Carbon emissions from energy use hit record level

Support - as nom. PopularMax (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Climate change is a big deal. Thue | talk 00:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Climate change affects us all, and it was front page news. I'm not sure global warming is the article to update here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nothing significant has actually happened then. A comment was made by the International Energy Agency. ITN already has one scientific / health "possibility". What happened to facts and events? Where are all the possibilities and comments coming from? --candle•wicke 08:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. The IEA released a new fact, that global emissions have increased by 5% in just one year, when actually the UN agreement at Cancun was to slow down emissions increase, not accelerate. It is also stated that this puts the international pledges to limit global warming to 2.0 degrees into jeopardy. Don't see any more significant news around. However I would remove the "record level in 2010" from the blurb as this is obvious: as long emissions are on constant rise each year will set a new record. --Elekhh (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As Candlewicke says, how about some actual facts rather than just being told "this is a problem"?--WaltCip (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lean toward oppose per Candlewicke. And something tells me even if we post this it will be removed by someone rather soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is not the result of any direct measurement, just a sensationalising way of saying that world population (surprise!) is increasing. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get that from? Population growth is ca. 1% per annum, not 5%. --Elekhh (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with population. It's about a new record amount of carbon gas emissions into the atmosphere. The relevant fact here is that in 2010, carbon emissions reached the highest levels recorded, and this is of global significance because the goal set by the UN's International Energy Agency of limiting global warming to only 2 degrees is now very unlikely to be reached. Consequently, the potential is for an average global temperature increase of four degrees with impacts for ecosystems and for many people around the world.PopularMax (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if all this is true then this shows that this is essentially the death of holding the impact to relatively small. So despite the fact that changes you'd personally notice might seem far off now (for example my city can't see any changes I'd call significant till the 2020s even with emissions unchecked ("NOW WITH 50% MORE 90°F+ DAYS EACH SUMMER!® (a 1 month supply)" and "A 100°F+38C DAY EVERY YEAR!®" are the first ones I believe), barring some societal collapse or fusion breakthrough or something, we've essentially sealed our fate, for medium-strong changes at least. Oh never mind, I see the previous poster has exaggerated just a bitSagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC) So this is more important than it first seems. Shows how good that Copenhagen Accord was. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate heat. I haven't stopped sweating since May 24th.

Support Obviously in the news, and (though you wouldn't know if from some of the comments here) there are facts behind this. And significant ones. RxS (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear a lot of that lately when it comes to climate change, "the facts are there", "the science is obvious", "it's right in your face, we don't need to explain it", et cetera and so forth. Forgive me for being just a little bit cynical.--WaltCip (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per Elekhh. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support So will those who do not accept climate science as fact stop this from being posted? --Elekhh (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - we can accept the science, but with some counties adding a power plant a week, every bloody day is a record (barring some setback such as a nuclear plant shutting down in Japan, or a warm day in cold places or a cool one in warm places). Should this be a sticky, like the shocker that the "world population today is higher than its ever been; but worry not, it'll be higher tomorrow" Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The news is not the record overall level of emissions, is the massive growth in just one year in contrast to international agreements. Btw who's to blame is a totally different question, nothing to do with this blurb.--Elekhh (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Elekhh. I couldn't have said it better myself. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a "January follows December" story; it'll be the same next year, etc. And is an organization saying something really the news or is it that the carbon emissions are up? Not news any more than the nutter in California saying the world is ending in May October. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Pulled] Mobile phones link to having a possible carcinogenic hazard

Seems like a significant event involving the possible effects on the health of billions and the media appears to concur. Hello32020 (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm removing "carcinogenic hazard" from the blurb. That's a bit of summary speak that gets misunderstood. The IARC (part of WHO) is tasked with evaluating "carcinogenic hazards" in general (and has hazard ratings that run from definitely carcinogenic to probably not carcinogenic). The actual classification in this case is "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B), which is used when there is evidence for an association with cancer but the evidence is considered too weak to draw a strong conclusion (e.g. due to inadequate statistics). Dragons flight (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. Highly significant result affecting billions of people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, will be major news for a while. jorgenev 21:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This has been floating around for a long time, but the WHO classification is big news. Ocaasi ^c 21:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and comment. Major link, but is this the result of a metastudy or a single large international study run by the WHO that proved a statistical significance? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on The Media is hyping this but the key word is it is POSSIBLY carcinogenic which is what the studies have been telling us for years. this is not as big as it seem The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but its still a big deal - we don't post much science and this seems still like a big deal - 5 billion people use mobile phones according to the study document. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its the same thing we have known for years. Given the 5 Billion people dont you think we have the responsibility not to hype such things? As for you science news, we have the Carbon emissions proposed above, the Germany Nuke Plant news up there now, and the E-coli news. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. That WHO announcement is as vague as it gets. "Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk" WTF? That's like "there might be some natural disaster in the near future somewhere". --bender235 (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That update is pretty poor—everything has essentially been dumped into the lead. NW (Talk) 22:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you exactly mean by "dumped" -- Are you saying it is a copyvio? --BorgQueen (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure he means "the information was disproportionately added to the lead" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that's what he meant, I don't see any particular problem as long as it is not a copyvio. The article meets the minimum required update; if anyone thinks the requirement should be higher, please feel free to start a discussion. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Why did this get posted? Incredibly stupid news. There have been numerous studies to this, and results still remain inconclusive. Note WHO wording "possibly carcinogenic to humans" .. --hydrox (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thought as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is worth posting, it's a peer reviewed study of multiple studies which is meaningful. Plus, it's certainly in the news and it's a good article that lot's of people will be interested in. It's fine... RxS (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What's the news here? Nothing's been determined. It was widely known that it might be harmful, and now... it's what? On paper that it might be harmful? I don't really care enough to oppose, I'm just saying. Nightw 01:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The news is that the World Health Organization now classifies cell phones in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform. That seems very news worthy, and of direct interest to our readers. RxS (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that news sounds a lot more news-worthy, but that's not the news being presented in the blurb. The current blurb reads almost like sarcasm in its attempt at notability. So normally I'd suggest changing it, but if you have to resort to sensationalism in order to make it seem noteworthy then it most likely isn't... Doubtlessly of interest to readers, though. Nightw 01:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that such classification is only whether the phenomena causes cancer. Lead is known to cause all sorts of other problems too apart from cancer. By reading that paper it seems that this classification means that there is still no conclusive evidence of wireless radiation being harmful.

