[Posted] Gaddafi's son dies in airstrike

links: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/30/libya.gadhafi.son.killed/, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13251434, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/30/libya-idUSLDE73T0D120110430, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_libya

• Support as nom -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unusual that a sitting head of state's family was targeted.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I believe Gaddafi was only several hundred metres away. Perhaps this was a mistake or something. Nonetheless, this is pretty newsworthy. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Correction, I confused Said al-Arab with Saif-al-Islam. Still a huge story, for the direct attack on the dictator's family, and for the death of his children and grandchildren. Still a big deal for the ongoing civil war, for public perception of foreign intervention, and for NATO's role. Ocaasi ^c 00:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, let's hold our horses. Do we have independent confirmation of his death? And by "independent confirmation", I mean a source other than Libyan state media. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is all over WP:RS HJ . that is what counts. All the dictators of the world probably are waiting to read about it on WP. it appears gadhafi was in the same house but was "not hurt" even though the house was flattened.(VoA)--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is short and was only created recently (since the war started), and even then only ostensibly because he's a son of Gaddafi and apparently got into a fight. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the article would probably fail AFD if it was nominated in circumstances other than the current (because we all know that developing news stories always survive AFD nowadays). I would prefer for the focus of the blurb to be on the Libyan war, and not Gaddafi's son. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've come full circle over this one. This blurb was the first I have heard about it and I thought inclusion was a no-brainer. Then on reading up I see he is one of six sons, and the lowest profile of the lot. At that point I was questioning whether this really is significant enough to merit inclusion by itself. But remembering my initial reaction I now figure that plenty of people will want to read up about him to put the story into context. That is the very point of ITN: to highlight content pertinent to what the mass media are reporting.
  I do understand HJ Mitchell's concerns but do not share them. For many countries the word of the national government would be regarded as authoritative in its own right. Here that may not necessarily be the case but here I feel we can take the facts as established. The Libyan government would look idiotic if someone who is dead reappears alive and well - they simply aren't going to make that kind of error or propaganda stunt. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • "That is the very point of ITN: to highlight content pertinent to what the mass media are reporting." Not quite. I believe we're working on moving away from that and towards highlighting good content pertinent to the news. This article is anything but, at the moment, and does not meet the update requirements yet. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is essentially the self-serving viewpoint. The other would be the user-centric view. Any news story is subject to ongoing developments. The article in question is unusually active but that reflects the level of interst in the story. Bear in mind that "Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi" is not a name that the average western ear can readily commit to memory and actually transcribe a period of time later. How many people are going to come here looking for "Gaddifi's son... can't remember his name"? We have basic biographical details and some additional context of the form not usually carried in news reports - why should we not promote that? Trust the reader to be able to see this is an ongoing story and exercise judgement accordingly. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is not stable at the moment, it needs to settle down a little before posting. RxS (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose even assuming he's really dead - and his death was caused as claimed in a state-controlled media - children of world leaders who die are generally not newsy - this guy's barely notable much less of the caliber of noteworthiness to report in the ITN deaths. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very valid point. Why are we relaxing ITN death standards "just because" the guy's Gaddafi's son? He's not seemingly inherently notable, and definitely far less notable than any of the recently-dead people nominated for ITN below. Double standards, much? Agree fully with Carlos. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The news is not notable because he was notable, but because his death occurred in the context of a major assault in an ongoing conflict. The death in the context of the war is what's notable. If he died during a car accident on a peaceful Sunday, it would not be news. That's not what happened. Ocaasi ^c 00:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. His notability is not just that he was the son of Libyan head of state. It is that he is the first son of a head of state ever to be assassinated by NATO. most western countries generally frown on targeted killings of dictators/family. this appears to be a targeted attack in a residential district.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In which case, then surely either the "major assault" or the "ongoing conflict" would be the article to bold, and not the person who died. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • would have no problem with that also.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • That would be my preference. I'm not in principle against posting this story, since it clearly is huge, but how we present the blurb is important and I would oppose any blurb focussing on the dead man or which did not state that these were only reports. Just to be clear, I support the story, just not in its present form. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would suggest the blurb be refocussed and take HJ's concerns into account: Libyan state media report the death of Muammar Gaddafi's youngest son in a NATO airstrike on Tripoli amid ongoing conflict.

  Updated accordingly. Ocaasi ^c 00:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: This certainly sounds like a targeted killing, in which case it may raise a stink with several countries, especially since the initial UN approval was taken saying that Gadaffi won't be specifically targeted. In addition, this guy led the assault against the rebels at the start of the uprisings IIRC, so he was something like a de facto top level leader in the Gaddafi regime. Chamal ^T•C 03:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're thinking of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. This is Saif al-Arab. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, right... my bad. It seems he didn't hold any political positions either. But according to this he was involved in suppressing the rebels as well. Chamal ^T•C 03:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The man seems to have been sixth in line to the Libyan throne and kept a low profile. It may raise a stink but the stink hasn't happened yet. --candle•wicke 04:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We're rewritten the blurb to reflect that the airstrikes were the main event, not just the death of Saif al-Arab. In sum, the death of three members of the regime's leader's family by a NATO strike is the news. Ocaasi ^c 04:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Sixth in line to the Libyan throne?" Unless you're talking about the Senussi family, can we keep a lid on the political commentary? Nightw 06:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - notable story and getting substantial news coverage. Jusdafax 08:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if and only if the airstrikes are the main event. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, notable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 15:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose and pull''' its not confirmed yet [1]Lihaas (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas, we give attribution and this story is all over the news. We could perhaps emphasize the 'report' slightly more, but this is newsworthy at the moment, even if it's a tactic (which the article on his death actually discusses). Ocaasi ^c 17:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ernesto Sabato

- Nomination of a notable writer. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I unfortunately see very little in the writer's article that makes him exceptionally notable, and he did die of natural causes at the age of 99. He may be very notable in Argentina, but I can't speculate on that.--WaltCip (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, I don't see the notability either. I would also expect his "notable works" (in the sidebar) to have decent articles, but that isn't the case. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It isn't always the case. BBC - "very influential in the literary world throughout Latin America" and "won some of the most prestigious prizes in Hispanic literature". Canadian Press - He "led the government's probe of crimes committed by Argentina's dictatorship" and "received the French Legion of Honor, the Medici Prize of Italy and Spain's Cervantes Prize, the most respected award in Spanish letters". World reaction to his death, including "he had surpassed the world of literature to gain a more iconic status". Reuters - "His first novel, "The Tunnel," was hailed after its release in 1948 as an existentialist classic and won him fans including Thomas Mann and Albert Camus" (Nobel laureates 1929 and 1957 respectively, if anyone didn't know who they were). --candle•wicke 19:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all very interesting. I wish it were included in the article.--WaltCip (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it is? --candle•wicke 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent in which you detailed, not really. I saw various mentions of awards and fellow writers, but not really any establishment of their notability until you brought it up here.--WaltCip (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the above is not in the article? --candle•wicke 01:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This death, at the age of 99, is not significant. It is material suitable for "recent deaths" -- linked to from ITN -- but not ITN itself. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Dead from old age => send to recent deaths. Thue | talk 11:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think he's significant enough as a death to be posted here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. His list of awards seems pretty significant. He got front page treatment on El Pais and there's been plenty of coverage.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Ando wins Gold medal

• Japan's Miki Ando beats Yuna Kim of South Korea with less than half a point for the gold medal at the 2011 World Figure Skating Championships.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source for this news.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support, only as an update to the current blurb and changing the present item to a more standard "X wins the men's and Y wins the women's event in Z sport". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I say post ASAP.--HelloKitta (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really not how we work. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support it is or should be on ITNR as the world cup of its sportiLihaas (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: At the moment, we have a story that highlights the record score. Otherwise, there are four events here - men, women, pairs and dance, so posting just men and women would do the other two injustice. Postion all four winners would make the blurb too long. So I'd stay with the present blurb. --Tone 17:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for Strange Passerby's proposal. I understand Tone's concern but while I'm no expert when it comes to figure skating, it seems the men's and women's titles are the ones with greatest prestige. An unusually close result does not amount to a record IMHO. Mention of the hastily re-arranged hosting following the Japan earthquake would be welcome as well, but again I recognise the same space constraints make that difficult. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support update to current blurb, oppose adding it as a stand alone blurb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RxS (talk • contribs)

The singles' events are by far the more prestigious of the championships. Similar to how we post the singles' winners at a tennis major, but not any of the three doubles titles. Courcelles 00:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I woudn't agree with that analogy to tennis, but the singles titles are the main ones.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update? I don't see an update, so I removed [Ready]. -- tariqabjotu 05:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If we post this item and don't post the Apple vs. Microsoft story below we look to be in a position where we are going to posting more figure skating stories than we've posted business stories since January. That's absurd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 05:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand then we have a situation where we published the mens gold medalist news for figure skating but not the womens winner. We cant discriminate against females. right?--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one is just waiting for an article update and has no opposes, that's different from Apple vs Microsoft which has seem several opposes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be fair I think it's an issue of sport vs business, not figure skating. And also I think the consensus is here that teh blurb will be updated, not added. Which I support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly I was just a little annoyed this morning. I don't think too much needs reading into my point here :). There is more productive discussion on WT:ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Erhard Loretan

An unexpected death and one that occurred while he was doing what made him famous. It was also his birthday. I think it passes 2. The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such. BBC - "One of the few people to have reached the summits of all 14 mountain peaks above 8,000m (26,247ft)". The Guardian - "Loretan's 1986 ascent of Mount Everest, without bottled oxygen and in a night-time push that took just 40 hours, stunned the climbing world". --candle•wicke 01:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle. Oppose on article length and quality. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, he's the third person to climb all the eight thousanders. The article does need significant work. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment of Merceditas Gutierrez

It seems she has resigned now. When they voted to impeach her it was posted. --candle•wicke 01:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this particular case posting the vote was enough. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a feeling she'd resign anyway, although the timing was bad; people were pissed she did it on the day of the royal wedding lol. The decision to post the impeachment, and not the senate vote, turned out to be right. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Syria update or sticky?

