actions). This figure is for Afghanistan alone and also excludes 2012 kills. 16 Afghan civilian lives dont make that much of an impact on those numbers. Will concede that there is an increased notability since the soldier went rogue and got 15/16 kills and given the context of the Quran burnings, but IMO, still not notable enough given how routine civilian casualties caused by US/coalition forces have been during the course of the war. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * support - for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - clearly a notable event with significant international consequences likely. User Canadian Spring & myself have gotten the article ready to post.  Sources are unclear whether it was 15 or 16 people killed. (Villagers claimed 16, but they also claimed other things which are clearly wrong.  Officials have confirmed 15.  The latest BBC update says 15 dead despite earlier reports of 16.) I have worded the article as 15 or 16 and suggest ITN do the same. all sources have settled on 16 dead. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose tragic but insignificant on it's own. 10 "al qaeda operatives" were bombed, sour face. School shooting last month, sour face. What's the difference? Lone gunman goes berserk and kills some people. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two differences between this and the school shooting: number of dead & impact on international relations. There are also two difference between this and the bombing: newsworthiness (I.E. this is much more unusual) and impact on international relations.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. It's not a breach of WP:CRYSTAL to recognise that this is likely to be one of the most significant events in Afghanistan in recent years. --FormerIP (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree in many ways, this event should be no more notable than the daily deaths of the, accumulated, ~ 1million who died due to the American wars over the last decade. But the problem is not that this event is being seen too high, it is that the other events are being seen as too low of importance. I would love to see the month's death count of ongoing wars be posted at the end of each month. Also this event of mass murder does have higher significance than the other killings by invading forces in that the attack wasn't even trying to go after militant or a mistake, but a cold blooded massacre of civilians in their beds. The high potential for violent protests arising fromt his event also adds to its notability. Canadian Spring (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support: Sorry, I seemed to have underestimated the impact. The US is actually preparing for retaliation from the Afghans. Its splashed all over the news (on TV and even in unconnected regional language newspapers). Pleasantly surprised to see people caring about Afghan deaths. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As CH and SP suggest above, one soldier suffering a breakdown and going on a shooting spree isn't that major of an event in the grand scheme of violence in Afghanistan. Just since the recent Quran burning, dozens of protestors have been killed, police have been massacred while they slept and ISAF troops have been killed by apparent allies. If there are international consequences of some sort as a result of this incident, we should post them by all means, but supporting because we predict such things is not a good idea.   Swarm   X 18:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support You cannot just compare numbers and say this is nothing related to the total amount of deaths since the start of the War in Afghanistan. So far we all now that the US-led military actions do not tend to kill civilians and this is something that clearly shows the opposite. Even if the soldier did not get an order to massacre the locals and was led by his own mind, it impels negative reactions on international level that are of very big importance. I support a blurb that makes a distinction apart of the other actions in Afghanistan and documenting the significant international reactions condemning this act.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Worse than the Fort Hood shooting. Question: Are we going to say "soldier's" (singular) or leave it open-ended? A lot of witnesses are saying it was several soldiers. Marcus   Qwertyus   19:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * NYT and WSJ are reporting a single sergeant being held. Probably best to stay with that. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * News sources seem to be moving away from stating that with certainty. NYT currently has "U.S. Sergeant Is Said to Kill 16 Civilians in Afghanistan" and BBC has "...the massacre of 16 villagers, allegedly by a US soldier". Suggest we do similar, although that might change again by the time we are ready to post. --FormerIP (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the NYT, but the BBC is always pretty liberal with 'allegedly' when a crime has been committed, but there hasn't been a conviction, even when the facts appear fairly clear cut. Not sure we can read to much into their use of that word here. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - In my view, the massacre is notable on its own right. But apart from that, it has, as recognized by press commenters, the potential to spark fresh waves of hostility between Afghans and NATO, considering the mood prevailing in the country. This can have consequences on NATO withdrawing, and even have an impact on national opinion regarding further military involvement in the region. As said before: the event is, IMHO, notable for the news tableau. Guinsberg (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tentative support. I disagree with the opposition so far on this. I think that unlike previous US/"coalition" screw-ups, this has a lot more resonance and could have far-reaching effects. I do think the article needs improvement before we post it on ITN, though, and that should happen as the ramifications of this unfold. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose sick of dead people.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your disruption is not welcome here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hands your personal attacks are quite welcome, they make you look more stupid than me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure people around here can judge for themselves whether I've made any personal attacks, or you've been disruptive. Good day. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ʍaunus has been disruptive. I don't see Strange Passerby pointing that out as a personal attack, since Strange Passerby criticized a specific behavior. Thue | talk 13:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So no "disruption" is defined as disagreing with the consensus? Way to go fascism...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you had posted an actual argument for your vote (and note that ITN/C isn't a vote, so arguments are needed), then it would not have been disruption. Thue | talk 16:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The large majority of users voting on this issue thus far have decided in favour of inclusion of event into the section. Is it necessary to wait longer until a final decision can be announced, or can the section be altered already? Guinsberg (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Receiving a lot of coverage in the news outside of Wikipedia, article is in decent shape, so it hits everything that ITN needs. -- Jayron  32  03:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. The consensus seems to be clear, not counting User:Maunus's nonsensical reasoning. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We don vote count, Guinsberg (although most people seem to think so in practice), kudos BQLihaas (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * clearly notable but the article is very sparse. Pull for now.--83.149.8.90 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The ITN Criteria page lists this article as an example of the minimum update required for a new article. The current article for our consideration clearly exceeds that. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Egypt cancel football league season

 * Oppose No significance in the US, I doubt there's much of any significance to many other countries. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose only notable bit was the stadium disaster, which was already posted. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * strong support in any country in mind-season it is notable...and would be for the nba/nfl/nhl/mlb or any other one.Lihaas (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * strong support because cancelation of a entire league with his 19 teams with more that 20 players each team.--Feroang (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support entire seasons of top level sporting events are almost never cancelled (other than for salary dispute reasons, which is not the case here). If sport has a place on ITN (it does) then this story certainly belongs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2011 NBA Lockout was also posted, so I guess posting this would be consistent, though I opposed that as well. Generally I don't consider professional sport to be news worthy. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support "no significance in the US" is certainly no barrier and the posted Stadium disaster doesn't reduce the significance of the subsequent decision to cancel the remainder of the season. Leaky  Caldron  19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support "No significance in the US" is one of the worst reasons I have read here for a while. This is a highly significant development in a country for which [association] football is highly popular, and whose international team are one of the best in Africa. To cancel the season is, as the nominator says, highly rare in the context of serious events doktorb wordsdeeds 19:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, cancellation of a major sporting league is a major turn of events. "No significance in the US" is exactly the kind of rationale that should be banned from ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * to be honest all a comment like "no significance in US" did is help this get more support -- Ashish-g55 21:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I really wish that hadn't been posted. The supports (and I do respect all of you) seem equally biased with an "oh yeah, we'll see about that" attitude. Would have been better for all to just ignore that. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that 2011–12 Egyptian Premier League, rather than Egyptian Premier League, would be a more appropriate article for an update. Currently, it appears that neither one has a sufficient update. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, The cancellation of a nation's top league is big news. Resolute 22:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised at the uproar over my comment, especially considering how badly it's being taken out of context. You're all quoting my first sentence and ignoring the second. My comment was that I don't see this being so newsworthy outside of Egypt. If the rest of you disagree, that's fine, but please don't make my opposition out to be US-centric. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose No international relevance whatsoever. Probably not even a lot of national relevance either. The stadium disaster may have been news - this is just a side effect. Plus no good update.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So if a stadium crush kills people at, say, an MLB game, and Selig decides to kill an entire 162-game season, you'd oppose for "no international relevance"? If (God forbid) another Hillsborough disaster occurs and the FA cancels an entire English league season, you'd oppose for "no international relevance"? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing internationally relevant about national sports leagues. I am sick and tired of ridiculous sporting events, unfortunate accidents, natural disasters and elections getting free ITN pass while events that have true impact on international culture, such as the death of international cultural personalities are opposed because the article doesn't describe their last suffering in detail. And no this is not just Jean Giraud, the same has happened every time I have nominated a cultural event of true importance.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT then. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes its a case of I don't like the fucking stupid news criteria you guys have chosen to operate by.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Feel free to take it up on the talk section of the ITN criteria page. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, you can have your little sports n' elections club to yourself. I'll go out an actually build an encyclopedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support (though the article could do with some tweaking) and frankly anyone who opposes an ITN with "no importance in the US" should be barred from making any contribution here again. Ludicrous. Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Seems crufty to me. I don't think that many readers really care about this. As far as Muboshgu's comment goes, he should have phrased it better, but I think the point is that this is of little relevance to most readers, unlike, say, another English soccer disaster or the cancellation of the, what was it, 2004-05 NHL season. In my opinion, an event does not have to be "international" to go on ITN, but it should be of interest to at least some significant part of the readership, either because it has international resonance or because enough readers live in the country at issue. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have written an extensive update, so the article should be ready to go if deemed worthy. I believe consensus to post exists, but naturally will not post it myself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: For reasons given by ThaddeusB and others above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ITN is not to ater to waht people WANT to read, it informs about the world jsut a much (a google search will show up the WP page for those that WANT to read)Lihaas (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Krásna Hôrka