However, this is a very volatile topic with the general public and media, because wireless radiation is so pervasive and people are aware of it. This has prompted many kinds of paranormal phenomena such as electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which has never been proven to exist in blind trial tests. It's easy to sell newspapers on such news, but essentially this still boils down to WHO saying that wireless radiation (read: low frequency electromagnetic waves) could be harmful to humans, but they are not sure. According to the study any effects that this decision was based on were only visible in the 'highest category of most heavy users', and this classification is now an indication that more studies are needed. There is another group (group 1) for phenomena, which are known to be causing cancer. --hydrox (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vehement oppose. These people did no new research. So what changed was personnel. That is bad science in my book. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking that's not true. They conducted a new metareview of published papers (including the large Interphone study that was not available the last time WHO investigated this issue). The conclusions of their review will be published in The Lancet Oncology. This is typical of the process that happens when deciding how to classify materials as carcinogens. Dragons flight (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction, Dragons flight. USA Today (in the U.S.) said "no new research was conducted" and The Telegraph (in the U.K.) quoted somebody from the Mobile Operators Association, "It is important to note that IARC has not established a direct link between mobile phone use and cancer. It has, however, concluded that there is the possibility of a hazard. Whether or not this represents a risk requires further scientific investigation." I accept responsibility though for jumping to the wrong conclusion about personnel and for taking the press literally. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has been pulled by DragonflySixtyseven.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  16:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I'm also opposed, flimsy research, regurgitated pish again and again...  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  16:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. This isn't about science, it's about health. Mobile phones are ubiquitous in much of the world, and being found a probably carcinogen by the world's largest health organization is absolutely news worth being aware of. Owen (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Possible carcinogen. "Probable" carcinogen would actually require a higher classification. Dragons flight (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull This is absurd non-science by a political organization that has to Do Something! in order to justify its existence. As for "it's not about science, it's about health", got the number of any good faith healers? μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As science, it's a stupid story. All the WHO has done is acknowledge that some studies suggest a link between cell phones and cancer while overall the evidence is inconclusive and the issue needs further study. However, it is a major news story and it does relate to good Wikipedia content, which should be all that is required for ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think its unacceptable that this was pulled, there was still a weak consensus for its inclusion at the point it was removed - and that discounts the fact that people don't usually support items after they have been posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, after thinking a little more, given it was misrepresented a little by the nominator I think the pull here was probably OK if it had been done by a regular - however given the pulling admin hasn't commented here I don't believe the administrator had followed the discussion to that level of depth before pulling it (especially as they posted the below nomination - which clearly lacks consensus), and that it was essentially done as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT action, which is unacceptable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been intensely busy, and that item was intensely inappropriate -- so much so that I didn't think it would be appropriate to wait for it to cycle off, or even report it here and wait for consensus to change. Sometimes stuff has to come off the front page right forking now, and this was one of those times. DS (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No it wasn't. If it was considered "intensely inappropriate" by the community then there would have been a strong consensus against posting it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "Agree, DS doesn't get to decide unilaterally what's appropriate or inappropriate for the main page. He was wrong on every level. He obviously doesn't understand how ITN works, he went and posted something out of thin air right after he pulled this. RxS (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • After I yanked it, I was chastised for not having replaced it with something else. So I did. Under the same circumstances, I would yank the cellphone non-story again, but replace it with a prepared candidate story. DS (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pulled; this isn't news, it's the WHO pointing out the known-for-several-years point that, in their classification system, "we don't have enough information to solidly rule, but there are suggestions that it might cause cancer". If there really is a real study that identifies a link, that will be major news (not least because the term "non-ionising radiation" clearly should now be dumped ;-)), but we're a long way from that now. (Disclaimer: I have a science-based background, which some may consider prejudices me to consider evidence rather than hype.) James F. (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And, on the "pulled out of process" side, I think that it demeaned the work that we put into Wikipedia to put such language on the front page. Part of our educational role is to avoid spreading panic, especially when the evidential basis is tenuous at best. Observing that several organisations that consider themselves "media" have led with this in quite hysterical terms is akin to the argument that "other boys did it" - that is, no reason at all. Thank you for pulling it. James F. (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whilst it may seem that Dragonfly had a WP:IDONTLIKEIT in his pull summary, we must note that WHO declared this as a possibility, not certainty. Eraser, this was posted at 22:37, May 31, 2011 UTC, whilst this post was created on this page at 20:33, 31 May 2011 UTC - just over 2 hours does not really give enough time to be certain that something is intensely inappropriate by the community. We can let discussion continue on this page, but until consensus emerges, there is no need, in my opinion to re-add the item until consensus (developed over time) shows what the community thinks. The Helpful One 18:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Both, that it was only a possibility was included prominently in the blurb the blurb The World Health Organization classifies radiation from mobile phones as "possibly carcinogenic to humans". isn't hyperbolic at all...
  • While it may have been posted after 2 hours we have to be quick if we can as we are a news section. Even at the point it was actually pulled there wasn't still a consensus to remove the item, if there was a consensus to remove the item at the time it was pulled I would have no issue with it being pulled.
  • I want to hammer home the point that if you don't have the time to engage in discussion over this kind of thing don't bother pulling it, that's not on and does a lot of damage to the ITN section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puh-lease; something (we all know and like) may be linked to something (we dread) is NOT NEWS. Breathing may be linked to cancer, too; as far as I know no one who doesn't breathe gets cancer. The pull was correct on so many levels. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think DS is being critised more for adding a story at random as a replacement more than the pull itself; the replacement was completely the wrong thing to do, but the pull was justified in many ways.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  14:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratko Mladic arrives in the Hague

okay, fine, fine, let's go through protocol.) - DS (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. We already featured his arrest. Let's wait for a verdict. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I would have supported the blurb "Freddy Got Fingered" for this when Mladic got cavity searched - had his name only been Frederik. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - until verdict.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Syrian uprising

• Thirteen students were wounded in Talbiseh when Syrian forces shot at a school bus and eight demonstrators were killed. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen more notable now--93.137.148.213 (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted]Monaco Grand Prix

This one's ready to go... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is one of 15 or 16 races in the F1 calendar ITN material? Nothing really extorindary happened, and it was a run-of-the-mill race. Lugnuts (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport, it's ITNR. Was approved at our last CENT-listed review of items. StrPby (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So has the winner of Monaco also won the other 2? I still don't see how this is frontpage material. Lugnuts (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take that up at ITNR, not here. ITNR-listed items get a bye on notability here in that they are intrinsically assumed to have already met the notability requirements. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

So that's a no to my question then. Thanks for confirming. Lugnuts (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The race was far from "run of the mill". Two drive-thru penalties for a former world champion, lots of other bumps and scrapes, and a climax finish with the front three being nose-to-tail in the last stages, with the current world championship leader at the front but having taken a massive gamble with his tyres meaning they were soon likely to go 'off the cliff' with 5 laps to go (a.k.a become undriveable), but this potential climax finish was avoided because the race had to be stopped for half an hour and then restarted due to a multi-car crash, needing the medevac of one driver. None of that is remotely 'normal' for an F1 race, even the Monaco one, which is always a bit special anyway, which is why it's on ITN/R. MickMacNee (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted, see 29th for fuller discussion of this and the Indy 500. RxS (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Germany to abandon nuclear power by 2022, shuts 8 plants

• Center-right Chancellor Angela Merkel reverses decision, pledges complete end within 11 years, while taking leading role in advancement of renewable energy technologies. Natural gas will be bridge fuel. Prior to Daiichi disaster Germany got 25% of its electricity from nuclear power.
• Support as nom. Abrazame (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Attribute I don't favor posting this, it serves no wikipedia-improvement-related purpose, but if posted it should read "Angela Merkl proposes abandoning..." μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the way the source presents it. It specifically states "Germany decides", not "Merkel proposes". Please explain "serves no wikipedia-improvement-related purpose". Abrazame (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so we're back to the Volksgeist running things? I don't see anyone attributing the decision zum heiligen Blut des deutschen Volkes. Each of the sentences in the updated article begins with "Merkel says".

ITN is not just a top-of-the news ticker. One major point is to improve the project. Other than perhaps prompting critics to prune the dubious cheerleading out of Nuclear power in Germany I don't see how this nomination achies that goal. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to mention Merkel in the blurb, as she simply follows the push of the states and is returning to the former social democratic-green policy. According to this source is a government decision announced by the minister for environment. Her political U-turn is less notable than the policy decision. --Elekhh (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. An important policy development, with significant implications for the future of nuclear energy in Europe and beyond. Deservedly, already front-page news in most newspapers. However, the proposed blurb is too long, and, IMO, needs to be pruned to say something like "German government decides to close all nuclear power plants by 2022". Nsk92 (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your support and of course I welcome any tweaks that improve the wording, but respectfully editing for the purposes of shortening is not justified. It is already dozens of characters shorter than a great many other news items recently featured at ItN. Note how it compares to two at the moment:

Germany permanently closes 40% of its nuclear plants, decides to abandon nuclear power entirely by 2022.

In T20 cricket, the Indian Premier League tournament concludes with the Chennai Super Kings defeating Royal Challengers Bangalore in the final.

In association football, the UEFA Champions League tournament concludes with FC Barcelona defeating Manchester United in the final.

To your specific example, I would stress that the decision to close 40% of its plants instantly (7 plants that had been shut down temporarily for safety checks and stress tests in March but which were expected to be reopened shortly and be kept going for a decade or so) would itself be ItN-worthy. This aspect is its own defense against the only argument to oppose thus far, that it is merely a proposal of a plan to do something in the future, when a significant chunk of the news here is that almost half the pledge is happening instantly. Abrazame (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don't see that this is any more "final" than the Swiss announcement which I proposed a few days ago - the article refers only to a Merkel announcement. However, it still seems a fait acompli to me - there is no point in waiting for mere formalities, which will likely be ignored by the mainstream media when they actually occur. Therefore I see no reason not to regard this announcements as the ITN-worthy event, particuarly since the plans are for accelerated decommissioning of existing reactors, unlike in the Swiss case. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Support certainly highly significant strategic move, and the decision to permanently shut 7 plants makes it immediately relevant. --Elekhh (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, political decision of major state with serious longterm implications. jorgenev 06:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The article currently has a POV tag in one of its sections. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to that at the talk page when you posted here. Someone who apparently doesn't know the Green Party in Germany holds 12 to 15% of the seats in government considers that faction both extreme and irrelevant and "POV". Well of course they are POV, as is the nuclear industry, whose take is also in that paragraph. The BBC chose to quote Greenpeace, as a counter to the opinion of the nuclear industry, in their #1 headline story of the day, so I didn't second-guess their editorial decision and did the same in our article. In fact, if you read that article, the BBC gives far more space to the Green aspect relative to industry opinion than I did. Germany saw some residual effects of Chernobyl and anti-nuclear power attitudes have played a much larger part in the streets and in the government there in the past three decades than in the U.S. If anything, there are those who feel the social and political influence of this aspect is underrepresented. Please feel free to view the BBC article and weigh in with comments at Talk:Nuclear power in Germany so we can bring this to a speedy resolution in the interests of listing this. Abrazame (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Ze Germans aren't all smiles und sunshine. Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Proposal to change current listing to include the first half of the news (immediate shutdowns) as in proposed blurb I thank you for your help here and at the article, but can I ask why the proposed blurb was edited to present only half the story without any real discussion on that point? There was support here for the fact that 40%, eight operational plants (seven closed for tests and one closed due to technical problems) out of a total of 17, are now shut down permanently, was itself worthy for ItN, yet this fact has been omitted without explanation from the version of the blurb that was posted. We routinely present two pieces of info in a blurb and I showed that the blurb I presented was shorter than two other blurbs then featured on ItN. Abrazame (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. I was in hurry and when I was reading "Seven plants that had been temporarily shut down for testing in March 2..." I thought it was too long ago to be included in the blurb, but now I realize its significance. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] EHEC outbreak in Germany, other parts of Europe