≥62 people have died across the country in fresh protests. Seems ripe for an update, if not a sticky. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support sticky Look at this for the response at international level to what has been going in Bahrain, Yemen's capital has been flooded with 100,000 protesters and Libya has been quietly invading Tunisia. --candle•wicke 00:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support sticky lots happening in Syria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support sticky per Eraserhead1 and Candlewicke -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest the sticky be titled "Syrian unrest". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted (as sticky). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the others? --candle•wicke 20:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rate of events occurring elsewhere in the ME don't quite warrant sticky yet and should be nominated individually. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose repressive regime slaughtering protesters has become so commonplace to hardly be "news" - will this be above the fold in any quantity of respected newspapers? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why this is now a sticky, rather than rolling updates on ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Article updated] Apple Inc makes more profit than Microsoft

After overtaking in market capitalisation last year, Apple has finally made more profit than Microsoft in a single quarter. Arstechnica. For Apple to have turned themselves from the tiny company that they were in 1997 into the worlds biggest tech company, and now one that's more profitable than Microsoft is a really interesting tech story that's been building for a few years now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Limited interest business story.--WaltCip (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? Apple and Microsoft have been rivals for a very long time and both companies have been extremely innovative in the tech spec and have a huge prescence. And we haven't posted the rise of Apple before. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• From the Guardian: "The overshadowing of Microsoft's financial might by Apple will be seen by some as marking a key moment in the industry" [2]. It then goes on to talk about the meteoric rise of the iPad and iPhone. And of course, almost all of us on PCs are using MS Windows. As the nom notes, Apple was already bigger by value and market capitalization [3]. We did not post the last turning point, with one person saying (word search Apple) that revenues were the real metric, which is what we have now. Others opposed because the two might trade spots. I'd say with the iPad doing so well, Apple should be on top for some time. Support posting.--Chaser (away) - talk 13:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support: So Apple's ridiculous overpricing has finally paid off... ;) One of the industry giants overtaking the one that has been in the lead so far is a big event and the media is making a big deal out of it, but Apple has earned most of that through products like the iphone and ipad, an area where microsoft is lagging behind. Microsoft gets the majority of their earnings from their software, mainly windows, where it beats Apple easily. Because of this difference, I'm not sure if this is as big as they make it out to be. But then I suppose it's the end result that counts, and this is what the experts say. Chamal ^T•C 14:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, Microsoft's downfall is largely due to their losses in the Online Services Division. Apparently, otherwise it could have been a different story. Chamal ^T•C 00:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This isnt that big bit of news in the scheme of things. This was an eventuality which was expected some time soon. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When are we ever going to post a tech/business story? Or are silly issues going to be found every single time? Microsoft vs. Apple is a classic business rivalry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to disagree: this event marks a shift in the long-time rivalry between Apple and Microsoft, which reflects and builds on the market mood, consumer preferences, technology development directions, etc. If this shift needs to be noted ever, this is a good occasion, although it might be only a symbolic milestone. Crnorizec (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this really capstones the transition of an entire of the entire computing/tech/mobile industry. Not every event has a 'bam' quality to it. Some creep up over years and years and then are just pointed out as markers of the change. Ocaasi ^c 18:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the article's now updated marking [Ready?] as I'm WP:INVOLVED. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No there is not even a weak consensus. I have removed it until actual consensus solidifies. There is not deadline this is still timely for several days yet. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: significant shift in the technology market. Crnorizec (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Apple was all but dead some years back. This is a remarkable story of major notability. Worldwide interest as well. Jusdafax 01:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking [Ready], only one non WP:IDONTLIKEIT oppose and lots of support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You shouldn't be the one making that decision. There's a reason why admins who participate in AFDs aren't the ones who close them.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I did it the consensus was very clear. Theres no point in bureaucracy for bureaucracies sake. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with WaltCip there - this was not a routine addition. You'd already added it once, it was removed, and you then added it again, despite as you acknowledge being an involved editor. You were also very dismissive of contributor's positions: you could argue that they WaltCip's position was poorly developed but it is a valid evaluation of the blurb. Adding a ready tag also has the effect of closing off debate at a point in time favourable to you. In any case, the administrator's guidance for this page is clear - it is their responsibility to decide if and when a valid consensus has been reached. In that respect any Ready tag is completely pointless. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
          • At the point of it being added yesterday morning there were five well argued supports including the nomination (support !votes don't need a bold support to count) and a weak support (though one that was well argued). On the other side there was one WP:IDONTLIKEIT oppose and one well argued oppose. At best for the opposes it was 5 supports (including the nomination) vs 2 opposes. And that misses the fact that the substantial oppose !vote had two (at worst) counterarguments made against it. No uninvolved person could realistically have judged consensus at that point any other way that I did given the facts so being involved shouldn't have been an issue.
          • First I had added a [Ready?] which just means that I think the article was updated as the consensus at that point was less clear - Next time I'll use [Article updated] initially. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 04:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Single quarter reports cover a too short interval. A temporary increase in profits can come from the release of a single product (e.g. Ipad2) without being an indication of the overall situation. Don't post until/if Apple has a yearly profit greater than their current main rival, if you absolutely must post at all./Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You realise that Apple are in the lead over Microsoft by 700 million dollars? And that the media won't cover it again. Additionally the iPad 2 only came out at the end of the quarter, so its unlikely to have made a particularly big impact to Apple's profits. Additionally their iPad business over the whole quarter only made $2.8 billion in revenue. So what you've got to argue is that the iPad made an additional profit of 25% of that value which they wouldn't have ordinarily made, which is rather far fetched. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, not the Ipad2 then. As usual I made the mistake of using an example to argue a general point. The general point: A quarter is a too short interval of time to be an indicator of a general situation. If the media covers quarterly reports instead of yearly ones, then they are unfortunately looking for easy news instead of doing things properly and analysing actual long-term trends. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • even generally - when MS isn't about to release a new version of Windows or Office the chance of them making up 700 million is implausibly low. Especially when they beat their estimate too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The update needs some work. There's a lot of specualtion phrased to make it sound authoratative (like the whole sentence starting "One of the reasons for the change...") and a tendency towards praising Apple. I know it's difficult to write an account of David beating Goliath without making David sound like a hero, but it has to be done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll make some more effort today. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

apple didnt make the highest profits. they just made more profit than microsoft in 3 months. they are not really competing exactly in same areas and the time frame is quite small. singling out a company beating another will seem awfully biased of ITN. hence oppose -- Ashish-g55 18:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And MS is their key rival. There will be no media coverage of the annual profit, and as pointed out above they are leading by 700 million dollars - which is a hell of a margin and as pointed out to Coffeeshivers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It is a popular mass media comparison but how relevant is it really? Apple and Microsoft are in essentially different sub-sectors - one is primarily a hardware and consumer electronics company, the other primarily in software. That makes direct comparisons hazardous especially on quarterly earnings since the natural cycle of companies in different sectors is different. For example, IBM's earnings were broadly comparable for the previous quarter, but are much lower this time around. What does that tell us about the companies? Nothing, except they receive income at different times of year. Wait for the annualised figures that may show something of interest, and that might then be something worth posting. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Apple is a CE company, so their highest profits usually come in Q4. Additionally they are leading by 700 million dollars, as pointed out to Coffeeshivers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It the are "leading" that implies they haven't "won" yet. We don't post results half way through a race. Wait till year end results are out if at all. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noone will care at the end of the year (and anyway, which year, Microsoft's financial year - ends in June, Apple's financial year - ends in September, or the calendar year - ends in December). Leading is only used because Microsoft and Apple don't pack up and go home now, they keep competing. Obviously in the future Microsoft may re-take the lead, but they are extremely unlikely to do so next quarter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In the public's eye these 2 companies have been rivals for decades. This will interest our readers (and serve an interest that's already there). Not sure if the article is there yet but this is a natural. We're not here to be business analysts but to pick out articles that will draw readers in. RxS (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues pointed out by HJ Mitchell should be fixed. More mention of facts and figures. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a news update, Yahoo had this AP report on their homepage: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110429/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_apple_s_ripples Ocaasi ^c 17:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still divided on this one. I think that it's important, and I'm personally not opposed to tech items at all. This story though, it seems so... small, for some reason. It's two specific companies. Would we theoretically post a story about Ford vs. GM, or something like that? I don't think that we would... This is just too... "operational".
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two very important companies, that have a very well known rivalry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. It's just... nothing has really happened. I can understand that you're frustrated about this due to the history about posting this or similar items, but... I don't know. It's not as if one of them is going out of business, or anything like that. Sorry.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • But, hey, I did some copy editing on the article section. :)
          — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STS-134

Since we're discussing the wedding already, why not talk about the penultimate shuttle launch. Also of note, Gabby Giffords will attend. WhiteKongMan (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With such a little number of shuttle launches left, I don't mind posting them all. The article is in good shape. Maybe we can highlight the equipment it is carrying to space, Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer is a very decent article. --Tone 15:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't see why not! Marcus Qwertyus 16:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per above. Jusdafax 16:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The shuttle launch is WP:ITNR, although that's gotten some criticism recently. Support mentioning the AMS, which is a $1.5 billion instrument that may answer some important scientific questions (e.g., the existence of one type of dark matter). Giffords attendance seems a bit trivial, but it's overshadowing Obama's attendance at the same launch. Other thoughts on that?--Chaser (away) - talk 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and mention Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, of course. Second-to-last, featuring Gifford's husband, which is a fact widely discussed on the media. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that we should highlight the AMS, since getting it to this point has been such an ordeal. Hell, the AMS is the reason this flight is taking place at all.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Scrub for today, turn around at least 48 hours probably longer. RxS (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but hold for at least 48 (I read at least 72 somewhere) hours until the mission is ready to launch again. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 18:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton

• The Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton is to take place on 29 April. It will be the second royal wedding within a year since the wedding between Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling in Sweden in 2010.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Placing this on now for preparations for the subject to be placed on ITN at midnight perhaps, and the "two royal weddings within a year" hook might be good.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone opposes this I'll hit him/her with a baseball bat lol –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you on that. Perhaps the "two royal weddings within a year" hook might be good.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be placed on ITN at midnight? -- tariqabjotu 14:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A story that was ascended one year ago with its epilogue impatiently expected all the time through the media is a pure ITN topic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Note: Dont need supports for this. It will be posted -- Ashish-g55 14:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

says who? this is not ITNR and its not a given.

that said futile op[pose not int; noteworthy. he is NOT the king of any realm.Lihaas (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of god, everyone should take a refresher on what "international noteworthy" means and how that phrase has been abused to death in this page. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just who says he has to be king for this to be posted, Lihaas? Your oppose is clearly POINTy. StrPby (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no reason arguing with oppose points unless they become more numerous. -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support story on Royal wedding in the UNITED KINGDOM (not England! Old Liz is the queen of the United Kingdom and it's dependencies). As long as it's changed to the U.K., or not mention the country at all I'll be happy to support. However, I oppose including the fact it's the second Royal Wedding in a year - the two weddings were in entirely different countries and are completely unrelated. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liz is monarch of 16 independent nations, including Canada and Australia. Those are hardly dependencies. HiLo48 (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The question is when and what blurb to post. What we had back in June was The wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling takes place in Stockholm. If we go for this wording, we can post it when they ... hm, enter the Westminster Abbey? If we decide to post something in style Prince William marries Kate Middleton, then we should post it only when we hear the words "Now I pronounce you..". In any case, posting this on midnight does not seem a good idea to me. Also, the article will need to be updated in the process. --Tone 15:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say that posting it perhaps an hour before the event start would be for the best. Its not like Kate will be a runaway bride.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't ordinarily post an item before the event begins (and only occasionally post an item before the event ends). Why does this event warrant an exception? —David Levy 16:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no logic in mentioning the earlier wedding or posting the item at midnight. (What is the latter's significance? The item pertains to the event, not the day on which it will occur.)
  I agree with Tone's suggested timing, and I support using the same style of wording used last time (enabling the item's inclusion as soon as the wedding begins and the article has been appropriately updated, which is desirable given the enormous level of interest). —David Levy 16:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The risk of Kate or William changing their minds on the wedding is non-existing. To suggest that we should wait until they say "I do" seems a bit unnecessary. I say post it at around 9 on the morning of 29 april. That will give sufficient time for people unaware of this event to read trough the article and get to know the subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  But the wedding doesn't start til 11 (that's UTC+1, btw), so why should we post it at 9 or at any other arbitrary time? I concur with David. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with David and Mitchell, too. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, it's highly unlikely that the wedding will not occur. The same is true of the other scheduled events that receive ITN blurbs, including the handful for which we don't wait until they've concluded (e.g. the Olympics and similar).
  We can make a present-tense statement as soon as the ceremony begins and the article is appropriately updated. An advance blurb is unwarranted and would be misleading.
  Of the events receiving ITN blurbs, I doubt that there are many with greater public awareness, so the argument that it's incumbent upon us to spread the word (which isn't our responsibility under any circumstance) is far from compelling. —David Levy 17:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support posting when the admin posting posts it. Jusdafax 17:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest we wait until around noon GMT+1 as Kate may change her mind (being the bride's prerogative, of course) until then. I'm holding onto the hope she'll give me a last-minute call... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, there's a queue. ;) Since the wedding starts at 11, I'd say it's fairly safe to post it then, assuming Kate, Will and the Archbish are all in the abbey. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post it when it starts. Kate changing her mind would be a another ITN altogether lol. -- Ashish-g55 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think I'll be around to post it around 11 GMT then. The blurb in the same manner as for Princess Victoria. If there are any other ideas, let me know. --Tone 18:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the big fuss over when this gets posted. It's not like people don't know this is happening. When it gets posted is when it gets posted. So long as the blurb doesn't reference something that hasn't happened yet, it shouldn't matter. So midnight or 9am, London time, are both out. Sometime during the wedding is fine. However, if the blurb says they're married and they haven't said "I do" yet, it's wrong. Yes, it's highly improbable one of them bows out, but we do not predict the future. -- tariqabjotu 18:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post either at the beginning of the event, or at the moment they are officially married (it will be carried live). Abductive (reasoning) 20:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This kind of depends on what we consider the more major news item in this; the actual marriage between the two or the gigantic ceremonies (no doubt this will challenge for the record of largest worldwide tv audience). For my vote, I say we wait to post this until they are actually married. Posting this befre they get married could make us all look foolish if someone takes up the "speak now or forever hold your peace" chance. :P --PlasmaTwa2 22:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thats the part i wanna see. 2 billion people watching... pretty good incentive. someone has to be brave enough -- Ashish-g55 00:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support posting when marriage occurs. Also, please include mention that they've become Duke/Duchess of Cambridge through the marriage. --Dorsal Axe 07:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment an IP editor has commented that it should be posted before the wedding itself on Talk:Main Page - I kinda think they have a point, it could be posted now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point being that this is a major event being widely covered around the world? Oh, what a novel idea. Thank goodness that IP was there to tell us this! Seriously, s/he has provided no new position. It was known well in advance by surely all those who commented here that this would be widely watched and covered. With the wedding not even under way yet, we have nothing to post. It's starts... what? ... an hour from now. Can we bear some sort of patience? At least until then, even if not until the conclusion of the wedding? -- tariqabjotu 08:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here they are. Posting. --Tone 10:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Marrakech bombing

At least 16 deaths, 20 injured in a bomb attack in Morocco. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - definitly itn material.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone who knows French should farm some information from the French version of the article. -- tariqabjotu 19:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle. Oppose otherwise - article is no more than a stub and is largely unsourced and of quality otherwise unfit for the Main Page. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First verdicts: Protesters sentenced to death by military court

Lots going on Bahrain which has been ignored for a while. Most widely covered seems to be the first verdicts - death sentences and life imprisonment for protesters. Live rounds fired at protesters in Sitra. King of Saudi Arabia suddenly cancels trip to Bahrain. Bahrain's "torture service" official attending the royal wedding in London. Pilots suspended and ordered to return home from the UK after attending protests there. And some sport. --candle•wicke 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support when updated. Btw, the UK is giving out very different treatments to Syria. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling this section has more references than the appropriate section in the target article, if it exists. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell whether these death sentences are ITN-worthy or not. There are reports the prosecutors used a videotape of a car running over police officers in the trial. Either that tape is fabricated, which no one seems to claim, or it actually shows something far less sinister (for example, shots were fired, the protesters in the car got spooked, and they accidentally drove over the cops as they were trying to escape). Amnesty is condemning the trial as unfair, which it clearly was in numerous ways. But I don't think an unfair trial is significant enough if the charges weren't invented out of whole cloth--I can't tell whether that happened here. Their lawyers are denying the charges, which is standard.--Chaser (away) - talk 13:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter for ITN purposes if the trial was fair or unfair? These are the facts. They are the first verdicts. It is "only the third time in over 30 years that a death sentence had been given to a Bahraini citizen". People have marched in Bahrain and as far away as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan against the death sentences. Symbolic coffins have been carried in Lahore. Germany's foreign ministry has spoken against what it regards as a "draconian punishment". It has been in the news around the world (see sources above). There has clearly been some impact beyond what happens following most court verdicts. --candle•wicke 00:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose death sentences by dictatorships in kangaroo courts for political crimes are not uncommon, why single this instance out? Or do we get to post Iran and Pakistan and Afghanistan virtually daily to keep balance? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti election

thie was previosuly noomnated as ITNYR and the page ready to go as marked with unanimous support and was still not posted...Lihaas (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It's undergone only trivial changes since another admin declined it further down this page. The general criteria for updates still apply to recurring items like elections.--Chaser (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's still no prose update. Very little is said about the victory, and the lead doesn't even make it sound like Michel Martelly was elected president. -- tariqabjotu 02:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly old news, aswell... Nightw 04:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

botht he election and the lead section and updated with quite a few paras. weve posted court psotgns with less of an update.Lihaas (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Too late. Regardless of whether or not this should have been posted, posting it now would make us way out of date.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] New world records made by Canadian figure skater Patrick Chan

Important sport news in my opinion. Already in the German ITN.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since a figure skating score is subjective, rather than this being an objective record (fastest 100m sprint, for example), I'm not keen to add it. Maybe if it were a perfect score, a la Nadia Comăneci. --Golbez (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is actually a perfect score. He competed only in the Men's single competition and obtained the first place in all Men's single events. And for all events he set new world records (in his first ever title in a world championship).--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a perfect score? So no one can ever score a higher score, they can just tie him? --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To have a more compact view, I suggest to include in the report the fourth world record of the day, the total performance of Savchenko/Szolkowy in pair skating.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Mh, seems like the German replaced this to another world record. I am not sure if it is conformable to add it above (whereby the blurb has to be changed and the title to be linked elsewhere) or to create a new ITN.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely it'll break the current wording, but seems like mentioning the all world records broken confers a better vision of the competition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's a series of world records broken indeed and albeit some may claim it as subjective, it's a performance that has never been reached. I also rely my support on the fact that the sport is underrepresented in the ITN, although it's one of the most watched winter sports. Another important fact that probably makes the World Championship more significant is that it was scheduled to be held in Tokyo at the end of March, but was cancelled due to the devastating earthquake and rescheduled a month later to Moscow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ready to post. However, no results in the ITN blurb, just mentioning the record. --Tone 19:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the scores. Too much "in"s now :/.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support he posted new world records in several programs at a World Championship. --PlasmaTwa2 22:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support records iff the ISU officially recognises them and actually keeps a tally of them like the IAAF do. If they're arbitrary records not officially recognised and ratified, then support only posting the men's and ladies' singles titles winner as per ITN protocol for other sports. StrPby (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is officially added in the PSB scores [4]; however, the news on the official website of the ISU were not updated (only the short program, two days ago.) --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC) and here [5]. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Records like this should be posted. The personal opinions about the importance of certain records are irrelevant here.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong. Nothing "should" be posted. ITNR with regards to records only extends to records that are "in an event such as aquatics or athletics" and are "broken either: by an unusually large margin, after a very long time period, or in a highly publicized event". Anything else, like this one, must be judged on its own merits. StrPby (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Oooook. Well, I didn't intend my statement to have that meaning, but since you brought it up... this is an athletic event, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any margin higher then breaking a world record. Frankly, your statement above makes me... question your judgement.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Clearly you don't understand what a margin is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Figure skating is not an athletic event. This does not appear to fall under ITN/R, as StrPby said. That doesn't mean, of course, that it can't be posted on its own merits. -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I doubt that this will be an easy score to beat in the coming years. I would have normally said no to this story, however, because these records are beat on a fairly regular basis -- Plushenko set the Short Program record last year (91.30), while Takahashi set the Free Program and Overall records in 2008 (175.84 and 264.41) [6]. But, to smash them all in one competition by a fairly wide margin? That's worthy of a post. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if the update is expanded a bit. Figure skating is a major sport and should be represented at ITNR IMO. This seems to be a major event in that sport.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article has had page views with no less than 200 until maybe prior to the competition, but after the record-breaking performance, the article page views soared to ~6,000. Now I dunno if that;s good enough but that still a pretty high spike considering the previous views. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen: At least 12 killed, more than 100 wounded