 * Oh dear! Now we could have 2 Slovak articles up at the same time right beside each other.
 * For the record i would support as a minority article depending on the quality of the article as "precious artefacts kept at the castle may have been lost" from "one of the best-preserved castles in Slovakia"Lihaas (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: Such an event has been internationally recognised and it should be part of the ITN. Do note that it was I who found this article at BBC. A bit of updating at the castle article should be better if this is article is updated and good enough for ITN standards. Supporting the article now. Well done to Mjroots!  Abhijay'  What did I do this time? 02:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I thought that I added the BBC article with this edit . Article has been updated, and is now Start class IMO. Mjroots (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support Unexpected event that caused an extensive damage of a very old castle and a very important landmark is a very notable news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the article itself, the castle was not destroyed but 'extensively damaged' with 90% of the collections being undamaged. I support the item as there is a decent update, but the blurb should be revised to better reflect the article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The update is fantastic and I suggest taking it to WP:DYK if it doesn't get posted on ITN. That said, I'm not personally seeing the significance of the news. It's an interesting story, but don't see anything to indicate the castle was particularly important, and 90% of the museum artifacts were saved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DYK could indeed be a better venue for this story. --Tone 08:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Im suddenly thinkg that too but itll never pass as theres no 5x updateLihaas (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It should, look at the version prior to the fire: . --Tone 10:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DYKcheck says no, but it is wrong. The article was 291 bytes of text before expansion and 2147 now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nick Zoricic

 * Oppose. No impact internationally; when Sarah Burke was killed in January in very similar circumstances we didn't post. Sad but of no importance for ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - doesn't fit the "at the top of his field" criteria. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Was his death unusual or was it just a skiing accident?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Death during top level international competition in a major world sport: comparable to Wouter Weylandt and (sorry I can't remember his name: motor-cycle racer in latter part of 2011: maybe someone will edit my post to add his name, no disrespect to deceased intended), both of which were posted. Kevin McE (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of Dan Wheldon in IndyCar or Marco Simoncelli in MotoGP, probably. However we do have a more recent precedent, and from the same class of sport (skiing), in Sarah Burke who we didn't post. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of Simoncelli, but of course I should have included Wheldon as well. As already stated, the key difference between these and Burke is the issue of death in competition, rather than in training. Kevin McE (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reluctant oppose. Whether we post is a (somewhat subjective) weighing up of how well covered the sport is, how significant the event was, how prominent the individual was, and how widely covered the death is. Nodar Kumaritashvili's posting demonstrates that this works fairly well, even where the death doesn't hit all of these points. The posting of Weylandt was in my opinion an anomaly: the blurb went out of its way to point out the rarity, which suggests that even the nominator didn't consider the death alone to obviously meet ITN thesholds. —WFC— 13:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have thought it not at all surprising that things that are rare are more likely to be newsworthy. A soldier dying in the pursuit of his profession is less newsworthy than a sportsperson doing so, precisely because the latter is less expected. Kevin McE (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * More likely to be newsworthy, yes. Automatically ITN-worthy, no. —WFC— 15:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Slovakian election

 * Thought about it the day before was waiting for the bot to set the day then it slipped my mind ;) Lost the ITN credit too ;( but do i get it for creating the page?Lihaas (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

*Support:News about slovakia has barely been around ITN for some time, and I think this is ITN material. Abhijay What did I do this time? 06:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reworded blurb, no word that there is an absolute majority. Theyd get about 75 give or TAKE even...which means a coalition with some small independents (National Party?)Lihaas (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 83 seats. I have re-worded the blurb correspondingly. Should we mention Smer leader and PM-designate Fico? --RJFF (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, my bad...results were affirmed higher later...initially some 35-odd
 * Also, added Fico to blurb
 * Markign ready as results in and section prose added. Perhaps wait a few hours so timer doent go red so soonLihaas (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. The article is fine. I'll just write majority, if it is not absolute, we use the term plurality instead. --Tone 15:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is absolute 84/150
 * also Fico has a picLihaas (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Death of Moebius/Jean Giraud

 * Comment Marking as minority topic (culture) --hydrox (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Marking as support ITN (main page) candidate (culture) - Giraud has vast international recognition. Paradise coyote (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to say, in effect, you "support"? I don't understand what you mean by "marking as ITN (main page) candidate (culture)". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes, support - I just added it - sorry, first time marking here.Paradise coyote (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Significant person in this field, but at age 73 the death is not all that unusual. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when does a death have to be unusual to qualify?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally more weight has been given to situations where the deceased died of anything other than old age or illness, although it isn't a codified criterion. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly that is a ridiculous criterion - as if there is anything "unusual" about most of the sporting events, natural disasters or elections that get featured all the time. In any case Jean Giraud was thoroughly unusual as a person, and the world has become less unusual for having lost him.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have used the word "unexpected" instead of "unusual." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose update is insufficient. Make the section "Illness and Death" and write a whole paragraph. Establish his significance in the field with a "reactions" subsection, put a paragraph there too. Right now the article is a resume. Show an outsider like me why he was significant in the field. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We've got 50 people killed by an avalanche in Afghaiastan - who were they? Giraud helped changed the face of 20th century magazine, comic art and film design.Paradise coyote (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he was unimportant, just that the update was too thin. "Jean Giraud died of Cancer at age 74" isn't enough. I just checked again, there is now an "Influence and Legacy" section which helps tremendously. How long was he struggling? Cancer of the what? Died at home or hospital? Fill in some blanks. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the details of his death are what makes this an important event. The article is now twice the size as it was before his death.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The overall quality of the article is fine but ITN requites the update be significant. Secondly, other than making people sad, what impact has his death had on the field? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an entire section on the dignitaries saying what they believe the impact is (it is of course too early to tell if it will make that impact - since we are not a crystal ball). And the update is significant since as I say the article is now twice the size it was before his death. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, he probably was the most influential living European (non-UK) comics author, and one of the few who was influential worldwide. Comparable to Eisner or Tezuka. Just look at the article in Entertainment Weekly and you get an idea of how highly ranked he was. That his death in itself is not unusual shouldn't mean anything. 10:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support One of a handful of the most influential living (until his death of course) comic authors.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaza-Israel clashes

 * Oppose sadly this is routine in Gaza. The IDF executes someones, the Palestinians fire home made rockets which do almost no damage, the IDF destroys 3 or 4 houses in response. Talk about a smoldering conflict which could use a sticky, this is it. Anyway, this exchange was so minor I have to oppose. for { for ( i = 0; i < 10; i++ ) { IDF.destroy_a_house; } IDF.build_a_settlement; } --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * more important than the Belizean elections--Reader1987 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, elections are WP:ITNR. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not requesting the deletion of the Belize election news (?!)--Reader1987 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Elections? What? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * New escalations of violence today.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Libya

 * the upadate is rather poor. and nothing on the more pertinent protests (a declaration by itself is not ITN)Lihaas (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As a news story, this is easily ITN-worthy IMO. But I agree about the update and I'm not sure about the article in general. Given that this is about a disputed territory, the history of the territory is likely to need to be immaculately written from an NPOV perspective. I'm not saying that I know it's not, but I would need to know it is before supporting, and a lot of it is uncited at present. --FormerIP (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tentative support Of a wider interest I imagine but the article(s) are in a bad way. Interesting and significant development in this region doktorb wordsdeeds 07:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yemen

 * Oppose. Al-Qaeda crackdowns have generally not been deemed important enough for ITN in the past, and I don't think that situation has changed. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Strange. I know, not a great reasoning but honestly Abhijay can you hold off on the submissions? This is the third one for March 10th. Episodes in on-going conflicts rarely make ITN unless it is truly unique. In this case, there was nothing noteworthy about more Al Qaeda militants being killed. This is a weekly occurrence. Wikifan Be nice  20:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As above. A small and unimportant blip along the never ending road of history in this part of the world. Nothing done which satisfies the credence given to front page news doktorb wordsdeeds 07:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Russia