I decided to re-nominate this story, because not only does it have an article now, but the story is getting bigger and bigger every day. --bender235 (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support but it needs more references. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support is big in the news here in Denmark too. Thue | talk 15:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Big news, could effect food prices world wide. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems like a significant story that's covered internationally but the article does need more sources, I've added a tag to hopefully achieve that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the usual media overhype about a disease outbreak that will take no more lives than a single bus crash. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NY Times:: "...the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control said Sunday that a bacterial outbreak in northern Germany was one of the largest of its kind ever reported worldwide." Also, it is only the second outbreak of E. coli O104:H4 ever. How much more do you need? --bender235 (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Medeis. This is E. coli, not NDM-1 bacteria. Did we post the last E. coli outbreak in the United States (2009)? I would hope not. NW (Talk) 01:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. On further reflection: I do believe this is mostly just media hype of a standard recall, but there is quite a bit of coverage. NW (Talk) 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - already Denmark, UK and the Netherlands are also affected.Olegwiki (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You better re-write that blurb. "One of the largest outbreaks of E. coli recorded in Germany" is not correct. According to the NY Times, it's "one of the largest of its kind ever reported worldwide". --bender235 (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article currently says "On 30 May, German health officials convened for a meeting regarding the outbreak, which was reported by European health officials to be the largest ever recorded in Germany." and says nothing about the worldwide. Blurb shouldn't contradict the article contents; please fix the article first. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Ready] Hosni Mubarak receives the first ruling against him

• Ousted President of Egypt Hosni Mubarak receives the first ruling against him, being fined US$34 million for cutting off communications services during the revolution that overthrew him.

(BBC) Source for story. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - as nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as it is the first ruling against the man. 2011 Egyptian revolution and Arab Spring have frequently been in the news this year. --candle•wicke 20:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, clearly a major story. Google News has aggregated more than 1000 articles on this. jorgenev 20:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rather anti-climactic. How many other such charges pend? Is piling on warranted? Let's wait for the murder trial verdict. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support maybe anti-climatic but still significant that he's be ruled against in a court of law. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem stickying this, but are we going to place every such development on the front page? What legitimate wikipedia purpose does that serve? Will it lead to the improvement of important articles? μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hardly significant at this time. BBC News isn't even bothering to link it on their main news page. Medeis is right. NW (Talk) 04:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a general comment on using this as a criterion, the situation may have been affected with the story breaking 2 days ago .. ;) --hydrox (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just 36 hours ago, and I notice that the news article in question is only ten lines long. NW (Talk) 12:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although there will be many charges against Mubarak, a $34 million dollar fine is no small thing, and a ruling which repudiates internet and media censorship from inside the Egyptian judicial system. Also, this is a very public and foreboding sign that the Egyptian courts are not going to let Mubarak slide for acts under his regime and during the revolution. Let's post this one and be conservative with future updates unless they are similarly significant. Ocaasi ^c 06:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The article needs to be updated more. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a court conviction of its own former head of state, and it is newsworthy on its own. When a decision is rendered in the murder trial, that will be newsworthy on its own. But they are two different trials with two different convictions and two different penalties, as evidenced by the fact that they are being decided separately and at different times. Abrazame (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Not updated enough yet. RxS (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ferenc Mádl

Recent deaths and Portal:Current events/2011 May 29 reporting President of Hungary is dead now. That's two in the same day... --candle•wicke 15:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support death of a president in office is worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Former president I believe. No opinion yet about posting. RxS (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retracting support, now have no opinion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is in serious need of references. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article is decent in terms of length, but as BorgQueen said above, it needs more references. In addition, it needs an updated section on his death. Spencer^T♦C 23:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed bin Hammam quits race for FIFA president

• Qatars Mohammed bin Hammam quits the race for FIFA president against Sepp Blatterhours before investiagion starts of alleged bribes.

Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think Mohammed bin Hammam was Sepp Blatter's biggest challenger for the FIFA presidency. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Keywords "Alleged Bribes" and "Before investigation starts." We arent putting a BLP on ITN with those keyword unless something concrete has occurred like an arrest. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Seems to be the wrong story. Surely the major story is that a high profile "executive" of a major sporting body is under investigation for corruption. The withdrawal of his candidacy is simply a result of that. All that ITN should be including about the election is the result. Internal machinations within a sport are too minor for ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Malta votes for divorce

It is a majority Catholic country and is the last European Union country to do so. The BBC also says Malta is "one of only two countries in the world (with the Philippines) to ban divorce - apart from the Vatican" and that the last time divorce was legalised in a country was seven years ago (Chile) so it doesn't happen very often. --candle•wicke 14:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - suitable story for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until the parliament enacts a law legalizing divorce. This is non-binding so nothing will happen until parliament takes action. RxS (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if it passes a country legalising divorce is definitely significant. I'm neutral if it doesn't pass. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (Weak) Support - it has been successful, and prime minister vowed to abide by the result. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Non-binding referendum μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the prime minister has said he will abide by the result. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've added a ref-improve template to the article, once it has enough references to be posted please remove the template. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb please. Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Object How in the world was this posted with one and a half supports and three waits? Please pull this. There is no hurry and there will be no opposes from the waits when a law actually passes. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see four supports: Candlewicke (nominator), BabbaQ, Eraserhead1 (who said "Support if it passes", and it passed, and he was the one who marked this "Ready"), Roentgenium111. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the waits had the strong counter-argument against them that the Prime Minister said he would abide by the result. Noone's going to be interested in this when technically the legislation passes. If the Prime Minister had stuck his fingers in his ears and not said that he'd abide by the referendum then the waits would have had a stronger point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I will accept the promise that this won't be posted again when it actually becomes law. Perhaps we can also announce that Guantanamo Bay has been closed and the Patriot Act been scrapped given Obama's stated intention to do so as his first acts as president? μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no referendum on those issues, I think this promise will be much more difficult not to keep. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not concerned with the outcome, just this and this. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Triple Crown of Motorsport races

Nominator's comments: Both races of the Triple Crown of Motorsport, which is on ITNR. I'm aware we have a lot of sport currently nominated this weekend, so that must be considered too. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The events are unrelated, so split them out into their own items, IMO. The combined blurb you suggest will not be much shorter than the sum of the lengths of the split blurbs. Thue | talk 10:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I get the feeling posting two motorsport blurbs on the same day and pushing two items off of ITN wouldn't be very welcome. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITN is limited by total text length, not number of items. A two-line item can push two items off ITN just a well as two one-line items :). Though I suppose that the extra line break of the two-item solution may make a small difference in some cases. Thue | talk 14:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, if each nomination can be limited to one line each keep them separate. If a older posting can be retained by combining them then that's how they should be presented this time around (it's a busy weekend). RxS (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Both are recurring items so there should not be any question that it should not be posted. I would simply suggest that "motorsport" should be changed to "auto racing". Truthsort (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monaco GP should be ready for posting; looks like Indy 500 is short. Suggest posting that first as follows: In motorsport, Sebastian Vettel wins the Monaco Grand Prix. StrPby (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need the "In motorsport" part? Most people should know that the Monaco Grand Prix is motorsports (otherwise it wouldn't be an ITNR), and those who don't can click the link. Thue | talk 15:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a day has passed and two recurring items are not even posted yet. What is the issue? Truthsort (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the articles were updated a day ago - but the Monaco race has been waiting ready for a while. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support If the blurb can address both races in one line, as written: "Sebastian Vettel wins the Monaco Grand Prix [as] Dan Wheldon wins the Indy 500" with the substitution of "as" for the American "while" μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is stagnating for no good reason. Monaco is updated and ITNR and unopposed, please post. StrPby (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the concern/question raised in the above section. Is this really ITN material? Purely by chance the races happen in the same weekend, and nothing links the two. Lugnuts (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted ITNR event RxS (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why on Earth do we put up the Monaco Grand Prix in the middle of a Formula 1 season? It's one race in a sixteen-race season. It makes no sense, "triple crown" or not, to single this one out.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  21:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion of the Triple Crown of Motorsport seems to be quite thin now, as drivers don't (or can't) compete for all three. However regarding the Grand Prix it seems to be the most notable race that certainly has a lot of interest so I'd say it's a good post.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Giro d'Italia