By security forces in Yemen. Apparently plainclothes gunmen opened fire if that makes it any more significant. --candle•wicke 21:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it clear whether these plainclothes men were government police or military?--Chaser (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources say that several policemen and soldiers have been killed during the protests, so I don't think the claim that "12 killed by security forces" is entirely accurate. The protesters haven't been exactly peaceful. Also, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the plainclothes gunmen (although undoubtedly supporters of the president) are military. Let's be careful about the facts if we're going to put up a sensitive issue like this on the main page. Chamal ^T•C 03:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - an article needs to be written first, obviously, but I support this being featured on ITN. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 23:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see the link in the heading to the related article, just saw the external links. I support it as the protests are very important because people are dying every day and countries all over the world are advising against their citizens travelling to Yemen. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 23:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - First its show that the protests didnt end just because Ali Abdullah Saleh said he was going to leave in a month. It also shows that the protesters have rejected the GCC agreement. They also said that the might march onto the presidential palace the Friday. Overall, its worthy of being ITN. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support clearly worthy of posting. A really big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We've already featured the Yemeni Protests four times on ITN since February, including most recently only four days ago. The murder of 12 more people, while tragic, is only a small addition to the violence that has already been occurring. I don't think this is enough of an event to justify bringing the topic back onto ITN so soon after it's last appearance. Dragons flight (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dragonsflight. Regardless of who killed these people, the number of deaths is small compared to how things have been going there. I expect either a resignation or a significant escalation in violence. Either would be ITN-worthy.--Chaser (away) - talk 17:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This shouldn't be posted. There'll be something significant to post about Yemen soon enough, I'm sure.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Tornado outbreak in Southern United States

Article will be at Late-April_2011_tornado_outbreak_sequence but a separate one will probably be needed. Obviously its nowhere near ready to go on ITN, but I'm adding it because a historic tornadout outbreak is underway. It very well maybe the biggest single day outbreak since the 1974 Super Outbreak - CWY2190(talk • contributions) 21:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Number of fatalities will almost certainly exceed the last one we posted. Suggest individual article for the Tuscaloosa, Alabama tornado (possible EF5). ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - 39 dead today so far according to the LA Times [7] and the warnings are still up. Jusdafax 02:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Catastrophic damage in multiple towns and cities. With so much going on reports are all over the place but it looks like 50 tornadic fatalities today alone and is expected to rise. Looking to be the deadliest outbreak since 1985 when 88 people were killed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra strong support Massive death toll, major outbreak also involving tornadoes striking large cities. Thousands affected, and some states are activating the national guard and bringing in mass casualty trucks per Weather Channel coverage. --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 03:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, we just had a tornado outbreak in the same area last week on ITN. I'm not sure how much people want to read about tornadoes. Certainly big news but...I'd oppose this. RxS (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry I have to be blunt here, but I've been keeping tallies of fatalities and this is now the deadliest tornado outbreak since 1974, with at least 96 people losing their lives. States of Emergency have been declared in Alabama, Georgia and numerous counties in Mississippi. There are also multiple unconfirmed fatalities that will likely later be confirmed (referring to the request for a "mass casualty trailer" in Catoosa County, Georgia). A meteorological event resulting in this many fatalities in the US is highly unusual. Also, as a ranting side note, the protests in the Middle East and Africa have been up for over two months now and you're complaining over two tornado outbreaks in week? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that 2 postings on tornado outbreaks in the Southern US in 2 weeks is a little much. People will be able to read about this story without ITN's help (not a news service and all that...). The article's been showcased and it's fine. No one said it wasn't a big story. The point is whether ITN should post it again. The Middle East unrest will have a much greater ongoing impact and the highlighted articles change from week to week. boy I'm not making any friends here this week am I RxS (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with anything, sometimes there are exceptions. Had this been similar to the previous outbreak but slightly less deadly, I wouldn't be pushing to have it on ITN. However, this one is far more deadly and is having a major effect across multiple states. It's still going on now with warnings stretching from Georgia to the Virginias. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Post it again"? It's a separate event. —David Levy 04:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, RxS. You just duplicated a form of opposition that I presented as an intentional absurdity the other day. Unbelievable. —David Levy 04:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is one of the deadliest tornado outbreaks in decades. That it happened to occur shortly after another tornado outbreak is one of the worst exclusion rationales I've ever seen posted here. —David Levy 04:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to be reminded what ITN is here for (hint: not a new service) RxS (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that I need to be reminded of that, you obviously haven't paid attention to my countless comments on the matter over the years.

I'm baffled as to how including an item similar to another recent item amounts to treating the section as a news ticker. Variety is desirable, but not at the expense of omitting items meeting our normal criteria. I said it about football matches, and I'm damn sure going to say it about tornado outbreaks. —David Levy 04:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying we're not robots needing to follow criteria down to the letter. A tornado outbreak is only so interesting to many of our readers so whats the point of having 2 of them exactly? We can disagree on this...I don't want to go on about it. But I will say that I'd trade slavishly following criteria for variety most times. RxS (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that I support "slavishly following criteria," you obviously haven't read my countless comments regarding WP:IAR over the years.

I'm not arguing that we should follow rules for the sake of following rules. I'm saying that it's undesirable to exclude items meeting our normal inclusion criteria — especially ones pertaining to exceptionally noteworthy events — for the sake of variety.

Life is unpredictable, and so is our encyclopedia's growth. The section sometimes has lots of variety, and it sometimes doesn't. Artificially suppressing items won't fix anything, and I'm stunned by the assertion that readers aren't interested in reading about one of the deadliest tornado outbreaks in decades because it happened to occur a short time after another tornado outbreak. —David Levy 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easy support We can't help that Mother Nature appears to be pissed right now. If this were an event well separated from any other outbreak, we wouldn't even be thinking about this, so why - exactly - are we having a debate now? Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 04:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update? By the way, is this a completely separate outbreak from the one previously posted, or just a continuation? Just out of curiosity. -- tariqabjotu 04:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Separate, the area is prone to tornadoes in the spring. Abductive (reasoning) 04:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two different articles April 14–16, 2011 tornado outbreak and Late-April 2011 tornado outbreak sequence. Some shared content but not tons. They are in good shape mostly...and updated. RxS (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet. If people promise not to nominate any other tornado outbreak with fewer fatalities ever again, I'll support this one. Otherwise I oppose on the grounds that it is a weather event, there are always more weather events, and Wikipedia is Not News. Abductive (reasoning) 04:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps for every tornado posted, there should be a football match posted the same week. Would that be acceptable? Nutmegger (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado season and the windup of the football season do occur at the same time so... LOL –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. There will always be more national elections, violent attacks and sociopolitical turmoil too. How does a natural disaster (weather-related or otherwise) materially differ? —David Levy 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is a rather strange rationale considering that this section of Wikipedia is called "in the news". Personally, I feel we ought to be more inclusive about what ends up on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At its heart, WP:NOTNEWS is based on the idea that Wikipedia articles require secondary sources, and news reports are primary. Abductive (reasoning) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News reports are not primary sources. They're fact checked, edits, and written by someone completely uninvolved in the story (99% of the time, at least). Hell, neutrality is almost as large of a "pillar" to journalists as it is to us (to the good journalists, at least). I'd recommend reviewing primary source.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as one of the biggest tornado outbreaks for decades. That another tornado outbreak was posted recently is a ridiculous reason to oppose frankly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deadliest tornado outbreak since 1974. Possibly most tornadoes in history. Massive destruction in major cities. No-brainer for Main Page. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 10:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent outbreak (the deadly one) has been split to its own article: April 25–27, 2011 tornado outbreak. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 11:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Why isn't this posted yet? It should cover the entire recent series of tornado outbreaks. The death toll is up to 173. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 11:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note Article is thin, but I'd consider posting a high-quality article of that length. My issue is that it's largely a running log of events, and two thirds of the article is tables, while huge chunks of the text are completely uncited. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, clearly a very notable outbreak having killed almost 200 people, but the article as it stands shouldn't be posted to the Main Page. And I agree with comments above by David Levy and Eraserhead among others about the absurdity of opposing such a major outbreak simply because there was another tornadic event recently on ITN. StrPby (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Enormous tornado outbreak and sadly, a high death count; 183 last check.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Support Regardless of my earlier objections, overnight this has grown into something in a class by itself. Still occurring. HJ is right though, most of the table information is uncited which is a problem. RxS (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Such a high casualty count – in a region well prepared for tornadoes and equipped with advanced medical facilities – shows how grave and unusual this situation is. Chamal ^T•C 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support: latest news reports say over 200 people are dead. This is the deadliest tornado outbreak in decades. KnowitallWiki (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Article seems to look better now...should this be marked as ready? --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The fatalities are only for April 27 and 28. Up to 264+.[8] ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. Smithville, MS tornado has been rated EF5. - CWY2190(talk • contributions) 13:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't part of the blurb now. Are you suggesting adding it to the blurb?--Chaser (away) - talk 13:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally EF5 tornadoes are notable enough to be mentioned in the blurb. Its also likely there will be at least one more rated EF5 which would make it only the third day with multiple (E)F5 tornadoes. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 14:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also the AP is reporting this is the deadliest since 1932 the article has been updated the blurb need to reflect it as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC

  Done. —David Levy 19:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a bit misleading. It appears that April 27 was the deadliest tornado day since 1932; however, an outbreak in 1936 produced 200 deaths on April 5, 1936, and another 200 the following day. I'm not sure how the blurb should be phrased to reflect that. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for catching this. I noticed mentions of the deadliest tornado day since 1932, but I also saw articles in which this was referred to (evidently in error) as the deadliest tornado outbreak since then. I've self-reverted. —David Levy 20:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Would "deadliest tornado outbreak since 1936" be accurate? —David Levy 20:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The casualties figure keeps creeping up, so now it is essentially sure that we exceed the 1974 Super Outbreak. As such, yes. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I've updated the blurb accordingly. —David Levy 18:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Hamas and Fatah reach deal for unity government

• Hamas and Fatah has in secret meetings agreed to a unity government ahead of the elections. Israel says Mahmoud Abbas has to choose between peace with Hamas or peace with Israel.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• source for the story.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious support big step forward for peace in the middle east. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is a huge step, and likely to be historic given that admission to the UN as a member state is on the tables come September. Nightw 23:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a very important piece of news and will have relevance to people all over the world. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 23:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much a no-brainer, but which article are we going to update? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the section hash-linked in the blurb, plus a smaller update to the history section. Nightw 23:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ditto, whats the use of these silly nominations without an article? were not going to post a story on itself, thats what te media is for.Lihaas (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This should be posted immediately. This is huge news.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I assume the Palestinian National Authority article, which has been updated a couple sentences worth, is the target article. The article itself is substantial, and though I could wish for a bit more info in the article, I think what we have will do, and no doubt get added to very soon. Jusdafax 02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - They have been fighting for more than 4 yrs now (almost a civil war kinda of thing). Hope someone will post it soon. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This has...¿cómo se dice...legs. The section in the main article is updated and the article over all is pretty good. RxS (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 04:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petraeus to head CIA; Panetta to become Secretary of Defense

These are big changes in the U.S. military and intelligence commands, and widely reported in the worldwide media. Not positive what the best article to point to is though I lean strongly towards David Petraeus, which has yet to be updated. Jusdafax 21:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If this gets posted, tomorrow might be the best time, when the announcement will be made.--Chaser (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support important news, who the head of the world's richest defence department is is a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support these positions are important and have significant influence, even internationally, and this is going to be widely reported. Hut 8.5 21:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the heads of government agencies change all the time. If the head of the MoD, the defence department for the United Kingdom (which controls the world's largest navy) were to change, would that be featured on the home page? I highly doubt it. This is just another America-centred story with little importance to the majority of Wikipedia's audience. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 23:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The U.S. Navy is bigger than the Royal Navy. The former article indicates it is bigger by tonnage than the next 13 largest navies combined.--Chaser (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The UK hasn't had the world's largest navy since before WW2... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But how is that significant? I simply don't understand this "It's the biggest/best/most expensive" argument that gets wheeled out whenever something of fundamentally local interest to the US comes up. On that basis anything that is unique or unparalleled in any regard whatsoever in automatically notable - many such things would not legitimately warrant an article of their own, yet alone front page status. While something like an army or navy is always notable in its own right notability is not inherited by anything casually related to those topics. Finally, as already noted belwo, these appointments are still subject to confirmation. Obama has announced these names are to be put forward: the blurb as drafted has soemthign of WP:CRYSTAL about it.
        I think I've made my postion clear but to be explicit this is another oppose. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not just that it's biggest, but that it is the most significant. The U.S. military, partly as a function of its size, but also as a function of the U.S.'s unique position as the sole current superpower, has a huge effect on world affairs. It is party to both of the two major wars in the Middle East in the last decade. The individuals involved sometimes matter. Obama ordered the invasion of Libya over Gates' reservations. But "When [Gates] quietly backed the surge in Afghanistan that the military was calling for, Mr Obama had little choice other than to go along with it." The Economist. Who heads the U.S. Defense Department matters more than who is the President of Fiji, maybe not to Fijians, but certainly to anyone living in the Middle East. I support posting Panetta. Although Petraeus is a golden boy, I have not seen similar things about the significance of the CIA director. Given the N.Y. Times piece, I think it's possible that Petraeus's use of CIA drones will rise to a similar level, but this has yet to be seen. So oppose posting Petraeus.--Chaser (away) - talk 17:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure an update to Patraeus' article alone would suffice. I suppose we could bold both biographies if both were updated with their subjects' latest career moves unless anyone has a better idea? Also, has Pataeus' successor as COMISAF been announced yet? That's probably worth adding on or posting as its own blurb if an when. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose they are not heads of state and this is not significant. we dont go around posting heads of agencies every so often anywhere int he world. and the uk and others in nato are also important t o any global terror mongering so nothign to highlight the us is significat.

Furthermore the appointment is in a couple of month,s this is an annoncements. had to be approved...what if one were nto to pass? or be rejected ? or dead? we dont post elections theyre CONFIRMATION, no needto post this yet.Lihaas (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Meh There's no reason to believe a change of letterhead will have any policy or concrete real world effect. If any posting would be US Centric, this would. Of far less import in the scheme of things than the passing of Elisabeth Sladen. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Nah. This isn't insignificant, but it's too... provincial. These sorts of operational details are interesting to those of us who follow such things, but they're fairly inconsequential in the scheme of things.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The American military is one of the best in the world at kicking ass and getting their asses kicked (no offense intended), but the average person living in another part of the world would hardly be interested in who heads the CIA and defense department. Chamal ^T•C 04:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The US spends more of defense than pretty much every other country in the world put together... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they spell it wrong, and that's just unforgivable. ;) Do we have an update anywhere (not there's consensus atm)? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Apart from what to me is again blatant US_centrism (do Americans ever eally think before posting this insular rubbish?), can these two appointees really do anything the politicians don't want done? Surely they are just implementers of policy set by someone else. Not internationally notable at all, and surely not even really notable inside the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't assume ill-though on part of the nominators. I don't oppose this one strongly, it isn't a bad nomination as these two have and will make decisions on situations that effect the world. Petraeus led multi-national forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan by the way.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:AGF, Hilo, it is getting annoying reading your increasingly WP:POINTy opposes. StrPby (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, unless you can actually discuss the points I make, and answer the questions I ask, rather than complain about me, I'll still feel I have a very strong point. BTW - I don't assume ill-thought on the part of the nominators, just non-thought. HiLo48 (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knew who Rumsfeld was [9]. Robert McNamara, architect of the Vietnam War, is still a household name for the 1960s generation. Gates has maintained a somewhat lower profile of cool competence, but even he's gotten huge mainstream press [10], including a lot when Obama asked him to stay on. I can't speak for outside the U.S., but they are widely known inside the country (which is a point you raised). And they do have a role in shaping a President's options. See the Economist story I linked above.--Chaser (away) - talk 17:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine someone from another country suggesting similar appointments elsewhere for ITN. Now, I've repeatedly heard the two reasons why American things should be posted when similar stuff elsewhere isn't - America is the most powerful nation (obviously true), and (allegedly) half the Wikipedia readership is American (I still try to regard Wikipedia as global). Such reasons can justify some American stuff, but cannot justify the inclusion of just anything that's American, when we wouldn't do it for a similar event elsewhere. Each case needs to be considered on its merits. So what irks me is when an American event is proposed, with absolutely no explanation of why being American makes it important. Such a proposal always LOOKS US-centric, even if it isn't. So yes, include some American stuff that wouldn't work for another country, but do try to justify it please. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Just a "changing of the guard" within Obama's cabinet. Not related to a major controversy.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per NortyNort. We don't post changes in every Cabinet in the world, and it's not a HoG or HoS change. StrPby (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Gas Pipeline explosion

Major pipeline supplying Israel and Jordan with natural gas. Covered by all mainstream media. Beagel (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when the article is updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a major event, however section on 2011 explosions needs to be expanded first. Perhaps even given it's own article. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 18:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. The pipeline is one of the most controversial points in the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, and is highly sensitive. Jusdafax 21:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose why is it significant? 2 attacks in 2 months? were gonna post every attack shoult it happen every 2 months? it was restored in the last few weeks and will not doubt be resotred in about 2-3 weeks. Lihaas (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know. I agree that this is a major event, but... there's just something about this that makes me feel that it's not that major, if you know what I mean. It seems too... local, I guess.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama releases birth certificate