 * Suggest you stop nominating events for which there aren't articles. Generally (not always, but most of the time) suggests they're not going to make ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OP has fixed original nomination to point to an existing article. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Russia events have had a weak presence on ITN. Problem is ITN already posted Putin's election. Perhaps replace current blurb with one suggested above? No need to qualify Putin's status as a 3rd time President. Wikifan Be nice  12:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment BBC Radio just said "...waiting to see if this becomes a national movement or just a sissy phenomenon". I tend to agree. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did they maybe say "city phenomenon"? --FormerIP (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly thought I heard "sissy" but "city" would make more sense. Was listening to the live feed, am trying to find the archive now. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * stale wi th that blurb anyways.Lihaas (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * support ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose A minor event of a wider issue which has gone stale already doktorb wordsdeeds 21:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Greek debt restructuring deal
So....
 * [Posted] Feb 21 - Euro zone finance ministers reach an agreement on a second Greek bailout.
 * [Posted] Feb 12 - Greek austerity vote and protests
 * [Posted] Nov 10 - Papademos named as new Greek Prime Minister
 * [not posted] Nov 7 - New Greek govt
 * [not posted] Nov 4 - George Papandreou resigns then he doesn't
 * [not posted] Oct 31 - Greek Referendum Announcement
 * [not posted] Oct 16 - General strike in Greece

So what milestones in the Greek story are important and which aren't? This could go on for years. Consider Argentine debt restructuring.--76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - second bailout was already posted once (obviously a different stage in the process, but still). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per ThaddeusB. We posted when the bailout was announced. I don't think we should document all the details from the agreement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

[Pulled] 2012 Bahraini protests

 * Strong support This is a big change in Bahrain which shows clearly that the uprising is still very popular. This is 20% of Bahraini citizens (half of population in Bahrain aren't nationals).  .  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Number of demonstrators in the neighborhood of 100,000 is not yet very large, and – quite frankly speaking – lack of government-backed brutality or violent protesters seems to rank this to somewhat mundane event internationally. --hydrox (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Somewhere between weak support and support. "100,000 is not very large". Eh? In a country of a bit more than a million, more than half of whom are expats? On the other hand, 100K seems to be an unconfirmed figure. FormerIP (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: None of the Arab Spring uprisings had this percentage in a single march. 20% is very large. CNN said "the march filled four-lane highway between Duraz and Maksha" - that's 7km long * 7 meters wide * estimated 3 persons per square = ~150k. This video can help. More references to support the number:, , , .  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have to admit that 20% of any country's population is quite remarkable. --hydrox (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Question The article is updated? It's pretty huge... --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just updated it. By the way, according to FT, the government announced that the number was 100,000 and opposition activist say it's 200,000+.  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which part? I'm looking here 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising and not seeing it. Also, where in Bahrain are these protests? I must be blind, please help me. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead and Timeline. It was on 9 March Budaiya highway, 7 km long. Why are you blind? do you live in Bahrain? The video and pictures are already available here, on the article and even on my user page.  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see it now at the bottom of the timeline. I evaluate every one of these from the POV of a random drive by reader. I click the bold link and expect to see what all the hullabaloo is. Since the article is huge, I asked for help. Now for the number of protesters, I added a fact tag on the numbers, need something more official than a BBC photographer estimate. Also as an FYI, Financial Times doesn't allow linking unless the referrer is Google, so that source is a giant hassle. Lastly, I think BBC might have spelled the cities wrong. I found them on Google maps, it's Diraz and Meqsha. The reason I'm making a stink about it is that the entire population of the island, including ex-pats, is around 200k, so I think it's worth while to get a real crowd size estimate. FT cited "the government" and "activists". That's the same FT that called the election in Wukan the first free election in Chinese history, so... --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire population is 1.2 Million. Citizens are about 535k. How is 100k or 200k hard to believe? BICI report already mentioned that on 22 February 2011, 150k people were at Pearl roundabout (it's cited in the article too) - So if opposition activist think this is larger, then 200k is quite reasonable. FT is a reliable source; I removed the fact tag.  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a Reuters photographer btw (not that it makes a difference since I'm not using it a source).  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Either way the point is valid. FT says "the government" doesn't really do it for me. If FT said "Said al-Something_or_other of the interior ministry speaking at a press conference gave the estimate at 100,000" it would be an easy support. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't need the government to say it's 100k (even though they did but you refuse to use the reference for your own reasons - Lamees Dhaif said in an interview with France 24 that government estimated protesters to be 100k, but I guess it won't be helpful since it's in Arabic). Reuters photographer said that and so did al-akhbar, other websites said tens of thousands and cited either Reuters photographer or opposition figures for the 100,000+.  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No comment on the nomination, but I suggest you lay off on the rhetoric and the ad hominem remarks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Morning Star said they were 100,000 as well . Didn't mean to attack anyone - sorry if it was felt that way  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As-Safir also supports the 100,000 and mentions them being 20% of Bahrainis .  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Continuing discussion on Talk:2011–2012_Bahraini_uprising. Per WP:RS the question on whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement is open for discussion. FT cited "the government" and I refuse to accept that as a decent source. Sorry. My oppose stands, but I don't see any value in cluttering the ITN discussion further. Interested parties can see article talk page. PS: I wasn't offended. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now per my remarks on the verification of the crowd size. Yes I get that it's big. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I don't know if there's support for the claim that this was the "largest ever" protest, so perhaps that should be changed. Regardless of whether it was the largest ever, it was a major event that garnered lots of international media coverage.  Several media sources remarked that it was "the largest in months," and, rightly or wrongly, interpreted the march as increasing pressure on the government.,,   Yes, there was no significant violence at the event, but I'd submit that this adds to its noteworthiness, given that many of the initially-peaceful Arab Spring uprisings have now been marred by significant violence (Egypt, Yemen, Syria, etc). Billmarczak (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but be very careful about the wording if posted. Sound like a very major protest, but we can't throw around "largest ever" or "20% of the population" without very good proof.  Perhaps something like "A very large anti-government protest takes place in Bahrain" or if a number is absolutely needed, go with the most conservative sources: "Tens of thousands of citizen take place in a anti-government protest in Bahrain" --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Based on Billmarczak and ThaddeusB feedback, I think "Tens of thousands of Bahrainis participate in one of the largest protests in months." would be good. Also, I've changed the article in response to 76.18.43.253 remarks on crowd size. (if you are already bored with the current picture, you could throw this one in as well)  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Theres at least 100k...but at any rate at "at least ten thousand..."Lihaas (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We seem to have consensus now and the timer is red. Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Change blurb to "An estimated 100,000 people" or something grammatically correct. A Reuters photographer is not an expert in the field of crowd size analysis. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * granted, but the government (who handles the security based on crowd management) and the organisers agreeing on a minimum is something (agreeing is something ;))Lihaas (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Pulled by User:Nikkimaria as "copyvio" . --BorgQueen (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Ecuadorean protests

 * support. Severely underrepresented region and topic (indigenous rights).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - doesn't seem to have drawn much international interest and only a few hundred people are taking part in the demonstration. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As if the elections in Belize has drawn much international attention. By the definition of numbers indigenous peoples are a priori excluded from appearing in ITN - makes little sense and reinforces systemic bias.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I am not a fan of all elections getting automatic inclusion, but that is not relevant to this story. If it doesn't generate much international interest, then it is strictly a national issue unless there is reason to believe otherwise.  A protest by a few hundred people does not suggest international importance to me.  And yes, some (most) subjects will never generate international interest and thus will never appear on ITN.--ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait Let's see if there's any feedback from the government in the following days. As I see, the protest will last a couple of days more. Also, the orange tag in the article needs to be resolved before anything else. --Tone 21:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment

 * In English, please? Neutral for now, because I can't understand physics jargon. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this something that has gained coverage in the mainstream press? FormerIP (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the not-so-terse, jargony tail. In English, it's an important result because it may help us (soon) understand why there's more matter than antimatter in the universe.  Unfortunately the mainstream press doesn't know their elbows from their other body parts when it comes to what's exciting news in particle physics.  It also doesn't help the English-language media that this experiment is in China.  The announcement is a bit fresh, too quick for some of the sources.  Articles are starting to show up in Google News science section.  I think, for example, Scientific American counts as mainstream for you.  It's showing up as a Xinhua headline (headline no. 2) right now.  I wouldn't be surprised to see articles in Wired or similar very soon.Teply (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really sceptical about this if the actual news isn't interested. It's not that they have no interest in particles. Today the BBC is reporting the first analysis of anti-matter . Why is that not bigger news? FormerIP (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the Daya Bay result is a >5σ result, aka a "discovery" for a physicist. The OPERA result appeared in the Wikipedia news because it had reached the 5σ standard for discovery even though it later turned out to be a possible uncontrolled systematic error.  To contrast, the Higgs boson has not been discovered and therefore does not (yet?) belong as a headline.  The result to which you point, the first low signal-to-noise attempt at observing the antihydrogen hyperfine spectral lines, is interesting and an useful step in technological progress but not a discovery.  You would need something like >5σ detection that the antihydrogen spectral lines differ from the hydrogen spectral lines for it to be worth headlining.  It's easy for the BBC to pick up those stories because the research is at CERN in Geneva, not Guangdong province.  Don't get me wrong; I do anticipate exciting results and maybe even "discoveries" from some of the antihydrogen/positronium experiments in the coming years. Teply (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The blurb is better, but the article update is still a formula that I (and most) don't understand. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As a physicist, I find this cool, but I wouldn't really expect to see it on ITN. Neutrinos are the tiny nearly-massless particles that can pass through ordinary matter very easily.  There are three types of neutrino (electron, muon, and tau).  As it turns out they all have slightly different masses.  More significantly, under the right conditions a neutrino of one type (say an electron neutrino) can turn into a neutrino of a different type (say a muon neutrino).  The model that explains how neutrinos of one type turn into neutrinos of other types has several free parameters that have to be determined experimentally.  The experiment being discussed here, produced by a collaboration of 240 physicists working in China, has finally measured the last of these parameters.  So now it can be said that we have a plausibly complete understanding of neutrino oscillations.  This is important because the Standard Model of particle physics originally assumed all neutrinos were massless and no oscillations occurred.  So, this expands our understanding of particle physics and opens the door for experiments that may help explain why there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe (i.e. CP-violation).  It is cool stuff, but I'm not sure I'd expect to see a lot news coverage here.  In terms of science stories, the discovery that neutrinos aren't massless was a much bigger deal.  This is more about finally filling in the details of how neutrinos behave.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great explanation! Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  18:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Third iPad

 * Oppose with every strength I have in my body and thought in my mind A PR release is not a news story. An iPad is not a news story. This is just a piece of fluff and nonsense. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait. If anything, we should have posted the first one as it was something really new. This is just a new version, so it seems. Unless... --Tone 18:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongest of opposes - Should read "Apple has decided that the MSRP for iPad 2 is no longer high enough and has unveiled an almost identical product that will restore the original expensive price" -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the launch is barely newsworthy, but in three/six/nine months time when they've sold 200 million units it may be worth another look. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose huge massive oppose. ITN is not for the third revision of the new computer gadget you want so much. PR PR PR. Hipocrite (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose and lots of it. We don't do advertsing in ITN.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. FormerIP (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose a frivolous piece of consumer gadgetry is not, never was, and never will be news. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hell No.--WaltCip (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose A lot of marketing hype, but nothing really super revolutionary from technical viewpoint, so not very encyclopedic. --hydrox (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why dd the IP close it unilaterally? BOLD addition reverted.Lihaas (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it was doomed to fail. We can leave it open and let people bet it up for a few more days if you want. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Yay! I was disappointed that I couldnt oppose it earlier as the discussion was closed. (C'mon man: 9 opposes, 1 oppose-ish wait and 0 supports means its pretty much doomed. And I know its not a vote count, but i see thats how things pretty much work here). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Syria had absolute support for awhile, then i awoke and it turned ;)Lihaas (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you've got three back-to-back supports since its been unlocked. But yeah, its still an oppose for me. This will be like posting everytime a new generation nvidia card comes out. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * no1curr. --Golbez (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Sorry to disagree with all you fine folks, but this updated article convinces me. Get ready for the future; this is no gimmick. I daresay we will all be on tablets in five years or less. Good tech story for ITN.  Jus  da  fax   14:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Response Maybe the crystal ball app on your precious tablet can see the future, but that's not news. This is an incremental update in a rather mundane piece of ubiquitous consumer electronics. Oppose this as vehemently as the Samsung galaxy tab getting a new version of android, as ruthlessly as opposing every single new model year of every single automobile produced world wide, and deride as being even less significant as Malibu Stacys new hat. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Judasfax's views match my own. Many of you supported the ITN/C nomination of the third term re-election of Putin. Think of Putin as an aging first generation iPad that Apple has never updated. Marcus   Qwertyus   15:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Russian elections automatically qualified the notability threshold due to ITN/R (and its not a re-election, Medvedev was the previous prez). Just saying. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So Putin is a first gen iPad that was discontinued in 2008 and is now being relaunched in 2012 :). I wasn't saying the Putin wasn't notable. I wanted to convey that iPad (3) was at least as notable as (or at least cooler than) fuddy-duddy Putin. Marcus   Qwertyus   16:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is incorrect. An incremental upgrade to a consumer electronics device is at least two rungs below "can nuke the whole world" on the latter of "caring about it." --Golbez (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of nuking the world, I hear the U.S. Army is working on getting these devices into the field. It won't be to long before soldiers can call in an airstrike with a tablet app. That applications are endless. Marcus   Qwertyus   18:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Putin steers policy for a large and powerful nation. The iPad is not sentient or important. It's a spoon. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. It's a widely reported announcement, and of high interest to our readers.  It's legitimate news.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation Needed doktorb wordsdeeds 16:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation of what?--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation of "high interest" and "legitimate" doktorb wordsdeeds 21:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't need to cite that hte sky is blue--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there anything on this page that tag doesn't work for? Marcus   Qwertyus   16:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Question how is a piece of consumer electronics a minority topic? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's technology.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So is a spoon, and this is no more remarkable. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You can edit documents and play games with significant graphics on a spoon? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, you mean this thing can edit documents and play games? We've never had a device before that could do that! It might be technology, but it's not new technology. It's an incremental upgrade. Why not post Android OS updates as well? Maybe when Facebook updates their page? --Golbez (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Really I think we can remove the minority = yes from the template. That's used for real technological breakthroughs the like the large hardon collider and microlattice, not for ordering a bunch of parts out of the digikey catalog and gluing them together. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Technology, with the exception of space-related technology". This is technology, and not space-related. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that the truth hurts, but this really is just an incremental update to a mundane piece of consumer electronics. There is a discussion above of a new type of neutron. That is technology, this is a spoon. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per TRM.  Snowolf How can I help? 16:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Section break
So, the product has been announced. What is the bottomline? Is it just a new version of the iPad with better resolution display and better camera or is it something completely new and revolutionary? If first, I oppose posting. If second (convince me), I would support. --Tone 16:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally think it's pointless for us to debate the relative significance of the Ipad upgrade. It's doubtlessly highly subjective and will get us mired in pointless debate.  The key question is, is it new of interest to our readers and is there a decent article update.  But let's also bear in mind that the Ipad has a cultural significance that goes beyond it's technical specifications.  --Johnsemlak (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Since I started the supports, I suppose it behooves me to add a brief note in this break, enhancing my reasoning. This generation of the iPad appears to me to be the one that pushes this technology beyond a novelty to a working tool. But it is not just my own feeling... the LA Times article I cite is titled "Apple's new iPad takes aim at the PC" and I think that is the reasoned opinion of a lot of sober thinking on the newspaper's staff. Read the article... after the statement "In unveiling the upgraded iPad on Wednesday, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook repeated the theme that the difference between PCs and tablets would soon vanish, and that the iPad was the "poster child for the post-PC world," the Times notes the opinions of technology analyists. "The iPad is encroaching more and more on the kinds of tasks that we've historically associated with PCs," said Ross Rubin, an analyst at NPD Group." In other words, traditional desktop and even laptop computers are now clearly on the way out. We are witnessing a revolution, and I suppose I should add that I have never owned an Apple Computer or iPad but for the first time am considering it. To get to the point: I believe that this is an item of news for ITN that is of broad interest to Main Page readers, which is why I stuck my neck out to support in the face of a mass of opposes. I respect opinions to the contrary, but I strongly feel they are wrong. Jus  da  fax   17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle, and frankly, there is nothing remotely special about Apple releasing an update to an existing product that warrants appearance on ITN.  This is not ITN-worthy news any more than the fact that people used to line up around the block to get a World of Warcraft expansion or that people go stupid over Black Friday or Boxing Day sales. Nor does someone's personal opinion on what might happen in the future, possibly, make this any more important. Resolute 18:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose John by your rationale we should post basically every Apple conference since the ipad upgrade is not the point here... The media frenzy is only there due to their stock price. If RIM comes out with new playbook we will not be discussing this. This will be nothing but a free advertisement that follows all other media. -- Ashish-g55 01:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose relist later if it breaks some kind of record upon its release, like biggest-selling technological device in one day or something similar. Secret account 04:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: In my view, this reflects the systemic bias existing in Wikipedia. Admittedly, an average Wikipedia reader would be interested in the iPad3 release, just like the average Wikipedia reader (including myself) would be more interested in reading the article on Mass Effect 3 than the Ba Chuc Massacre (the size and quality of the both articles are a testimony to that). I'm not saying that hard work put in by those passionate about ME3 should be ignored or that anyone should be forced to update the Ba Chuc article. But when assessing notability, lets keep a broader perspective - while a large part of Wikipedia users (apple fanbois, consoletards and pc elitists included) would be interested in the iPad3 release, it does not really fit the "notability" bill in a broader international context. As the article on systemic bias itself identifies, since the average Wikipedian user will be an English-speaking, technically inclined, male from a developed country, it will never be able to erase systemic bias. But lets try. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I opposed right at the start, and to be fair to Jusdafax, I oppose now even more! "We are witnessing a revolution" is simply false. We're witnessing a release of a slightly improved bit of kit. It's not more a revolution than the newest kind of flatscreen TV or improved microwave. As Ashishg has pointed out, this is media frenzy over a press release, not a news story. In broad terms, it's not actually that notable - Apple releasing a new product would only be notable were that product different from the last in a manner incomprehensible to us now. And as ChocolateHorlicks says, there is a bias within Wikipedia which will always mean technology articles and "now" events will always seem vastly more important than historic ones. I'd prefer people spent effort on parliamentary constituencies over Pokemon, but that's the cards we're dealt. I understand that Apple addicts are minded to think that we're on the cusp of some new bright future, but the reality is very different. This new iPad is just another small step along a very, very well worn path. It's not news. It's not notable. It's just an upgraded bit of kit. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - for it to qualify for a news story, it would have to have to be an incredible advance. It isn't. You don't see us posting ITNs about every new car, games console, mobile phone, etc. Bob talk 08:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Belize election