In cycling, Alberto Contador from Spain, wins the 2011 Giro d'Italia . - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not an ITNR item, and considering we already put it on ITN (albeit not as the bolded article) following Weylandt's tragic accident, I'm inclined not to support given we have a lot of ITNR sport this weekend. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Strange Passerby.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose given we are going to be posting two races, the football and the cricket I don't think posting this would be appropriate. We're going to be posting a lot of sport, and some attempt at topic balance should be attempted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support category balance should not affect ITN. That is how probability works, sometimes there is much of something. --Kslotte (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kslotte; each item should be judged on its own merits. That is the only way to present an unbiased view of reality. Thue | talk 13:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we have about 6 slots on ITN, I think that filling up 4-5 of them with a single type of event at one time seems to be a bit too unbalanced topic-wise. There must be lots of people who don't like sport at all. Of course you also have to take into account that adding too many restrictions is bad, but I think personally that 4-5 breeches that threshold.

I won't have an issue if the posting administrator treats my oppose !vote as being invalid and therefore ignores it when judging consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried it once before: how about a mega-blurb. If the priority is to let people how to find our articles rather than announce headlines: why not? The Monaco Grand Prix and Indianapolis 500 motor races are held, the Giro d'Italia (cycling) and Indian Premier League (cricket) reach their conclusions, and the final of football's Champions League is played. Those who want the results can follow the links. Kevin McE (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a big fan of a mega blurb... this weekend we have many sports items. Some other time we have lots of election results or natural catastrophes. Those items will cycle out in their due time so let's go the standard way. --Tone 18:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree that coincidence with other sporting headlines is irrelevant matter of chance, but this is not of international interest per se except for fans. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Sergei Bagapsh

President of Abkhazia dies in office. ITN/R - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not ITNR. Abkhazia is not recognised internationally as an independent state, and only by Russia and a small number of other nations. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It's still de facto an independent country, and the death in office of a head of state, even an unrecognised one (that controls its own territory, Micronations don't count) is rare. Support Courcelles 08:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when updated more. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to me, a de facto president is still a president. Thue | talk 08:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: a gateway for readers to the intriguing arena of sovereignty issues in the Caucasus. This is what ITN can do well: take the stories that are not very high profile in the main news media sources, and give the reader comprehensive background on an area they may be under-informed about. As opposed to a short, slow, second hand reportage about the things that are more efficiently and professionally dealt with on many many other sites. Kevin McE (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when updated. I fully agree with both Strange Passerby (It's not INTR) and Kevin (this is an article Wikipedia/ITN can do well). And just because it's not ITNR doesn't mean it's not notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated, posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Indian Premier League 2011

Nominator's comments: For posting AFTER the match concludes (Chennai should win this comfortably - three wickets to go now). I know its another sports news but this has already been listed as a recurring item that has automatically satisfied the notability criteria.

Sorry, forgot to sign off. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when updated, but like the Champions League below I'd prefer to hold off for a short while as we've posted 5 stories today already. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the match has finished with a victory for Chennai. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As opposed to CL, this has no interest whatsoever outside the borders of one country. Lampman (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm sure the Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankan's are interested, but as its an ITNR event opposing here is inappropriate. Take it up on WT:ITNR if you feel this item shouldn't be posted in future. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • God knows why, India's not even the best cricket nation in the world (Australia has won the WC twice as often, and they're not on ITNR.) That list is not cut in stone; discretion should be shown when there's a excess of sport-related items on ITN, which there has been recently. There is no doubt that CL must take precedence. Lampman (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • By that argument given England last won the world cup in 1966 its strange that its domestic league is the only domestic football league on WP:ITNR.
      • The Indian Premier League is of interest to 1.5 billion people, there is no good reason we cannot post both. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        India isn't the best cricket nation in the world? That seems to be a bizarre argument considering they are the current world champions and the current top-ranked test cricket nation.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's wrong to say that "this has no interest whatsoever outside the borders of one country." The league "borrows" top players from all over the world, much like the Champions League. It is televised into other countries. It gets mentions in the news in Australia. Many of us know that Shane Warne has just played his last match there. Its creation and development is probably the biggest change that's affecting cricket these days. And it's one that I don't like (just had to use those words!) because of the obvious distortions caused by huge money, gambling and corruption. A lot of cricket traditionalists outside India do have an interest, but more in the damage it's doing to other forms of the game of cricket, rather than the result of this particular match. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per ITNR. this is one of the top tournaments of the game and involves many top cricketers from around the world. India is the current world cup champion and widely regarded to have the best cricket team at the present time.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, ITNR only says "considered suitable for inclusion". It doesn't say "these items absolutely have to be included or the world will end". This entry clearly has no support. Lampman (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that's an incredibly dumb post. I don't feel too strongly either way on whether this should be posted, but I did make that significant Comment post above where I described some reasons why it might be included. Two other editors here have made Support posts. I try hard here to not get personal (hence my comment about your post, rather than you), but I do suggest that if you personally have no interest in the matter, you just judiciously butt out. Your post strongly reinforces the need for those deciding on whether to post to consider the merits of arguments, rather than the quantity. Yours has no merit. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any update at all. RxS (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose First of all, I think cricket is one of those sports where domestic league titles should only be posted in exceptional situations. There is no indication whatsoever that this would be such. Secondly, the article has no prose to describe the progression of the final game. Well-referenced final game description has previously been one the criteria for posting sport titles to the ITN. --hydrox (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Yet again something sneaks onto ITN/R, it seems. Thankfully consensus here can override ITN/R, and it should here. Not only is the article not up to scratch, but the event is not particularly significant: witness the relative absence of coverage in major cricketing countries like England and Australia. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well no "country" teams play in IPL. there were plenty of players from other cricket playing nations.unless you consider the likes of Shane Warne & Shaun Marsh not Australian.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The IPL was posted in the main news (at least in the last two years). The logic that its a domestic tournament doesnt follow through - so is the NBA, NFL, EPL, etc. The IPL is the second highest-paid league in any sport, based on first-team salaries on a pro rata basis, second only to the NBA. It has players from several cricketing countries and is broadcast in several countries. But the discussion on notability has to happen at INT/R and not here. However, I will agree that updates have to be made - I will check the article and if the updates haven't been made, I'll make it myself in a bit. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should not have brought the NBA into the discussion. That's also one of the perennially opposed items lol. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when updated. As an WP:ITNR event there is a pre-existing consensus that it satisfies the notability requirement. Certainly it's notability can be opposed here, but there would have to be overwhelming opposition. One thing about IPL, it certainly is a unique competition in a sport generally played by international sides in the premier competitions.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support per previous discussions (i can pull out links from talk page if needed) and ITNR -- Ashish-g55 04:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I know it is in the ITNR, but it is not of any real significance outside of India, consider removing from the ITNR list. Mtking (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's another one of those just plain dumb posts. Several people above have pointed out why it's significant outside India, and you just say "No it's not". A pointless post really. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the WP:NPA (see your talk page) it says at the top of the page "Do not add simple "support" or "oppose" votes. Explain the reasons" - my reasons are even after reading the comments above I still feel it is of no real significance outside of India. Mtking (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My post was NOT an attack on another editor. It was criticism of a post, a very different thing. If you cannot tell the difference there is no point continuing this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it wasn't a personal attack. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Updates made: Have included a nice beefy update on the finals and the final results (nice in my personal opinion, of course)... so that should take care of the updates requirement (if you think it is not, don't just say its not - please tell me what is missing and I will update it). The other criteria is notability which I think is satisfied by virtue of it being in the ITNR. Aren't we reopening an already agreed consensus (recorded in the ITNR) that this is notable? And even if we are, shouldnt ITNR be the place to do it? So unless IPL is taken off the ITNR list after discussion, the analysis of notability is not even required to be done here(as this has already been done and recorded in the ITNR ... it's not as if someone slyly slipped the IPL in there while no one was looking). Having met all three criteria - nomination, notability and updates, I think this is ready for posting. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Alert There is now a discussion under way at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items#Indian Premier League as to whether this should be a recurring item for ITN. While obviously this discussion must still continue, those interested may want to also post on the other page. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert... heading over there now. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Given the article has been updated and its on WP:ITNR marking [Ready]. Trying to claim this was "snuck on" to ITNR, when it was added by an uninvolved admin after a 30 day RFC that was listed on WP:CENT is highly disingenuous. Any removal from WP:ITNR should only apply to next year, people may well not have voted in support of the item this year as its on WP:ITNR - additionally that discussion needs to be given time to occur. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pull This article has serious issues. It is written only for fans with local knowledge. It makes absolutely no sense to a non-local. It is most certainly not explained how this is of international import. What possible improvement to the article or education of non-interested non-locals is to be expected from this? μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the match summary was filled with a lot of cricket jargon; I've attempted to clean up that a bit. I think the rest of the article is reasonably comprehensible to people from outside India. I can make sense of it. That said, if you don't know what an over or a wicket is, you may struggle with it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any sort of pulling or any other cross batted shots:The phrases used are not local, they are universal to cricket wherever played. A person unfamiliar to cricket would obviously find some parts difficult to make sense (but not unlike the difficulty faced by person unfamiliar to golf understanding what a birdie is, or a person unfamiliar to basketball understanding what an alley-oop is.) If someone doesn't know basic concepts such as what an over or a wicket is, I'm afraid you just cant explain a game of cricket to him. I would agree with you that jargons are used if the description had stuff like "half-volley on the corridor outside off stump with a bit of reverse swing inducing the tailender to go for a cover drive resulting in an outside edge caught at second slip" (yep, showing off) - but describing a cricket match without using phrases like wicket or over is just near to impossible. That said, I'm more than happy if someone can offer more comprehensible language. If you have specific concerns on the parts that require clean up - please tell me, I can try and fix it. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, fail. Didn't see these issues were already discussed and (hopefully) resolved on the talk page. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted - Johnsemlak has addressed the issue - as it was written before you wouldn't even have known the subject of the article was cricket. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Apology accepted"? Ouch! I think this is the first time I actually regret using the word "sorry". Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Champions League final