This is headline news across the world and is unprecedented that a major leader has to justify his nationality in this manner. yorkshiresky (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - definitly worthy of ITN. Main news all over the world.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It's cute that anyone thinks this will quell the conspiracy theorists. I see no reason to fuel them by giving any credence to them, and thus oppose. He didn't have to justify it, and I'm a little disappointed he did. --Golbez (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb needs to be changed to reflect that this is what Obama claims is his longform birth certificate. Certainly no reason to buy into that without independent verification. Danthemankhan 15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • q.e.d. But, it has been independently verified - by the Hawaii Department of Health. --Golbez (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. In this case, they do not hedge with words like "claims". See stories by Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and even CBN.--Chaser (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE i really hope that we dont post conspiracy theories/attempts to quell them on ITN... whats the news here? Confirmation of Obama being american after serving almost 4 years as president? -- Ashish-g55 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, to quote The Guardian, the nutters are "already busy moving the goalposts" and reinventing this ludicrous conspiracy. Besides, who gives two hoots? The Republicans? Well, they would—it's the opposition's job to try to discredit the incumbent, especially when there's an election on the horizon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This isn't news, because, you know, there was never any doubt that Obama was born in the U.S. -- except among people who wouldn't believe he was even if there was video of him being born. -- tariqabjotu 15:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an exercise for the reader: Would Democrats and liberals have acted so vociferously in challenging John McCain's eligibility? His birth certificate quite plainly indicates he was not born in a state or incorporated territory. :) --Golbez (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Senate unanimously declared that his being born on a military base was sufficient to make him a natural-born citizen [11]. Although that left some significant legal questions, there was never any political controversy about McCain's eligibility. I don't see what benefit this exercise holds for us in light of the fact that McCain's eligibility was never much, and is not now, in the news.--Chaser (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an odd angle. You are siding against a conspiracy theory and by claiming it is proven false also dismiss it as a news item. __meco (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A conspiracy theory being proven false is not generally news. --Golbez (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also true. __meco (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uh, I would argue just as an example that if the various Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories were proven false that would be pretty big news.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, because it would mean a time machine had been invented. --Golbez (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This issue has been a persistent one, whether one thinks the allegations have merit or not. All international media reports on it. We have an extensive article discussing it, and one of the aims of ITN is to showcase our articles. But the primary marker should be its overall significance. I think it qualifies. __meco (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Per Wikipedia:Fringe. Reporting of this the story would imply this is more significant than it is. This was released years ago for at the beginning of the campaign during the election when he filed the paper work. Multiple WP:RS have certified it as non-issue years ago. Really? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make your case as if this was not a current news story. Surely In The News should reflect what features prominently in the news? Doesn't this? __meco (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Sigh. This is a stupid story. However, it is a story that is in the global news, and perhaps more importantly, it is also a story where we have a pretty decent article that can be informative. If the purpose of ITN is to highlight news-related Wikipedia articles, then this is a good case where we can do that. Personally, I'd rather live in a world where this wasn't news, but I don't think that is realistic. Dragons flight (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As irritating as this movement was to many people, it was a legitimate movement nonetheless that picked up a lot of steam in recent years. Although, much like those who believed our landing on the Moon was a hoax, the far right (notice that I said the FAR RIGHT - there are some sane conservatives out there, as disbelieving as it may seem to this userbase) will find a way to claim the evidence is falsified or fabricated.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but rewrite. "After years of speculation from conspiracy theorists, Barack Obama releases his longform birth certificate in an attempt to finally settle questions about his citizenship and eligibility to be President of the USA." To avoid the Fringe issues, it should acknowledge it's on the Fringe and that this would, for most people, be more than enough evidence. Ocaasi ^c 16:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• And? Unless something actually happens from this that has an impact on, oh I don't know...anything, then it's not really a notable event. We're not here to cater to speculation and conspiracy theorists with too much time on their hands. Nightw 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly opposed, in case you didn't catch it. Nightw 16:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeWeak Support The notion that only conspiracy theorists think the President should actually prove his eligibility for office under the constitution is an odd one. In any case, this effects the election dynamic, and will presumably put to rest an issue which has been on the front pages for four years. The idea that this is a fringe issue is a leftist POV. Just yesterday a poll was released saying that only 38% of Americans thought Obama was definitely born in the USA. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, the real news story is that 38% of the American public is willfully stupid. --Golbez (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you meant 62%. Marcus Qwertyus 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • D'oh. You are right, of course. --Golbez (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it should be a fringe issue, but for some reason it isn't - and as its a big story we should post it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The blurb needs to be rewritten, but the articles in great shape and there's a lot of interest in this. What more do we need? RxS (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What's the problem with the blurb? Could be more concise: "Barack Obama releases his longform birth certificate in the face of questions on his eligibility to be President of the USA." μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That implies that there is legitmacy to the claim!

  The blurb as it's written now accepts the premise that there's legit question about his birth. I'd add something along the lines above identifying it as fringe. (by the way, polls don't make it non-fringe. Reliable sources and mainstream can though) RxS (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've changed the blurb to the following: Barack Obama releases his longform birth certificate in an attempt to quell conspiracy theories about his birth. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Works for me, thanks! RxS (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might as well just be: "Man waves bit of paper in the air, bored Americans chatter away then go on with their lives..." Seriously, this is like the "jingle keys" method to distract from the Dig 'Em fiasco. Nightw 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there's no way this birth certificate could have been "created" by the "authorities" then? I'd add that to the conspiracy theories article... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • Holy fuck seriously? This is promoting a fringe theory in the utmost! The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Holy fuck" why not. This is a non-story really. If the US establishment want to "prove" something, they'll do it however they like. Just like any other establishment. I might start a new section in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oppose in case you were wondering. I hear keys jingling too. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is a relatively big news story, especially (to me) as Donald Trump, potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate, has recently been heavily arguing on the side of the conspiracy theorists, and this may finally be enough to shut him up about that issue. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, in the United States this is the biggest news story of the week. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support... Normally, I would prefer that the ITN section take the high ground and not even acknowledge that Fringe theories like the birther claims exist... but... like it or not, this is big news in the US. We do need to mention it. The blurb should simply report "President Obama releases long form birth certificate due to repeated requests"... Period... without further commentary. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you prefer for wikipedia to deny existence of things that exist?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose. This was never an issue. It's a conspiracy theory. This was not part of some court case or hearing which threatened the president's place in office whatsoever. To place this on ITN would be a horrible move, because this is of much lesser importance than was Charlie Sheen's dismissal. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There seems to be a confusion here between whether the conspiracy theory has any legitimacy and whether or not it is newsworthy. I think that's a category error, and one has little to do with the other. If half of the U.S. electorate is perplexed by the citizenship status of the world's superpower President, so much so that the President goes out of his way to release an old, crusty document to prove it, and the entire country reports on it, and it can influence the actual dynamics in the republican primary process--even though it's all a huge clusterf**k waste of time--it's still newsworthy. We have to weigh popularity as well as impact as well as inherent importance. Though this is super low on the latter, it has a surprising amount of influence with the first two. It's fair to want ITN to take the high road, but certain slimy, low-road issues somehow manage to catch the upper deck, and this is one of them. Ocaasi ^c 18:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's popular news item, so we're supposed to post this every time there's a development on it? This week the guy publicises his birth certificate, next week some guy with nothing better to do provides some good evidence to say it's been falsified, then a week later the government provides some better evidence to the contrary... Unless there's some noticable impact, I'd rather not see ITN become a update ticker on the latest maybe-hoax. Nightw 19:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - everyone has a birth certificate. Why should the fact that Barrack Obama has one be news worthy? --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 18:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We do not need to kowtow to lunatic fringes by publicising the rebuttal of their manic suspicions. The sane have learned nothing new, the strange continue to doubt what they choose not to believe. Kevin McE (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, he released his birth certificate before the election, this tells us nothing we didn't know 3 years ago. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He released his short-form certificate before the election. This is the long-form certificate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The short-form had his birth place as well. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the size of the certificate make a difference? Both are valid United States birth records and would be available on the birth register (or what every the Americans have). --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The short-form certificate is not a legal document in several states, and is not as definitive as the long-form certificate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Barack Obama tells the world what we already knew" - excellent story there.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  19:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose News only for the truly stupid - or racist - "Birthers" Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Where's the news? --bender235 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. President Barack Obama releases original birth certificate--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while it is clearly bonkers to believe these conspiracy theories, and I highly doubt I would be anywhere close to WP:CIVIL if I was to describe my full and frank view of people who do believe this kind of stuff. However, and its a big however, a substantial proportion of the US population (25%) believes this kind of stuff - including one of the leading Republican candidates for the 2012 US presidential election. This story has made the front pages around the world. It was on the front page of the BBC News site earlier, and its one of the top stories on the Economist right now.

And then you have a story a few sections down like the Singapore Kunming Railway, which hasn't seen a single oppose - and that hasn't received any English language coverage at all outside of the Chinese state media. Now clearly I do want to post that story as I single handedly turned it from nothing into a 500 word article in a single evening. But we have to be realistic, for better or for worse this is a massive story that's much bigger than the Singapore Kunming railway and there's an article on it that meets the usual standard so we need to post it - otherwise we're just being ridiculous. If people were to oppose consistently as they do on stories like this we wouldn't have an ITN section at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're seeing here is a general attempt to be "intelligent" with regard to "sensational" news. All media outlets will jump on a bandwagon such as this. Most press don't care about things that happen outside their sphere of influence. This isn't news at all, it's just a confirmation of something true. If it said he was born in Uzbekistan, yep, that would get my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then, for better or for worse, we have to jump on the bandwagon too. The readership cares about stories like this. I bet this article will have significantly more hits today than every other bold link on ITN - probably every other bold link twice over, if not more. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thats one of the differences in a news service and ITN. we dont need to jump any bandwagon -- Ashish-g55 19:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an encyclopedia should be obliged to jump on any bandwagon. We should make intelligent decisions to determine what is tabloid and what is actual news. This is clearly bunk. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The confirmation is the news. Putting it on ITN does not legitimize the conspiracy theory, it only reflects that it has already received attention, by the President. The release of the long-form certifiicate is one of very few 'milestones' in this saga that would be worth reporting, and hopefully it is the last. Ocaasi ^c 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Except we do, otherwise we aren't servicing what our readership whats. Giving a link to the biggest stories, like this one, allows our readership to see what Wikipedia has to offer on the world's biggest stories - none of the other front page sections can do that - and that was why ITN was setup in the first place - to do just that after 9/11.