And in that case it is a total waste of time posting it here before there is an update. Kevin McE (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't ITN:R. -- Plasma Twa  2  08:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, yes it is itnr...state elections are. ITN/R
 * Also why no pt in posting it here? It gets more attention for further additions by others (as MANY articles have been expanded when on here)Lihaas (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thought I was posting about a different item. -- Plasma Twa  2  21:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Agree, this brings to the attention of editors that there is an article of ITN worthy notability that requires updating. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready to post: article is updated, blurp amended correspondingly. --RJFF (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I support posting this if it is sufficiently updated before it goes stale. But there are no detailed results, there's no information about how any of the smaller parties did, no information about any patterns in voting and no reactions to the result. There's not even information about how the popular vote broke down. FormerIP (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you will get all this. This is Belize, not the US. --RJFF (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, is there really impossible to get some numbers? Having just the result by seats is a bit short... --Tone 22:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support The official results are here but they're by constituency, not district. I'm making a wikitable now. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. Someone pasted in the results as a list, I ported in the table. Ought to be good now. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Posting a table of results is usually not considered a sufficient update to warrant posting. ITN prefers textual updates of about 2 solid paragraphs, which has not happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What else can be said? Party X won A seats, party Y won B seats. Breakdown as follows. The whole article overall is pretty thorough. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the overall quality of the article is fine but ITN requires the update be significant and posting a table of results is usually not considered a significant update. To answer your question, things like was the result expected, what are the consequences, etc.  Newspapers don't seem to have a problem writing 5-10 paragraphs on the results; there is no reason Wikipedia can't have 2. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Revoked ready tag. Will revisit. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Expectes resultds are given in the opinion polls section (which is also this time in prose with soldi paragraphs) Also issues are thoroughly mentioned and sourced
 * Article is wholly source with massive prose in opinion polls. Data on election in the first paragraph on the section, result prose and l;ead as well as municipal prose. Weve posted election withless eve.Lihaas (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reactions and analysis have been added. Now it is really ready to be posted. --RJFF (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Posting. --Tone 14:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's more like it. Thanks to those who put in the work. --FormerIP (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggest image on the right (getting tired of Putin already ;) --hydrox (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Syria sticky
Been around for over a week now and stuff is starting to slow from there. For example, Al Jazeera's top stories (for a change) dont include Syria. Libya is started to come back on the top of the Arab stories. We can always restore later if need be, the conflict is FAR from over.Lihaas (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support removal. Syria has indeed fallen off the main news for the most part, not enough rolling news to justify the sticky. Consider case-by-case. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Removal - this reminds us why we should be very careful about putting stories on Sticky. We rightly rejected numerous nominations for these very cases where stories "died down" doktorb wordsdeeds 12:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support removal - Syria has fallen out of favor with the 24 hour news cycle. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal Where are you guys getting the idea that Syrian is no longer in the 24 hour news cycle? There are new updates practically every hour - one, two, three, etc. Syria remains on the front page of both CNN and USA Today as of March 7 2012. Wikifan Be nice  17:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also disagree that there are no news from Syria. Let the sticky stay for a while. --Tone 18:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal UN aid chief visits Homs is second story on BBC News for the UK right now. Still relevant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That story on its own would never pass ITNC, so why should that be a factor when deciding the sticky? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal There has again been a important development to the story today: Red Crescent reached Homs and accompanying UN humanitarian chief described seeing "completely devastated" Baba Amr. But it was also debated in the US Congress and Obama also had his comment. Just moments ago, NYTimes also came out with an article on spillover effects in neighboring states. And these are just some top results from today according to Google News.. --hydrox (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And in the mean time, Syria's deputy oil minister has resigned and joined the rebels. There is a continuous stream of events and the situation has been escalating during this week more than ever. --hydrox (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Tentatively support removal Although new news about Syria is being reported, the article currently in the sticky 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is not receiving consistent enough content updates to the article for me to oppose removal . Generally, I would support keeping some sort of sticky in ITN, but if the article is not being continually updated (something that a sticky needs to have), then I don't think the sticky should stay.  Spencer T♦ C 22:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support removal no longer the lead story, nom new stories as they happen. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  23:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Editors did that and they frequently were shot down because violence was so common. Sticky solved that problem. Wikifan Be nice  23:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It only solved that problem if you think it was a problem. I'm not sure your recollection is correct, anyway. Although I could be wrong, I think the sticky was a response to one particular story not getting posted. --FormerIP (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal - The conflict in Syria is still going as strong as ever, and it's most certainly still in the news. The sticky keeps us from having to discuss every major development.  Swarm   X 03:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ITN lalso requires regular updates (indiv noms dont go because of lack of update/quality first.Lihaas (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Claims that the conflict in Syria is winding down or it is no longer front-page news is patently false, so those "opposes" can be ruled out. However, the article needs to be updated continuously and if new events aren't added then the sticky should be questioned. But only under that specific circumstance. Wikifan Be nice  09:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * thats what ive been maintening he whole time. In the very beginning i said its far from ove.Lihaas (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The article that is receiving daily updates is actually Timeline of the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising (from January 2012) but for convenience reasons the sticky leads to the main one. --Tone 13:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal - Syria remains a major news story, with developments happening on a daily or near-daily basis. It does not appear this will change at any time soon. Jus  da  fax   14:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal Al-Jazeera top stories and 24 hours news cycles don't include Syria? Are you kidding? The daily death toll is 100 in average, everyday there is cities being shelled, demonstrations in hundreds of towns, and battles taking place in all governorates of Syria. There is no a single news agency without something about Syria on it is main page, the nominator is talking like everything is finished while the number of deaths has risen from 9,000 in late February to 10,000 in early March. If something have ever changed in Syria since the sticky was posted, it is in that the scale of the conflict have risen, not anything else --aad_Dira (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC).
 * FOr god seek will you READ what ive TWIE said that this is not over...in any case that was before the resignation and annan statememt. BTW- dont insert you rpov of shells and death CLAIMS cause that is not on the top of th news cycle..Lihaas (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support removal - The conflict and news coverage of it is, of course, far from over; however, ITN is not and should not imitate a 24-hour news ticker. ITN should showcase articles with updated content whose topics are in the news, and not merely topics that are in the news. The fact is that, despite a good number of edits each day, the article is not seeing the regular content updates and expansions which would justify a sticky; see the changes for March 9, March 10 and March 11. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Afghanistan
Support the article seems in decent shape to me - stub tag should probably be removed.EdwardLane (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no update in linked article. --Golbez (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor should the original link (Badakhshan) be expanded. Better to create a new article, which I have now done.  I support posting if the article gets expanded (I will work on it in the morning if no one else does it first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support if updated. ~50 dead, 200 injured, a whole village destroyed.  I ♦  A  08:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support with updates too this is pretty unusual, but a stub is a stub right now. --Nutthida (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that an actual article has been made, Oppose because it is a single-line news blurb. --Golbez (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I finally got around to writing the article since no one else did, which hopefully is up to everyone's standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Most likely, the entire village of 200 is dead less than 6 known survivors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Notability beyond question. Article is also nice and fat now (will get only better with ITN posting). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. Nice work with the updating, that's one decent article now. --Tone 13:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Protip: You'd get less "oppose no article" and "oppose article sucks" votes cluttering up the works if you waited to nom until after a viable article existed. That used to be a requirement. Seems not to be anymore. --Golbez (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if nothing else, mentioning the story here brings some viewers to the topic and makes the article grow faster. --Tone 16:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't nominate the article, but I did write it. If it hadn't been nominated, I may have never written it (or even known about the story). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely why it isn't a requirement. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  18:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's nice that this got it enough eyes, but that's not what ITN is designed for, is it? If that's what it is then maybe just change it to an article workshop and move the 'what goes on the main page' stuff somewhere else? Putting up a blurb and then creating the encyclopedic update is exactly the opposite of how ITN was supposed to work. --Golbez (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm copying this discussion to the talk page for further discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Allen Stanford