Nominator's comments: Pretty obvious nomination. Probably have to be careful with "too much sport" again though, as this weekend also sees two of the three items of the Triple Crown of Motorsport (the 2011 Monaco Grand Prix and 2011 Indianapolis 500), which are also ITNR events. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support while we are posting a lot of sport this weekend, we've also posted a lot of other stuff over the past few days - including 5 postings in the last 24 hours. I would suggest waiting until 07:00 UTC or something like that before posting this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As notable as a sports event gets, and a chance to showcase a great article. Lampman (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given Barcelona have won updating the blurb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article updated, marking [Ready] as its ready to go up whenever an admin feels its appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  21:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Egypt opens Gaza border crossing

• Egypt permanently reopens its border crossing into Gaza, ending Egypts blockade of the Gaza Strip for good. The decision Raised fears among Israelis of an increase in militant attacks. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clearly a significant step forward in relations in the region. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Articles such as Israel and Egypt – Gaza Strip barrier need to be updated with relevant information. Spencer^T♦C 12:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I added an update to the article. Probably enough. RxS (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The permanent reopening of any international border that has presumably previously been closed would be significant. --candle•wicke 16:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Any blurb should NOT include the word permanent, as we're not sure how permanent this is. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support obviously big news for I/P conflict no matter the side you are on The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated, added a blurb, and no opposition. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I agree that 'permanent' is to strong a word. Also I understand that young males are subject to restrictions, so there are strings attached. But this is big news. Jusdafax 17:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Gil Scott-Heron

American poet, musician, and author dies at age 62. Support as nominator. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Odd one, this. Only really came to mainstream fame very recently (with I'm New Here, the album) unless he was big in the United States at some point in the past?  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  08:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is generally considered to be his most famous work - it was written back in 1970. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...In America. For most of the rest of the world, it has been I'm New Here, which is charting globally.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  20:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Extremely influential. P. S. Burton (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - Thought he may be too much of a cult figure for ITN but for his role in black culture and in particular hip-hop then I'll support.yorkshiresky (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "the Black Bob Dylan" sounds seriously impressive, he seems to have been a big influence on black culture. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding candidate template with a blurb - I've included 'godfather of hip-hop' so its explained who he is. NME have called him that in their obituary. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there has been international coverage of this, including the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Toronto Sun and Al Jazeera. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is now updated with eulogies from many well known musicians. Marking [Ready?] even given that there are no opposes as I'm too involved on this one to go to [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: has anyone outside America ever heard of him? If he was known in America only, I'm not sure whether it should be posted. Nanobear (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm American and I've never heard of him. Hot Stop (c) 14:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've featured deaths of several Nobel winners and I don't think a lot of people outside their fields "have heard of" them. I do not believe "I've never heard of XX" is a meaningful argument. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting we pull it, just answering the previous question. Hot Stop (c) 14:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth most-read story worldwide on the BBC right now suggests it's of enough international interest. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A title such as "Godfather of Rap" (even if he did reject it) suggests he had the sort of importance and influence that is usually posted. The death also doesn't seem to have been expected, no mention of any long-term illness and 62 is rather young. His importance has been mentioned by people such as Eminem (who is "best-selling artist of the decade ... one of the best-selling music artists in the world", etc.) --candle•wicke 15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not in America. --candle•wicke 15:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

• I personally feel this person isnt famous enough outside the US to grant a place on ITN. This is typical "american equals world famous" sickness,had he been Slovenian or from anywhere else in the wrold he wouldnt been on ITN right now.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an American, and I personally would have been a little more enthusiastic if he were Slovenian, because I like diversity. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of his nationality or fame, I thought deaths were supposed to only be listed on the front page when they were notable in and of themselves. Dying after a trip isn't that newsworthy. Let him stay for the day, but then take it down before it's due to be taken down. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ITN doesn't take items down mid-stream, and the criteria have been significantly loosened up overall - and we're posting more content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISS construction completed

• Support - can we have a nice photograph as well, please? Bob talk 07:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I see an updated section in the article; can someone link me to it if it exists? Spencer^T♦C 21:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when updated - a good story (AFAIK) and a featured article! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - A major first for humankind. A stepping stone to the planets, the stars, the universe and our future. (Someone has to say it that way!) HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense! The station isn't even at geosynchronous orbit. It's a Potemkin Village engaged in as part of an intentional Clinton-Era plan to distract the (ex)Soviet Union from more belligerent pursuits and so far as technology it is retro and so far as ambition it represents a step back from the moon shots, not a step forward. Let's have more scientific realism and less statist cheerleading. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I guess someone had to say it that way too ;-) ) HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/intation.htm "At the same time, NASA had scaled down its space station in the seventh redesign in nine years. This more modest station Alpha deleted most of the original science experiments, but would still cost more than Clinton was willing to spend. In October 1993, with the gunfire of the coup attempt outside their windows, NASA negotiators in Moscow agreed to the 'International Space Station' (ISS), a merger of stations Alpha and Mir-2."