I dislike the birthers just as much as you guys do, but this is a big story. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No deal. Confirming something that the US establishment would have researched before making him President is not news. Making the whole story up would be. Him being a foreign national would be. Right now, no news. Just something we all knew would be "confirmed" at some point. Move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is a major story being covered internationally. It's really not for us to second guess why that is or impose our own views on whether the media is giving this too much oxygen. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's getting "covered" but not significantly. In the UK, there seems to be more interest in the UK economy, the forthcoming Royal Wedding, Palestinians getting it together, sales of Olympic tickets, then a bit of paper saying what we all thought. At least that's the case according to the BBC homepage right now. Where else is it headlining outside USA? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a lead story in Australian newspapers this morning. And it's headlining the UK's Telegraph (which is conservative but not radical). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

everyone has a birth certificate... obama showed it to people. well good for him. i still dont understand where is the news. is it that its long form certificate instead of short form which was already known? its all gossip material... nothing has changed. If we post this then we should also post Lindsay lohan going to jail again. It also got a lot of media attention -- Ashish-g55 20:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have feelings both ways. I agree with comments above by Dragon's Flight, Meco, and Eraserhead1 in support of posting. I think it is particularly telling that this is the lead story on The Telegraph and the BBC. On the other hand, this is essentially a campaign story. Our usual practice is not to post those. A comparable example is the Jeremiah Wright controversy and Obama's speech about it, which would have been the logical time to post on that. We didn't, despite, I am sure, significant news coverage. I tend to think we shouldn't post this either.--Chaser (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose emphatically I agree with Obama - "We do not have time for this kind of silliness." The whole story from start to finish makes Americans look like fools in the eyes of the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic since Obama did spend time on it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely he was speaking euphemistically, making the point that he had been forced by silly people to do this, and having to spend time on something so silly was taking time away from his efforts on more important things for the country and the world. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. "American President is indeed from America despite crackpot suggestions he wasn't". Big deal. Pedro :  Chat  20:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A final comment before I drop the stick
  • Firstly short form birth certificates don't necessarily meet the ID requirements for a US Passport.
  • Secondly Lindsay Lohan going to jail doesn't make the front page of serious news sources.
  • Thirdly, from WP:ITN's purpose section. First bullet point: "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" - clearly this story meets that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lohan's legal troubles don't make the front page of serious news sources? Really? Because I know I've seen it on several in the last week. --Golbez (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which ones? And any outside the US? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • CNN.com. And no moving the goalpost. --Golbez (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Made the BBC homepage too. Shocking. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK I retract the point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • At least Lindsay is better looking than Barack! On a serious note, surely the American equivalent of the "men in grey suits" actually check this sort of thing before letting some bloke into the White House and taking him at his word?? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I agree it's been silly speculation since day one but this is still a major news item. Marcus Qwertyus 23:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Marcus Qwertyus. Jusdafax 00:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• zOMG, enough of this idiocy! Post this already and let's be done with this stupid birther crap.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• GOD NO I see lovely US bias all over here! Disregarding that, I find this absolutely weird. Even if I were an US-ian I wouldn't care about this. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Many major news stories affect primarily one country, though it's been reported as a headline in the UK and Australia. It's in the news, and Wikipedia has a great article and update on the topic, being a major though fringe political battleground. It probably (hopefully) will not get this level of coverage again, so why not highlight this well-written, neutral encyclopedia aricle? MeekSaffron (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Chaser, which is, in my book, the only valid oppose rationale here. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Certainly newsworthy as an event (i.e., "Hey, this happened, after a bunch of people raised a big stink about it!"), but should have been a non-event. I'm no Obama fan in the least bit, but I strongly disagree with and am disappointed in the birther movement. To have this in ITN would be justification that their cause was legitimate to begin with, in my opinion. In the interests of seeing Wikipedia remain neutral, I oppose adding this to ITN. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 05:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose The legal document that verily attests to the president's U.S. birth to an American mother was released years ago, and the new document is not "the real document" or "more legal" than the prior one, it's simply a different presentation. This is not new proof, and it isn't as though it took this long for the legal document to be released. This is not news. Nothing new here except the laughable responses of the would-be opposition candidates (Donald Trump is proud of himself, also not new) and the pivot of the birthers to now demand his college transcripts. Anyone who could still cling to this strategy is the vilest of filth that can still walk around free with papers of their own in this country, and the fact that the president requested Hawaii release this document to him to satisfy the irresponsible media so they will stop acting like this is a story worthy of daily coverage despite what is arguably the most complex and fastest-moving time ever in history and get back to their service to the public interest is not worth anything but a collective jeer in their direction (by which I include those in the media and politics that continued to waste breath and space and precious time on this) and moving on with real news, as in something new we didn't already know but should. Abrazame (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Hacker Raids Sony Videogame Network

This develops into one of the biggest data breaches in history. The Playstation network is down for days, and theft of personal information and credit card data is confirmed. 77 million people are affected[12][13] Crnorizec (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the update, this is a good topic. In the news and the extent of the data breach goes beyond some of the recent hacks. RxS (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good. Baseball Watcher 01:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Data Breaches occur, I am not seeing any sourcing to indicate the largest ever. Really this doesnt affect alot of people in the scheme of things either. Also I have yet to see any source claim that 77 million have been affacted. This 77 million could have been affected. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the 77 million number is the number of accounts from which information was taken. If and how they were affected is a little hard to know but what put it over the edge for me was that credit card info was included (or at least " we cannot rule out the possibility"). Plus the fact that the service is completely down, which is also unusual. RxS (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to see this posted, once we get an update or new article for it. Data breaches certainly do occur with somewhat frightening regularity, but that combined with the outage is pretty huge. The console market is a multi-billion dollar industry, and when one of the main players is taken down like this that's big news. ...I'm trying to think of a good parallel to something else. The best thing to come to mind would be an event such as the Dow Chemical leak that occured in India, back in the late 80's (late 80's, right?).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is by far the largest data breach in video game history and I believe that we don't post enough video game items anyway. This has the potential to completely change the way services like PSN and Xbox Live operate, plus... Come on, 77 million users were affected. --PlasmaTwa2 07:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this sounds like a seriously big deal, and one that's well worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: According to playstation uk, just about everything its users had on the PSN could have been obtained, including names, locations and credit card details. Affected userbase? 77 million. Big deal? I should think so. Chamal ^T•C 08:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when article is created/updated - personally I don't think it's worth its own article, just a bit in PlayStation Network or something.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  08:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Now we have 2011 PlayStation Network outages, but too short yet. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've gone ahead and updated the blub (not really sure what the "rules" are on that, but I figured I'd give it a shot and see what happened). The article is certainly short, but it's succinct. It's actually a fairly good article, I think, given it's size.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 11:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, quite a major news, but it would be better to wait a day or two to get more information on what was stolen and also to have a proper article going. -- Ashish-g55 15:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like a very important report that calls on a high level of awareness. Also I think we don't post enough stories of such specific areas.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Chamal_N. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article looks updated enough, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the biggest attack on a gaming network in the history of online gaming. Multiple sources confirm this --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. Once again hyperbole is getting in the way of accuracy. According to the blurb 60 million people have had their credit card details compromised. Where is the source for that? I'll give you a clue - there isn't one. All that has been mentioned in reliable press is the possibility that they may have been taken. Whether they have, and if so how many, is unknown, to the public at least. This is not the place for paranoid speculation. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then be bold and update the article - that's actually much more useful than complaining here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would effectively reboot the entire discussion. The discussion up to this point has been premised on the fact that financial details have been compromised. I have pointed out that is mere speculation, which has the effect of making the item less notable. How well grounded that speculation is has not been made public - we don't know to what extent Sony ring-fence financial data. Reading through the comments above it is apparent that the credit card angle has weighed heavily on some contributors in reaching their decisions. As a result expressions of support based on that false premise can't legitimately be considered to stand (without confirmation from the contributors) if that element is removed. This isn't a minor redraft of the blurb or fiddling at the margins - it is an issue that affects the significance of the events at a fundamental level. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sony Corp. has advised all customers to be vigilant about their credit card statements. Furthermore, they have publicly announced that there has been a theft of credit card information, and that 77Million have been affected. Now, there's the first reported CC fraud [14]. Do you expect that the hacker will issue a receipt for 77M stolen credit card details to clear your doubts? Crnorizec (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is your source for the ssertion that Sony has announced the theft? The article that you link to doesn't say that, indeed it states clearly:

Sony has no firm evidence that credit card details were stolen...

...and that was last updated two hours and five minutes before I write this. What has happened in the last two hours?

The article itself is not particularly substantial when you strip everything away. A Playstation Network user has noticed fraudulent acitivity on their card in the last few days. For all the sensationalism no link is made between the fraud and the Sony breach, as if CC fraud was a complete impossibility before this data was stolen.

In the meantime saying this is ready to be posted when it is factually incorrect is laughable. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: it is loooking more and more likely that CC details were not leaked after all. I just rang my bank about something else (the Co-operative here in the UK) and there's a standard recorded message about this at the start of each call. Basically, it says you don't need to worry and we see no reason to replace your cards. They are literally putting their money where their mouth is. There is also this article on El Reg: [15] which seems to confirm things have been blown out of all proportion. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It seems that your bank should be more careful after all... [16] Crnorizec (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support as nominator. Crnorizec (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 02:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More women than men have college degrees in the US