 * Support convicted of running the second largest ponzi scheme in history after Bernie Madoff. Secret account 05:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support same reasoning as Secret, this is very significant in the world of financial schemes/scams, let alone Ponzi schemes. --Nutthida (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that 'cricket mogul' is a particularly accurate description. He was a financier, who also sponsored some cricket (pretty much just one major series). But that aside support for the scale and reach of the fraud. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support For the very strong reasons described above doktorb wordsdeeds 12:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Needs a bit more update, one sentence without references at the moment. --Tone 12:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Per above.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Don't really support crooks getting convicted, unless they're #1. We don't even nom murderers and rapists getting sentenced, so... Either way, drop the "cricket mogul" from the blurb, his "business" was finance. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but as the IP said, drop the "cricket mogul". – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lehman Brothers

 * Oppose, no update to linked article, not seeing this as ITN material anyway. --Golbez (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's not coming back to life, per the BBC this just means liquidation can continue. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"World's most notorious computer hacker" unmasked as FBI mole

 * Oppose Getting a huge dose of meh from this. --Golbez (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Meh here too. But I'm surprised that some of the news websites seem to think it's a pretty big deal. So maybe I should be keeping my meh to mehself. Not sure. FormerIP (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral. If they definitely hooked Julian Assange through this, it would definitely be front page news. Otherwise, it is just a good get by the FBI. Mark Hurd (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral but leaning oppose. Seems like a P.R. gambit.--WaltCip (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral but leaning oppose as article is still a stub. EdwardLane (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This seems to be more than PR, LulzSec has been big news lately. Thue | talk 10:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The article has been expanded since. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I understand the concerns expressed above, but lean towards support here. In the context of the ongoing technology/internet/hacking narrative, this seems relevant and important doktorb wordsdeeds 12:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is a rare and interesting development. The FBI didn't just infiltrate a group, they seem to have created it as a way to catch other crackers. Update is reasonable. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Golbez and FormerIP. Even though it's received a lot of media coverage, the actual impact on international events isn't as significant.  Spencer T♦ C 02:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support These are a number of hackers arrested who participated in high profile hacks. Plus this ties Julian Assange to hacking which may result in chages against him. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mild Oppose per Golbez and FormerIP - also of note the potential Assange link is reported by the Guardian reference to be just speculation at the moment. Wait until evidence does link to him or something else significant then go again. EdwardLane (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - An interesting and important story, with political and tech implications. FBI involvement in this puts the story in ITN-worthy range. Jus  da  fax   14:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Golbez and high dislike of the title "world's most notorious computer hacker", if posted it should be something like "LulzSec's leader Sabu" or something.  Snowolf How can I help? 14:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See how little the world cared after a few days? Speciate (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Robert B. Sherman

 * Oppose Unfortunately, in our world of promotion of the personality, there is often a disproportionate relationship between the acclaim of the product and acclaim of the producer. Sherman never generated the interest in himself as a person that equalled the recognition of his work.  His haul of awards ( headlined by 2 Oscars and one Grammy) is not exceptional, and would be equalled by many people dying in any given year.  Kevin McE (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Kevin, I respect your very well phrased views but disagree. The brothers, as a unit, were exceptional in their field, and the achievement of writing "more motion-picture musical scores than any other...team in film history" is not to be dismissed. I take your points, absolutely, but the tick-box exercise in this case would be, I feel, unfair. I think this is a nomination which has great merit doktorb wordsdeeds 19:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support one of the biggest and most influential songwriters of all time. Everyone who were born after 1950 or so, grew up listening to his work with Disney, and his work still has an impact to present day. I agree with Doktorbuk, it's not the average songwriter you dealing with. Secret account 05:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral Kevin and Doktorbuk both make compelling arguments. One thing which would help is a "reactions" subsection in the death section. Reactions from other important figures in the field would bolster notability. On an unrelated note, how is death a minority topic? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what happens when you copy and paste templates :) Removed.  I ♦  A  10:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support clearly influential songwriters. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  23:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article isn't up to par I don't think, as it's mostly lists. While I appreciate the importance of this guy's contributions, I don't think he's famous enough to merit an ITN death item. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

UP election

 * Why can't you write like that in your votes? :( YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Took a lot of edits ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Conditional Support: Exit polls indicate a potentially hung assembly with an SP majority. Would not recommend posting unless a government is formed. The blurb need not mention that UP is the world's largest sub-national democracy. While that can form part of the rationale for notability, thats not part of the news and I doubt "democracy" as a noun is used for sub-national entities (I may be wrong on the second point). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Govt wont form for a while if it turns out as expeced but thats never a rationale by [precedent...though agree "worlds largest" can be left out...also not a MAJORITY if hng ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well well...my have a CM decided today itself. Samajwadi leading STRONGLY and more than expected. rahul gaadn's flop campaign. Hahah! Jai NO!
 * SP could win outright and well have new CM to pos. WTF?Lihaas (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Sub national is still sub national, largest or not. We apply same argument for US many times. We post indian elections, stick to that -- Ashish-g55 12:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * in the us it doesnt meet such a criteria... - btw, we posted WB election (see above)Lihaas (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I really oppose the posting of anything except national elections unless they have some significant impact on global affairs, which this election doesn't seem to. Haven't really seen much coverage – seems to be hidden in foreign affairs on most major news sources. A small note: if this is posted, I'd prefer to see "largest" sub-national changed to "most populous" sub-national entity.  I ♦  A  16:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have great sympathy for this nomination but ultimately it is a sub-national poll and therefore we must be strict in deciding its worth. For front page coverage, it does not meet the crucial requirements we would usually expect. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although it's the largest subnational election, it does not have the same international-level repercussions that even small national elections do. I'd consider supporting though if there were major elections protests or something like that.  Spencer T♦ C 21:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to grant an exception to "subnational" federal-entity elections when the article is good enough and there's a lot of interest among the readership. However, our readership from India remains fairly modest relative to the size of the country, due to issues of wealth and language. And while there may be significant interest from outside of the country in the case of, say, Scotland, I don't think that will be the case here. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Geir Haarde

 * Oppose posting the beginning of trial, will reconsider on verdict. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Brazzaville arms dump blasts

 * Support Seems very harsh with that information about the deaths and injures, and with the collective information and attention paid in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Marcus   Qwertyus   22:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Significant loss of domestic and international lives. YuMaNuMa Contrib 00:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * comment article isin poor shape right now with small paras. will need expansion first.Lihaas (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Major disaster. I have substantially expanded the article, so it now ready to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - per above. Jus  da  fax   05:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant loss of lives. Suggest changing "blasts" to "explosions" in the blurb.  I ♦  A  06:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ralph McQuarrie