@Medias-That's a heavy POV and awfully cynical. There may be some truth to it but there are also plenty of people that simply believe space travel and research are important. Thus the ISS will always get my support when there's an update. Support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, well said HiLo. jorgenev 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as an arbitrary goalpost. If the installed equipment merits it, let the installation and not the open-ended project stand on its own. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when updated. - Important, notable, ITN-worthy and most of all historic. Featured article is icing on the cake. However, it must have an update. At one point the article says it "will be completed in late 2011" and at another it says "when complete..." - so someone has to roll up their sleeves. Sorry it can't be me (about to fall asleep...) but what a great article to work on. Jusdafax 03:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As it is a FA I am marking it as a minority topic.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And I've just unmarked it as such. Space-related topics are specifically excluded from the list of minority topics. The fact that the article is an FA is not relevant to that and is abusing what the minority topic marker is intended for. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally think its legitimate to use the marker in this case as the article is an FA. The exclusion for space related events only applies to the technology aspect, not if it meets one of the other criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, the minority topic criteria specifically state that articles that are FA or GA status qualify. The fact that is a space item shouldn't count against that; it only means that such an item fails to meet the technology criterion. Perhaps I don't know what the marker is for but I know that one of ITNs goals is to link to quality content and labeling this as a minority topic seems to go towards that goal. It doesn't mean we set a lower bar for the update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I see what you mean now. That line was introduced a couple of weeks ago, and represented a substantive policy change with no prior discussion at all. Therefore it is difficult to sustain a notion that it is backed by consensus and I've bounced it out. Eraserhead, if you want to propose this properly please do but this isn't the way to go about it. Abusing and changing the use of an existing tag is not appropriate - adding a fresh option to the ITN template would be a far better way of doing what you seek to achieve. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• This is a little tricky, there's still Nauka (ISS module) that's yet to be installed. It's a Russian research module that's on the books for 2012. There are sources that call the ISS finished, but it's tough to edit International Space Station and call it finished when there's still a major piece yet to be installed. [9]. Sites like the BBC report it as the last shuttle space walk, but note there's still work to be done. [10]. If this goes up I'd expect some comments at WP:ERRORS. So unless I'm missing something, I'd regretfully oppose this. RxS (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything like this is going to be tricky. The Nauka (ISS module) was only settled on in 2004, well after initial design, and it actually replaces some other bits. I foresee that happening for most of the life of the ISS. Taking our approach, we may never be able to declare it "finished". Using our usually reliable sources should surely be enough. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but reliable sources are also reporting it as the end of NASA and/or US construction, for example [11][12] . I'm having a little trouble with calling construction finished when an unmanned experimental package is installed when a pressurized, manned segment has yet to be installed. RS appear to be reporting it both ways. RxS (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when updated, its a featured article, and the news sites are talking about this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Construction is not completed yet. Nauka (ISS module) still has to go up, some time in 2012. The BBC article linked above mentions this. The NASA portion is complete, but the space station is not. Therefore I strongly oppose posting a story which is manifestly not true. Modest Genius ^talk 20:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very frustrating post to read. It's almost a duplicate of another post not far up the page, and ignores the response I made to the earlier post. I'm certainly not going to repeat myself, but just ask that people try to pay more attention to others' posts. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it, and despite your points I still don't think it's completed. Modest Genius ^talk 23:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are not in agreement about this. Some report it as finished, others do not (in fact, they explicitly say that it's not finished, and report that Nauka has yet to be installed). It's within our editorial judgement to decide what to do. In this case, I don't think we can post this because the status of the ISS in reliable sources is not clear. You can't nuance that away...you say that reliable sources should be enough and you're right, but in the case reliable sources don't agree and are taking opposite sides on this topic and as long as that's the case we can't post it. And practicably speaking, looking at the manifest and schedule for the next year makes it clear that it's not finished. RxS (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not sure that it'll ever be 'finished' though. Can we post something that says all of the original components have been installed? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that is my point too. Obviously, for as long as the ISS exists (and that period is obviously uncertain too), components will be replaced with better, more suitable uses of newer technology. That's what the Nauka unit is. It wasn't part of the original design. It's perfectly valid to say now that all the originally planned components have been delivered and installed. A major milestone. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ISS is not finished. But there are no more major components after Nauka. The fact that several station functions were combined into a module which was not in the original design is irrelevant - the design has changed many times, primarily with things getting cancelled or down-sized. Nauka can be see as an example of that, and is included in the current design for the 'complete' space station. Whilst they may well make small adjustments and additions of equipment, there will NOT be any more large modules added after Nauka. Therefore I think that's obviously the end point of construction. Modest Genius ^talk 23:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • The blurb certainly needs some work - I'm out of inspiration I'm afraid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about, "NASA, broken spiritually and financially, claims victory while ordering full retreat"? μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seeing that there is some discussion over whether it is really "completed", I side that reliable sources make this assertion, and I also there also appears to be a consensus to post this. __meco (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral college rejects oppositon request in Albania

• Oppose In a global context, not really an important story. It was one race amongst many in what were local elections in one country. Franklinville (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose correct me if I'm wrong, but we didn't include anything on the recent election in Chicago, a city with 4x the population of Tirana. Hot Stop (c) 20:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This could be (and should be_) add ed to 2011 Albanian opposition demonstrations as notable for that matter.Lihaas (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] G8 summit pledges support for Arab Spring

Nominator's comments: This is the first time any country has pledged any such financial support on this great a scale to the Arab Spring. Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 10:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when updated. The youth in Egypt are already taking about protesting against the aid to Egypt. Same thing is happening in Tunisia. So its a big deal overall -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when updated. The G8 meeting is an ITNR item in and of itself and is nominated already below.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've read that the amount could be more like $40 billion. As we gain support for this and update the article, let's keep tabs on the tab. Abrazame (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The G8 meeting is an ITNR item lets leave it at that. Mtking (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean we should omit the $20 billion part? --BorgQueen (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or did you mean $40 billion ? Yes, these meeting tend to be strong on announcements and the like. Just list the meeting no need to go further. Mtking (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but you haven't voted for listing the meeting—nobody here has; that is a few items down on this page. Don't we announce ITNR items relative to the result of that year's event, as in announcing who won the World Series or what won Best Picture at the Oscars, and not merely saying "yeah, the event happened again, click here for results"? Whether you believe it or not, that is at the moment the major result of this G8 and it seems that it should be the context we announce this year's gathering, no? Abrazame (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this version of the G8 listing. RxS (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support G8 listing mentioning the $20 billion. Thue | talk 15:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article was already updated: difference. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 15:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We require at least five sentences and three references for update. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it say this in the requirements. If you do in fact require this (which I believe you do not), you need to say so, otherwise scenarios such as this will occur again. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't actually an update, as I wrote above, the nomination below for the bare fact of the G8 meeting has not yet been posted to begin with. And the whole article is more than five sentences and three references. Abrazame (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • She means that the article needs to have been updated. Modest Genius ^talk 20:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see my post below. Abrazame (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• obvious but futile oppose this doesnt mean anything, its just pushing a pov that one side rhetirically supports democracy or whathave you. and it doesnt even elucudiate WHERE the money is going so its more pov to blnket suggest theri support (bahrain, yemen, etc?) Althoughid contionue to maitnain a sticky for ITN with this addition for that page of the protests not the ITN list.

support Abrazame reasons, and we didnt mention Russians opposition to similar libya-liek action in syria. were really pushing a povLihaas (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose [but still not in favor] While protestors and minorities are shot dead in the streets, bankrupt bureaucrats yet again announce plans to promise to . . . spend other people's money? Press releases are NOT news. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated? Hardly. The article contains one sentence and one ref about the Arab Spring.μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • To μηδείς and Modest Genius I have been trying to explain that this is erroneously listed as an update to an article we have already featured at ItN this year but in fact it has not been, so this doesn't need to adhere to update rules, this is a debut listing. The first proposal for the bare article merely about the event being held is stalled down at May 26 with only one vote, because the whole discussion is up here about the more specific blurb that actually says something about the event. But it does not have to "be updated" because this is the inaugural discussion. Have I said this enough ways? I'm not just trying to be a smartass, but people keep objecting on the same invalid point. Can someone please acknowledge this fact? I have tried to reformat this as a first-listing. Can someone please close or merge the original down at May 26? Abrazame (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, the article may be new, but there is only one sentence and ref referring to the pledge. Given that the pledge is the verb and direct object of the sentence, it is the topic of the nomination. It would be like saying "In the last episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show (which is notable) Oprah Winfrey's half sister makes an appearance." I would try rewording the nomination if you want it to meet the criteria. μηδείς (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (Though I'd hardly say that Obama and Sarkhozy are the Oprah's sister of the G8. More like Oprah and Tom Cruise. Har.) Okay, how about:

The 37th G8 summit is held in Deauville, France, with leaders pledging $20 billion to support Arab Spring reforms in Tunisia and Egypt.