United State's Census figures shows the number Women with College Degrees has surpassed that of men. BI Slate Rather Significant mile stone in my book The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this is a milestone. What's the article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly History of education in the United States or Women in education in the United States? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • History of education in the United States seems to be the most viable for ITN purposes. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "meh"... but I don't actually oppose posting it. There needs to be an article to post, though.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose So what? Who cares about such figures in a country. If you list all the statistics made in a census, you may find other that indicate something strange. And if we should post such things, I'll better go with posting records rather than only performing a time series analysis. Also this looks more like a fine DYK topic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beecause its a significant milestone in women being treated by society as equal with men. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it were a figure indicating the world's status, probably I'd have a different opinion. But given the proportion which yields only 4.5% of the population in the world, I don't think it is something special.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Also we cannot judge it as a milestone, and ITN is to provide information about the breaking news in the world, but not about some predictions of the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because its a significant milestone in women being treated by society as equal with men. No, it's not at all. For so many reasons. --tariqabjotu 19:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would argue more its an achievement marker and hopefull an indicator of things to come. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to agree that this is a significant milestone, particularly for advanced degrees. While U.S. undergraduate education has lagged the rest of the developed world, our graduate programs, particularly in science, are world leaders. But the press coverage of this notes that women still lag behind in the sciences, business, and engineering. [17]. On top of that, even The Chronicle of Higher Education is not covering this in depth [18].--Chaser (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Part the thing is it was expected milestone that either going to occur in 2010 or 2020 census. I was reading some where before the recession they were predicting 2020 but since women were the hardest hit in the labor force more then than expected more now have degrees. I am trying to find where I read it now. its pretty signifcant in my book since its a drastic change from as little as twenty or thirty years ago when more men were being granted degree by riculous margins The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this fits nicely, important sign of changes in the US. (depending on the update of course). The US makes up nearly half the English readership here so it'll be of interest to many of our readers. RxS (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for goodness sake. Please give up on using this (doubtful anyway) claim that the US makes up nearly half the English readership as a justification for massive US-centrism, and an excuse for too many Americans to continue to ignore the rest of the world. How relevant is the language of readers to women's rights? Do Americans not even care what happens in Quebec? Surely it's a global issue to be covered in a global encyclopaedia. It's nice that America is progressing, but 5% of the world's population is not all that much. How are things in India and China? HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well its only 45%... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not doubtful and I said nearly half. Nothing wrong with acknowledging the fact that a significant number of readers come from the US and once in a while catering to them. RxS (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the announcement this way... "In a country with 5% of the worlds population, more women now have college degrees than men." The language the readers speak has nothing to do with the (in)significance of this item. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The population of the United Kingdom is approximately one tenth of the United States of America. If you ensure one in every ten articles is exclusively about the United Kingdom and does not relate to any other country in any way, I'll be glad to support this idiotic excuse for news but until then, if only proper news stories from my country can be featured, I don't see why the same rule shouldn't apply to yours. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 19:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Kiril Simeonovski. This is one stat from one country. One group has overtaken another... so what? It is simply crossing a threshold: moving from 49.9% to 50.1% of graduates only matters if some artificial significance is attached to the 50% figure. Why does that really matter in absolute terms?

In any case, where is the significant new content here? Where could it go where more than a single line would not be undue prominence? The remit of ITN is to highlight fresh content, and artificially stuffing random content into articles doesn't count - remember main page entries are supposed to represent the best of Wikipedia, not be simply box-ticking exercises that allow anything through provided the requisite hoops are jumped through. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The specific count argument makes some sense when talking about something like gold, but when its 50% it means going from a minority to a majority, which is a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I have to agree with the Meh comment - but the protests of USCentrism (who invented the internet, and Wikipedia, BTW?) would carry more weight if they were also raised when articles are critical of the US. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • France, if Wikipedia is accurate, is to blame for the internet. "The history of the Internet arguably begins in the 19th century with the invention of the telegraph system". So Claude Chappe and his "mechanical internet" started it all. Interesting. --candle•wicke 04:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's bullshit. Al Gore invented the internet. ;) --Chaser (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• here is an interesting/disturbing fact thats been in news quite a bit lately... that in india there are way more girls being aborted. in terms of important statistics i would rather put that on ITN than college degrees in US. so just as general curiosity would anyone support that news, cause if you dont then this one should not stand a chance. -- Ashish-g55 00:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, victory for feminists, massive "so?" for the rest of society, I feel.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  01:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak to moderate support. It seems rather noteworthy, interesting, and more importantly is the only time that the number of US women with college degrees will outnumber US men with college degrees for the first time in history (cue double takes at my intentional stating of the obvious). Still, I can see how it is kinda a "meh" issue as well, which makes me hesitate on fully supporting. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose So what? And also because I am a guy. Baseball Watcher 01:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is our POV that this is important, or noteworthy, or even desirable. Women getting more degrees has nothing to do with their collective liberties being increased, but with millions of individual women that just happens to add up to be more than the millions of individual men getting degrees. Danthemankhan 02:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No article suitable for the blurb (History of education in the United States is too much of a stretch, IMO), and also since this is not news. College enrollment figures show that women have been enrolled in greater numbers than men for at least the last 10 years. Thus, this event is not surprising or unexpected in the least, and it is barely newsworthy. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not newsworthy. At some points in history, more men will have college degress and at others more women will. The fact that one gender has more degrees than the other doesn't mean anything. Also relevant to only America. I'd be somewhat more supportive if the news regarded the entire world but it doesn't. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 18:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a realization not an occurrence. Not news. Similar to the "more Latinos in major US cities than African Americans" a while ago. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands protest against nuclear power

Thousands of people protest against nuclear power in France and Germany (including a "die-in") and there are plans for protests in India. All coinciding with the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster and in the shadow of the ongoing Fukushima I nuclear accidents. --candle•wicke 03:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we have a different standard for protests that occur in countries where civil liberties are curtailed (the MENA protests). I know we've reported on some protests in the free world, like the bigger ones against the Iraq War, but I doubt these protests rise to that level.--Chaser (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why should there be different standards for different parts of the world? And how are these different standards determined? --candle•wicke 03:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In unfree countries, protestors are risking their lives. Protests in free countries prove nothing. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the differing standards, but the reason for the difference seems fairly obvious, to me. Protesting in jurisdictions where individual civil liberties are (at least partially) guaranteed is hardly extraordinary. Heck, at some periods of time it's been almost expected for people to protest. Within jurisdictions where the police and paramilitary organs regularly brutalize, and even murder, those who speak out against the government, such protesting is extrodinary.

As for how the standards are determined, see: consensus. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE Thousands? And this is supposed to be international news? μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is... but I don't know who said it was supposed to be. --candle•wicke 04:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Given the context of the event in coincidence with the Japanese thing, this is the first major manifestation of plummeting public opinion on nuclear energy... Nightw 04:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Major manifestation of plummeting public opinion"? That seems a rather POV statement. Do you have any proof of this? Otherwise, there's no indication that nuclear energy is going away any time soon.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? That public opinion of nuclear energy is turning negative as a result of Fukushima? Um, the article... Did you read it? Plus here, here, here and here. And please don't confuse POV and original research. They're entirely different things. Nightw 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This doesn't seem that notable to me but is there an article?--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Regarding the mention of planned protest in India by the OP: major protests are already happening in WB, India ... enough to make national headlines, but its against a specific nuclear power plant (not nuclear power in general) and I'm not sure if its massive enough that it has recieved significant international coverage.Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not important at all. --bender235 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - (edit conflict) Per my above comment, I see absolutely no reason to support this.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, NIMBYism is not news. --Golbez (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Yunus cleared in court probe

Yunus, who was awarded the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, is cleared of misappropriating Norwegian aid money at the Grameen Bank. A conviction might have been nominated so maybe this is as significant? --candle•wicke 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing here to "report", though. It's a non-event. What would we be highlighting, anyway? His bio article, Muhammad Yunus?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't know, the article has a NPOV tag on it. Plus I'm not sure if it'll be interesting enough to readers to draw them into the articles. RxS (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: it's not a "non-event" since the clearing of charges is an event. I'd support on account of its GA status, but there's also a total of 3 maintenance tags... Nightw 05:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not that big a deal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support Reading the extensive portions of the Yunus bio that discuss various grudges against him, political rivals, films, notable defenders, protesters in his defense, there is nothing about his being cleared there. We need to actually present articles that address what the news has established. But I do agree that as there was an attempt to tarnish the name and reputation of someone who was not long before championed by some of the same people, it would be responsible to shine the ITN spotlight on the fact that this extraordinary allegation was found to have no merit. Abrazame (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I can understand that thinking, but what then immediately springs to my mind is "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", you know? We shouldn't be advocating positions, ourselves. Even for (actually, especially for) things that may be... egregious. There's that whole neutrality thing and all.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose WP:SOAP, charges made and charges dropped are cheap - why I also opposed the Mubarrak (no charges, just detained) "news item". Do we report every notable suspected person's acquittal, much less not even being charged? no. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Tanks advance on Daraa

Assad is escalating the violence in Syria by deploying tanks in Daraa, a prime site of the protests. It's currently the lead story on nytimes.com, but not getting as much press anywhere else. I think it'd be worth modifying the blurb and moving it up. What do others think? I'll update the article.--Chaser (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Suggest "After dozens of protesters are killed over several days, the Syrian government deploys tanks and soldiers to Daraa." I'm not phrasing the first clause in the active voice because the media is still having a lot of trouble verifying that the regime is responsible for the deaths.--Chaser (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support updating the currently posted entry (with the side effect of bumping it up to the top). It's good to keep things up to date, as events develop, regardless.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important enough to update or move up, which ever works. RxS (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. --candle•wicke 04:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marking ready.--Chaser (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOT ready, we only have 1 support. we dont vote count so candlewicke's doesnt count.Lihaas (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with Chaser, Ohms law and RxS. I just didn't want to repeat the same again. --candle•wicke 22:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see 3 supports (and no opposes). I don't think you have to write support in big bold letters to indicate support. I'd like to see people stop bolding votes and move to more of a discussion. But I'm re-marking this ready. RxS (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on discouraging bolded "votes". I think that's one of the worst things that we collectively allow to continue on. I don't see a problem with people adding "+1" or something similar, since not everyone needs to come up with some eloquent argument in order to add support or opposition, but the bolding really should go.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Support updating the currently posted entry" +1 --bender235 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can suggest a updated blurb, I'll post this. RxS (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a blurb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu

[19] Not many English-language sources yet, but I think there will be many soon DHN (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English-language sources are trickling in: Guardian NY Times DHN (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. She was obviously influential if the section "Influence on Vietnamese fashion" is accurate and eight years is a long time to be in such a position. ITN has posted something relating to the First Lady of Nigeria so why not South Vietnam? --candle•wicke 02:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was much more influential than just in fashion. As the most powerful woman under Diem's regime, she was one of the more notorious figures in the history of South Vietnam. DHN (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well that makes her even more significant then? --candle•wicke 05:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I was merely pointing out that if one would list out all the reasons she is notable, her influence in fashion wouldn't be the first thing that comes to mind. DHN (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The more I think about it, this is a perfect example of an ITN posting. Good article, very interesting subject. (Once I clicked on it) I read it almost straight through. RxS (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose send people dying uneventfully of old age to recent deaths, which is already linked from the ITN box. Thue | talk 06:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose exactly per Thue. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]