 * Oppose. Does not meet the ITN death criteria nor is the death out of the ordinary: he died of old age. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Long-time artist? Wikifan Be nice  19:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Suitable for recent deaths, but not enough notable character for the ITN criteria, even if many Wikipedians are Star Trek fans.. --hydrox (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Szczekociny train collision
At least 15 people were killed after a train accident in south of Poland. Please improve the article - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  08:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * so sure this was gong to come up here. WP is not NEWS, WikiNews is. it should beposted there on tacked on to the listof railways accidents 2012, or something of the sort.Lihaas (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Please improve the article"? If you're serious about nominating it you should be the one improving the article... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is fine as it is for ITN posting. Opposing the inclusion of the event on ITN as we recently had a train diaster much worse than this. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment we don't let recently posted similar items prevent a steady stream of celebrity deaths, film awards, or European bickering.--76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But we should. Speciate (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, sad but boring. Speciate (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't care whether it's boring, or similar to other recent stories. It's a good enough story in its own right. If it happened in London or DC, it'd be a shoo-in. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I can't believe someone has opposed this on the grounds of it being "boring". What do you want, live pictures of deaths? doktorb wordsdeeds 19:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By "boring", I think they meant tragic but commonplace. --FormerIP (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Train collisions with such casualities and attention are not that common, or we haven't posted such for a long time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Postedon what? this is not a minority topic with borderline "Consensus"Lihaas (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Russian presidential election

 * Support This will go down to the wire. Don't rush into anything until we are sure who the winner is. 68.173.40.191 (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Everythings suggesting a first round Putin win, which if its true should be known in 12 hours (or little over)Lihaas (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Presidential election in a country is automatically notable for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - With public outcry over fraud, this is doubly notable. Marcus   Qwertyus   22:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * President Medvedev personally falsified the elections!  Grey Hood   Talk  23:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support lol at the comment above, as if anyone expected to hear anything else from the Russian marginal opposition (note that so far all candidates except the runner-up acknowledged their loss and congratulated Putin). Grey Hood   Talk  23:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Putin is updated. There is some stuff on his election campaign as well. Grey Hood   Talk  23:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think "Putin is elected President of Russia" is neutral. What went on there isn't regarded as a free election (the opposition wasn't even allowed to run for the presidency). So "Putin is announced as the winner of the contested election amid allegations of fraud…" or something would be better. Note that Russia is not regarded as a democracy by reputable sources (Democracy Index), so they don't have elections that are considered free. Tataral (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Typical whingeing oppposition losses aside, elected doesnt mean "freely" and its standard practice on all election articles henceneautral. (no surprise on western reactions of "alleged voter fraud") How did we post 2000 US elections if it was around?Lihaas (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The United States is considered a full democracy. Unlike Russia, which is considered a dictatorship (authoritarian regime). It's something self-contradictory about dictatorships having "elections" where people aren't even allowed to vote for the opposition. Tataral (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * well thats your opinion from the arbiterof all things the "economist"!
 * Ha! Iran is less democratic than the gulf arab states? Please! Bahrain, Qatar, Uae and Oman?!Lihaas (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not here to pass judgement on the freeness of elections. It was an election in name, so he was "elected". No other word for it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Posting - it is not Wikipedia's job to decide what is or is not a legitimate election. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Change blurb I don't think he was technically "re-elected" since he wasn't the sitting president at the time of the election. This is the first term of his second ascension to the office. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Elected" was the term used in the proposed blurb; saw no reason to deviate from that unless something will be added on you-know-what. – H T  D  02:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I've changed it to simply "elected". --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this a case of Wikipedia leading the news? I haven't seen any media report of anything other than partial results. FormerIP (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 98.5% reporting no need to wait for last 1.5% to report. It's not like we (or anyone once) normally waits until the last vote is counted, which can take weeks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit Request I say someone puts an asterisk next to elected or quotation marks around it and add another phrase with a link to controversies surrounding the election. Houstonbuildings (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, it is not Wikipedia/ITN's place to question the legitimacy of an election. Doing so would certainly not be NPOV. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit Request Can we at least add "... for a second time."? Mark Hurd (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, done. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather odd edit request. He has been elected for a third time: alternatively, he has become president for the second time.  Current blurb is factually wrong. Kevin McE (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

First democratic Chinese election

 * Oppose "Notable first election in china" - Elections, including by-elections, are common in China, regardless of what western media attempts to purvey. A municipal election is not ITN material. 72.139.168.93 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, agree with IP. Elections do take place all the time and there is nothing special about this despite all the propaganda. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * that this is democratic with int; monitors is not first? what precdence for this in China?Lihaas (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See Elections in the People's Republic of China. Village elections have been held regularly (more or less) for over twenty years; this seems to be an unusual case due to the context, but the fact of contested local elections is not apparently unique. Shimgray &#124; talk &#124; 17:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's article on Wukan is so deficient that I can't recommend covering their election at ITN at this time. People are going to want to know where exactly Wukan is, and Wikipedia's article doesn't say, nor does it provide any of the typical information one would expect for a municipality. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the Wukan article is slim, but the election article is better and so is the Siege of Wukan article. I believe the notability here is that it's a secret ballot, which the Financial Times is reporting as a first for the... [Removed vicious attacks/SOAPBOXing which could only harm the discussion]--76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Secret ballots are relatively common at local elections, I believe - they're mandated by law, though don't always happen and are often distrusted (which begs the question of how trusted they are this time!). The form of the election here, as far as I can see, doesn't materially differ from the normal ones; it's the fact that it's a "special election" which is unusual. Shimgray &#124; talk &#124; 18:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's patently obvious that we cannot call this the "First democratic Chinese election", so until something else is identified to make the event notable, and the blurb is changed to say that, there is nothing to post. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Oppose posting the election of a village committee, even if that village had a civil disturbance last year. I also find it extremely hard to compare this with the WB elections (in terms of both scale and consequences). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] BP agrees to pay $7.8 billion

 *  Oppose  They are called BP, not British Petroleum. If you don't know that you shouldn't be suggesting this ITN. Leaky  Caldron  13:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the abbreviation of the same name and the long one is still not out of usage. First I checked the article and then decided to put British Petroleum. If you recommend to use "BP", better will be the more exact "BP p.l.c.".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not an abbreviation of the same name: it is a new (and not even very new any more) name derived from the old name. plc is a legal status, not the name of the Company.  Kevin McE (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Legally it is a new name but it derives as abbreviation of the old one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Kiril. BP was adopted in 2001 - 11 years ago. This was a "mistake" many American politicians seemed happy to make when they were hounding BP 2 years ago. What it might or might not derive from is completely irrelevant.  Leaky  Caldron  13:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I found in some media that "British Petroleum (BP)" is used and thought it could be more comprehensive for the readers. Since it's a commonly made mistake we won't simply use it. Many media also use the whole name "BP Plc".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support regardless of how the name of the company is spelled. -- Jayron  32  14:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support now. It's nothing to do with spelling, it's to do with getting an organisation's long-standing, well established name correct. Leaky  Caldron  14:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your pedantry is greatly unappreciated. --  tariq abjotu  20:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some more update in the article itself. Though the paragraph is lengthy, there's just one sentence about the settlement. Surely more can be written. --Tone 14:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * comment itsnot about the name of the ocompany, as the 2 supports suggest, its about REASONS for posting whihc are COMPLETELY ignored and not even mentioned, since we dont VOTE COUNT for consensus...there has been no ONE reason for support here yet.Lihaas (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Proposed settlement is not only massive, it marks an important new stage in the litigation of what is one of the greatest eco-disasters in human history. Agree that a one sentence update needs fleshing out, however.  Jus  da  fax   04:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have fleshed out the update (2 paragraphs now) and support posting - lawsuits of this magnitude rarely, if ever, are seen. Major development in one of the worst environmental disasters in history. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thanks Thad, and agree that the update is now presentable. Suggest we mark as 'ready.' Jus  da  fax   06:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose BBC News is reporting that the case is still ongoing, wait until all the legal cases are concluded. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  06:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a settlement though. Any further legal action / settlements will take months/years. This settlement stands irrespective of future litigation and as pointed out above, is unique in its scale. Leaky  Caldron  11:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The court approving the settlement is just a formality, and will not be news; nor will the paying of individual claims. The settlement being reached is the only logical time to post the story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. A major development.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose companies settle out of court all the time, kill people all the time, and poison the environment all the time. In fact, settling out of court is the norm. If this was the biggest settlement ever, then maybe, or if it went to trial and a judgement was handed down by the court, then probably. Right now it's just W agrees to pay X in damages to Y resulting from Z. Sorry, no. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, companies settle out of court "all the time" (collectively, they also go to trial often), but the largest environmental disaster in history does not reach its court conclusion all the time. Additionally, it is not just "X agrees to pay Y" - many/most commentators are saying it marks a significant turning point in disaster's aftermath and BP's history as a whole.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Add fact tag. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] US Tornado outbreak
support however article is awful right now. too much unconfirmed and unreferenced data -- Ashish-g55 05:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * comment I'm pretty sure this is common for tornado outbreaks, you have some sightings, and it takes weeks to get the teams down there to assess the EF rating and the tornado track, and to usually reduce the number of tornadoes, as some may be double reported. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire table is sourced to the official gov't website. I will work on improving the quality of the text portion tomorrow if no one gets to it sooner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To put this in perspective, the United States averages only 60-65 deaths a year from tornadoes...this is nearly half of them in one day outside of the main tornado season. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 06:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, a rare outbreak, many casualties and the article is in a good shape now. --Tone 13:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Needs a map (US weather service must have something) and a blurb explaining why this outbreak is unique. I get that it's early, article needs to say that. Compare to April_14–16,_2011_tornado_outbreak. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt support, or weakly at most, but its been 2 days and it has suome support. Update is also bug but crapply sourced.Lihaas (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The leap day outbreak killed at least 13, but this one was predicted early on to be the most devastating and/or intense since the April 27-28, 2011 outbreak. Casualties were reported in Indiana, Ohio, Alabama and Kentucky, and several towns including Marysville and Henryville were wiped off the map, with many others similarly devastated, including Salyersville and West Liberty in Kentucky. I've updated the blurb as per . ~ AH1 (discuss!) 17:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, exceptional outbreak that's also been notable and talked about over the pond. --Nutthida (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I put in some more references, so it looks pretty well referenced now. I still need to fill out most of the parameters in the reference templates, but the references are there. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Tone--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN-worthy, as noted above. Suggest we post asap, thanks. Jus  da  fax   04:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Urgh, post ASAP, the current lead story is about that musician who died five days ago.--Nutthida (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