Abrazame (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken my opposition in good faith. But I still can't say I think this sort of thing (or any of the other agenda items from the article) is actual news. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G8 is ITNR, though oppose any [pov] pledge for this.

rewording the nom WP:BOLDly.Lihaas (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly agree with Lihaas' edit to blurb. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new blurb seems closer to my nomination below than to the original blurb for this nomination. OCNative (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong wait until something comes out, if any, of the meeting. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking [Ready], article is updated and the topic is on WP:ITNR. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Syrian uprising

Human rights organisations estimate that the Government of Syria has killed 1,000 civilians so far during the protests.(Al Jazeera) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we better wait for the UN resolution. [13] --BorgQueen (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution pertaining to waht? a la libya? that wont happen. I think we need a reason to post these various evetns but none seem to be individually significant. A sticky...?Lihaas (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article I linked above. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not news; won't be above the fold anywhere; just a tally and a SWAG by "organizations" with no reliability - Arab dictators killing their people simply isn't sufficiently out of the ordinary to be "newsy". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Małgorzata Dydek

• Comment - what's so special about him or his death that would warrant a main page ITN mention? Very tempted to strongly oppose barring unusual circumstances. StrPby (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as per StrangePasserby; She's not that well known globally.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The only major claim to fame she has is that she was the tallest women's basketball player at the time of her death. Is this enough to warrant ITN recognition? I think not. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 15:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the death criteria. jorgenev 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Pulled] John Banville wins Franz Kafka Prize

ITN doesn't feature many literary awards. This is an annual award. Perhaps it could be ITNR'd if it approved? Past winners include Philip Roth, Haruki Murakami, Václav Havel and Nobel laureates Harold Pinter and Elfriede Jelinek. It is awarded to those whose works "appeal to readers regardless of their origin, nationality and culture" so it is not (and has not been) limited to one country. The sources describe it variously as "prestigious", "one of the most prestigious international literary awards" and "novelist given honour thought by some to be a Nobel prize augury". --candle•wicke 04:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pending an article update - Impressive list of past winners for this award, which wins me over, but the article lede needs an update and I could wish for a bit more information on Banville's latest award in the body of the article as well. The article on the award is just a stub and could use a bit of work as well. Nevertheless a refreshing change from the usual diet of plane crashes and disasters, so thanks CW. Jusdafax 05:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been updated for a while. Any more comments? --candle•wicke 07:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good updates to both articles now, and I thank you for taking the initiative. Well done; again, this is the type of ITN candidate I think we should be looking at more often. Jusdafax 09:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I like the diversity of the past winners of this award. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when expanded further. I feel update should be expanded a wee bit. In particular, it should have reactions by people besides Banville himself.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment--I basically already stated my position above, but I'd like to repeat that I feel the current update is inadequate. The only reactions to Banville's award are by Banville himself. There's no information on why he won. Here is an example of an update posted earlier for a similar award that is not any longer but more substantial: A_Visit_From_the_Goon_Squad#Critical_reception --Johnsemlak (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnsemlak. There should be more expansion in the award paragraph. Spencer^T♦C 21:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull please. I hate to seem irritating here but I still cannot see an acceptable update, or consensus, for this item. Originally I attemped to fix the problem instead of posting another objection here but when I searched I found all of 11 sources, several of which just mention the award in passing and none of which say why Banville won the award or what his books are even about. Unless someone can find some other sources and sort this out, I strongly suggest that this be pulled.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little more. Where is the lack of consensus? Why fill the article with reactions? It's supposed to be a biography of Banville, not a list of responses from people after a single award win. There is already more on this than on the time he won the Booker Prize (and there is actually a reaction from Roddy Doyle). --candle•wicke 15:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the nomination template says: "Nominated event is from a minority topic and therefore requires a lower level of consensus to post." And I don't think it is reasonable to demand more reactions when you know yourself that there are no available sources. The last time I checked the minimum requirements for the update was five sentences and three references, and even that drew complaints like "Are you serious?" from some nominators. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree with you about the lower bar for consensus but the bar for the update is not lowered for minority topics. I know hte update has enough sentences but please read my objection--I don't think it's unreasonable to require the update to have information on why the author won the award, and to have reactions from people other than the author himself. Where's the notability in this award if nobody cares enough about it to say something about it, other than how it looks on the mantle.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Futile oppose since an Irish won. There had been 11 prize winners -- among those, 5 don't mention this award on the article(!) and only one, this guy's article, has a paragraph's worth of update including things such as "I've been wrestling with Kafka since I was an adolescent". If there had been only 11 so-called references everywhere, this may not have been well-covered enough to merit an ITN mention. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banville's article doesn't even go into detail on his Booker Prize win. Are you suggesting that the Booker should not be posted in future? It has nothing much to do with Irishness, I first found it in the British and American media (The Guardian and CBS News) and nominated for the very reason that Jusdafax gave ("a refreshing change from the usual diet of plane crashes and disasters"). I also asked if it could be included in ITNR for future years when anyone from anywhere might win and didn't particularly care about the nationality at the time, just that it was an underrepresented topic. --candle•wicke 16:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it may have even been featured in <insert country here>'s news website, buried at the sea of links. And why not last year? Why wait for some Irish guy to win to nom this?

The fact that almost half of the articles about the recipients of this award mentions it, and only one devotes an entire paragraph of the winner's reaction, speaks volumes that it's not that quite important. Also, quick reading the six articles that "mentioned" this, it seems that the winning works are sorta (like I said, I can't discern for lack of proper references/prose on what this award is supposed to be) related to Kafka's works: the works are probably patterned to Kafka's works, or something like that). If that's the case, this award is way too specific to be added here.

Yeah like I said, futile oppose, and even if this is pulled, it has already served its purpose: stayed there for more than a day and someone probably earned those ITN notices already, no one in their right mind would also pull those. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell does this have to do with him being Irish?! Stop taking your unhappiness at Gaelic sports being on ITNR here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you've noticed, Irish-centric items have an easier time of getting posted than any other nation. Except the U.S. but we'll need rogue admins just to add them after an FA's worth of discussion. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'd have nominated it last year if I'd heard about it at the time. I didn't know when it was announced. All I can do now is try to remember the time of year in future (or hope that somebody else does). It never occurred to me that I shouldn't nominate it this time because "some Irish guy" won it. I didn't even think of him as "some Irish guy", just as somebody called John Banville. --candle•wicke 16:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. You have not heard of it. The people editing 5 of the winners' articles did not heard of it. Of the other 6, four mention it passing and one is buried in a list. Now, some Irish guy won and we posted it? Because the "bronze statuette trophy 'will glare at me from the mantelpiece'"? Come on, I know we need x sentences and x references but the entire "update" with statements such as those two is what cringes me; it's like the writer ran out of something to write about, or probably there isn't enough to write about. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I wrote. I never wrote that I hadn't heard of him or it. I had heard of him and it. I wrote that I did not know when it was announced and that I did not think to label him as "some Irish guy", no more than I would label someone as "some British guy" or "some American guy" for example. Just adding that for the record, not wanting to continue going round in circles anymore. --candle•wicke 14:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria note that merit of the nominations depends in part on the quality of the updated content , not just the fact that there are 5 sentences and enough references. I don't debate the significance necessarily but the update in the bolded article simply fails to convey it by providing a quality update. If someone else sees an update with the highlight "bronze statuette trophy 'will glare at me from the mantelpiece' , then I just don't know what we're doing here honestly. I made a sincere attempt to update this item rather than kick up a stink and there just wasn't anything to update it with. And while there may have seemed to be a consensus earlier, three people have objected now and I think the consensus isn't there, minority topic or no. And to answer why reactions are needed, or at least desirable, is that reactions (by notable people) are a substantial indication of the awards notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Mac malware attacks