EU new fiscal treaty

 * Support but the proposed blurb is not neutral. "Should prevent..." according to who? --FormerIP (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead use "meant to prevent", rather than "that should prevent". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but the blurb is slightly misleading, as not all leaders signed the treaty. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I slightly modified the blurb after the comments above. The beginning with "Leaders of 25" exactly states the number of countries that signed it, and "meant to" instead of "should" sounds better to me as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Treaty was only drawn up to placate Germany, and has no power yet. Will support (maybe) on 2013-01-01 if the minimum number of countries has ratified it so that it comes into force. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with IP above. --bender235 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * support when it goes into effect...although a multilateral treaty is always notable (SHOULD even be on ITNR)Lihaas (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3+ countries sign meaningless agreements all the time, so it most certainly should not be ITNR. No opinion on this one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Opposed when announced, said I would support when it actually takes effect, the signing is just symbolic, it still needs to be ratified by national parliaments and pass at least one public vote so wait till it actually comes into force. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  07:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Serbia candidate status

 * might be notable, and more so when the news is slow, but i think just candidate status is not ITN worthy. waiting till their referendum/accession is better. though i cant understand the reason for the move...nothing progressing with kosovo. probs the govt will lose next election. how will albania/serbia be in the process together, not to mention universal kosovo recognition as er EU whims and fantasies ;)Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC) 111111
 * Meh. I'd be much more willing to support when full membership is granted.  -- Jayron  32  05:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

question, what is "candidate status"?--Feroang (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, we regularly post significant developments towards EU membership and granting the candidate status is significant. Accession of Serbia to the European Union is a better article to highlight. --Tone 07:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is a slow and lumbering process, there won't be another update for some time. Agree with Tone on article to link. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This WP quote might explain: "There are at present five "candidate countries", who have applied to the EU and been accepted in principle.[5] These states have begun, or will begin shortly, the accession process by adopting EU law to bring the states in line with the rest of the Union." (from Future_enlargement_of_the European Union). I 'support (via Tone and 76.18...), BTW. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nothing significant, when it joins come back. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  07:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. The candidate status brings political changes, together with beginning of modifications of legislature during the accession talks and bilateral relations overall. I believe we've also posted stories when Iceland, Montenegro and Macedonia became candidates in the recent years. --Tone 11:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt it'll become a member anytime soon. Kosovo will be a problem for awhile (Northern Cyprus has been a problem even though no EU state recognises it), and once Croatia is in I bet they'll have something to say about Serbia's entry. Because of this candidate status is significant; it took place despite the major problems Serbia faced and still faces. CMD (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Breitbart dead

 * Famed conservative Andrew Breitbart has died .  Sort of similar to Chris Hitchens, who was posted earlier this year.  Midnite Joker (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think he had that much impact even within the U.S., and he had no impact worldwide. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose exactly per the nom. Why should we give undeserved attention to these people?--WaltCip (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not fair, he deserved something. Speciate (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, US-centric. Speciate (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose fails all of the WP:ITN/DC criteria. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  19:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not US-centric at all because even in the US this isn't that significant.  Swarm   X 19:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Breitpart played a major role in internet politics and was a leading american conservative. link, link, link. if he died of old age then maybe not but this was a premature death and has generated responses of american presidential candidates. This isn't a strong support, but it's been a slow week. Wikifan Be nice  19:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a tendency to overaggrandize a person's importance in their obits and post-death analysis. I live in the U.S. and follow the news and politics, and barely knew who Breitbart was before his death.  I was vaguely aware of him and knew who he was, of course, but only as one of the endless "talking heads" and pundits that appear on various cable news and radio talk shows.  Sure, he was a public figure, but I don't think he particularly seperated himself from the pack, as it were, so I don't think his death rises to that of the level we'd normally expect of ITN.  If someone like Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh were in this situation, I think it'd be a no-brainer support, but Breitbart simply doesn't rise to that level.  It is sad that he has died, but there are many sad deaths of public figures every day.  -- Jayron  32  20:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per Swarm. Who? At least Jones below I can see the significance on. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment' "I live in the U.S. and follow the news and politics, and barely knew who Breitbart was before his death." Doesn't matter. What you knew is not the threshold for inclusion. the reality is breitbart was an important figure in internet politics (even leading a campaign to unseat a congressman) and sources say that. ITN is not about what editors think. Wikifan Be nice  20:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct about that. Which is why what you think is also not the threshold for inclusion.  -- Jayron  32  20:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The difference is I'm merely reciting what sources tell us. Everything in my comment is verifiable. Wikifan Be nice  21:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources still need to be evaluated by other editors against their interpretation of the ITN criteria. Which is what I and others have done.  Providing sources and reciting what they say does not yet, as far as I am aware, result in something being instantly posted at WP:ITN.  Instead, there is a discussion over the merits of the sources, and over the merits of the suggestion.  So far, I have given my interpretations, as have you.  Thankfully, other people will be by shortly, and indeed some have before you even posted, to give their interpretations, so we don't have to rely on merely the two of us.  You see, this is how Wikipedia works.  We don't purely rely on my word, or on your word.  Other people get to give their perspective as well!  Isn't that great!  -- Jayron  32  21:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is editors didn't even recognize the sources. They rejected the ITN candidate whole-sale. All the opposes here are weak at best. Death has elicited reactions from three presidential candidates, as well as former presidential candidates, and prominent politicians. Wikifan Be nice  22:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I opposed it, not "whole-sale", but because it doesn't meet WP:ITN/DC. The deceased (1) is not a high ranking official, nor did he have a major impact on the U.S., (2) he is not regarded as an important journalist, and (3) there are no international ramifications. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How is he not regarded as an important journalist? Because you disagree with him? Midnite Joker (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because his most notable accomplishment is getting Shirley Sherrod's forced resignation. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Or Weinergate Midnite Joker (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose not significant enough. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Simply not in the news. No hits on internal search of "Breitbart" on lemonde.fr or on speigel.de; 2 hits on elpais.es, the most recent of which was in 2006.  Kevin McE (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't the French, German, or Spanish wikipedia. Midnite Joker (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the coverage like in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Britain, etc? (Outside of Murdoch). Speciate (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in the top 21 non-UK stories on the BBC News site


 * He easily meets ITN qualifications. Huffingtonpost is a world-ranked news site. He is a mainstream conservative columnist in the US. ITN has latitude when it comes to posting certain high profile deaths. Problem IMO is politics, not note-worthiness. Wikifan Be nice  22:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing remarkable, or ITNworthy, about simply being "a columnist". Kevin McE (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said Brietbart was "simply" a columnist. We have posted far less noteworthy individuals. Wikifan Be nice  23:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * dont see why this should beclosed as not likely to go up...using that logic ALL ITN noms par about 20% would be closed.Lihaas (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)