Nominator's comments: Seems like a item of interest among computers users, OS X and Macs in general have always been known for it's immunity to this kind of thing. Getting wide spread coverage as the infection rate has spiked and the release of a more dangerous version of Mac Defender. Interesting topic and decent article RxS (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I run everything I do on a Mac, but the only people getting hit with this are either stupid or just severely incompetent with Technology. If this was a program that sophisticated I might Support but its not The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the intelligence of the users is the point, the story is that Macs are large scale targets for the first time, and the latest variant works without user input. And in the bigger picture, Apple's long held appearance of immunity to these types attacks is in question and seemingly lost. If our demo's are roughly the same as the Internet in general, a large segment of our readers are potentially directly affected. Seems like an interesting story all around. RxS (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry First, shouldn't the relevant article be Mac Defender or this at least be in the blurb? Second, is there a source for this: "and the latest variant works without user input"? μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be fine, I wasn;t aware of that article when I put this together. But you're right that might be a better target. As for the second question, [15] The installer runs without needing a password, after it installs it runs a "scan" and reports all sorts of "issues" RxS (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the blurb around a bit per your suggestion, feel free to adjust if needed. RxS (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mac Defender should be named explicitly, and have changed the blurb to add that without lengthening it too much. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is a little thin admittedly. If I have time I'll try and expand it. RxS (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Welcome to the deep end, Mac users. --Golbez (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So spite is now a rationale? That comment should be stricken as irrelevant and uncivil. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brand of computer now having the same widespread software and PEBKAC problems as other brands of computers is not news, it's simply learning how to leave the kiddie pool. No, it should not be stricken whatsoever. --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support strong, assuming the Huffpost/Intego report is reliable, and even if not, still support given the unprecedented scope of the affected users. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Actually, as the first wide scale effective attack aimed at Mac's / Mac users this is very notable. Golbez's commentary actually demonstrates the fact that wide spread specifically Mac-orintated malware is a new occurence, whilst in PC world it wouldn't get a second glance. Pedro :  Chat  19:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly new. It's not, however, news. --Golbez (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is news, it's new, and it is a big deal to all computer users, PC and Mac alike. Jusdafax 19:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a PC and Linux user, how exactly is it a big deal to me? --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The readership (the single most important component of Wikipedia) don't really give a toss if it's a big deal to you Golbez. Pedro :  Chat  21:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This is a big deal to all computer users" "How?" "Sod off, you idiot, no one cares if it impacts you" So, now that we've moved Pedro out of the way, can someone please explain Jusdafax's comment about how this is relevant to PC users? --Golbez (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've not really understood the spirit of collegial editing and consensus have you Golbez. To be fair, it's tricky for many people to get their heads around a "big picture" and that's not a slight on you personally, just a recognition of your current limitatations. Please try to de-personalise commentary ("That's got Pedro ot of the way") and focus more on the value you're bringing to the discussion instead. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb I have edited the blurb again to make Mac Defender the first word. I wonder if adding Apple's lack of response would be warranted? μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think the current Mac Defender article explains the notability well, as stated in the blurb. I'm not seeing "first major threat" or similar wording in the article right now. Spencer^T♦C 21:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added just that comment along with refs from CNET, MACWORLD and others. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I sort of support this, but it's more of a broader trend (albeit an important one) than this particular event. The Christian Science Monitor link has the right slant in mentioning that until recently Macs had "security through obscurity". Obviously they are now becoming more popular, so more of a target for attacks. So, something major is happening, and this event is part of it, but it's not the whole "thing". I'd love to see a source showing that longer term "trend" perspective, but then we'd probably have some here arguing that trends don't belong in ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the trend would be a good update for the malware article. Part of the reason for posting ITN items is to attract improvement to the belinked articles. Since the nominated article meets the other criteria, posting the blurb will hopefully attract useful attention to all the links. μηδείς (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - To elaborate, PC owners are often given the reason of Apple's immunity from computer viruses as a reason to switch to Apple. This bubble is now burst. Additionally, most of us PC users have various friends and associates who own Apples, and those folks are now impacted, etc. The ripple effect this will have will be significant. That's some of the impact, and I believe there will be other impacts as we go from here, affecting people's time and money. Jusdafax 00:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree, any PC user thinking about a new computer purchase who considers a Mac will certainly factor this issue into the decision. This topic directly effects a large chunk of our readers in a way that doesn't happen very often here. RxS (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article is updated, only one substantial oppose which has a decent counterargument and its a minority topic. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 37th G8 summit

Nominator's comments: This is a WP:ITNR item. OCNative (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The article should be either expanded or condensed somewhat before it's put on the front page. As it stands some of the sections are very sparse. Otherwise, support as WP:ITNR item.--WaltCip (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2011 Fuzhou bombings

 Found5dollar

• Comment I'm afraid this doesn't meet the update criteria - see 2010 Jiangxi train derailment for an example of the standard required. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also updated the blurb to include 'China' as well - that's what we did last time this place was mentioned (coincidentally for the example updated article). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I merely posted this here because I saw that an article was already created for an event that I think is worthy of being posted in the news section. From what I see here there are often times when an article is suggested then improved because of the suggestion. Sorry if i was wrong.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nomination is fine, but you can't say updated=yes when its not updated :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending article expansion On Par with Oklahoma City Bombing or British Bus Bombings. Such Events in stable first world nations are rare enough. Given the Recent crack downs in China its possible this may urn into something too. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle but the article is small even on stub standards. Might be hard to get into shape before the topic gets stale. RxS (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article is larger, and I was trying to work on it, but a user has been deleting large chunks of the article and I can not keep the article at above the level it is currently at without it getting deleted.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that now. You can avoid that by including references for the material you want to add. Otherwise you'll have trouble building it into something that belongs on the main page...or Wikipedia in general really, content needs to be properly referenced. RxS (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow. I cant deal with this. I have been trying to add referenced material but it has been getting deleted as soon as it is put in. I'm done with the article. I'll just move back to the safe articles I like making that no one reads.--Found5dollar (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can see the source of your frustration. Edits like this are pure vandalism [19] RxS (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The bombing of three government buildings sounds important. --candle•wicke 07:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as Nominator article has been expanded, not sure if it is still large enough, and it appears it has calmed down as well.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post Already Support this as highly notable unusual development with a well-referenced comprehensive article. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, complaints that this article is a stub or needs updating make no sense given that it is one dayt old, has 13 references, and is already almost 9K long. Objections on update/stub basis should be repeated or withdrawn given developments. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose 2 dead? Is that our new standard for in the newsy-ness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a tabloid newspaper and the bombing is not an act of nature. You can be sure the Bombing of three American or Russian government offices would make ITN. What is of interest is not the body count, but that it is a coordinated attack against the Chinese government. One doesn't hear of this sort of thing that often--indeed, except for race riots, I can't remember anything similar since Tiananmen Square.μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted 3,000 characters of prose and 12 sources in a new article. Meets the update requirements, and the consensus is in favour. Courcelles 05:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--good post. A bombing of this nature in China is startling, given that such events don't normally happen there.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article has been expanded recently. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 22:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Ratko Mladić arrested

Wait for 1 PM CET for Serbian press conference. 40 min from now. --93.137.115.72 (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

source: Police arrest man suspected to be Ratko Mladić --93.137.115.72 (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if confirmed, significant development. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sky News now saying it is confirmed, Press Conference imminent. Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if confirmed Right now, we really don't know if this is the person for sure. But, if confirmed, support. A hugely important figure in the Bosnian War and one of the most wanted and longest sought figures in modern times. Franklinville (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if confirmed and article adequately expanded. Lampman (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It's been confirmed. Mladic's been arrested. Franklinville (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we work a link to the Srebrenica massacre into the blurb? That what he's (in)famous for. How are we doing on an update? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It says: "On 26th May 2011, Ratko Mladić was arrested." Lampman (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So I see. I went to update it, but I can't find any source (except real time blogging by a BBC reporter for which the link will be dead by the end of the day) that confirms it was him arrested. Probably worth waiting a little while for the news services to catch up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pending confirmation and update.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  11:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13561407 --93.137.115.72 (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've updated the article and multiple sources are now reporting the confirmation. This is good to go, but I'll recuse since I added most of the content to Ratko Mladić#Arrest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Sa'na going on

See section --93.137.115.72 (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this situation is turning into a civil war. I'd imagine there'll be a few more notable developments over the next few days. Night w2 (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a civil war is obviously notable. Thue | talk 15:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aisde, there are plenty of sources calling it a civil war so its not WP OR/Synthesis/ (unlike on other occassions where weve been hasty to jump the gun)

Anyways, back to a MENA Sticky? Id strongly support that.Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sure looks like a civil war and the article looks to be updated. NYT calls it a civil conflict but it's a big deal no matter the semantics. RxS (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After the battle for entertainment television, this is a bracing reminder that life-and-death issues are escalating around the world, and U.S. television news will have to push past their resistance to reporting several international stories on the same evening. However, I would caution against jumping the gun on calling it civil war. For example, our article cites the source as being entitled "Yemen on the brink of civil war" when in fact the title is "Escalating conflict pushes Yemen to the brink" and begins "Yemen appears headed for civil war". A non-notable person is reported as having "said civil war was only a matter of time". And "an expert on Yemen at Princeton University, said Monday's clashes could push Yemen's conflict from peaceful protest movement to civil war." As with the debates on when to rename "Egyptian Protests" to "Egyptian Revolution", let's let the reportage lead us, rather than spur us ahead of it in excitedly pushing the moment to its crisis.

Similarly, I haven't read enough about this yet to know whether "military conflict" is the right phrase, but it isn't used anywhere in our article as such, and it wasn't in the two source articles I did read. I am more familiar with the term being used for "open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two states or nations". We all know there is a conflict, and we know there are pro-government militia and military defectors fighting one another, but as we are an encyclopedia and we're crafting a news headline about a very volatile situation with lives at stake, semantics are precisely where we come in: we need to be sure we're using precisely the right words, and before I vote to support, I'd like to see us borrow a phrasing from a preponderance of notable reliable sources. Abrazame (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What formulation do you suggest? Thue | talk 15:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose talk of civil war is pure speculation; Syria uses its military against protesters - so does Bahrain - but no civil war. Let's wait until something newsy actually happens rather than try to get ahead of the story. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And on the article quality side; you really want a main page link to an article that has so many content flags, from unsourced, unclear, weasel words, etc...? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first ever Presidential address in Westminster Hall

 Obama has just become the first ever US President to be allowed to address members of both the House of Commons and House of Lords from within Westminster Hall, the oldest and most historic part of the Palace of Westminster. This is considered a rare privelage, with Charles de Gaulle, Nelson Mandela and Pope Benedict XVI being the only foreign leaders to be afforded this honour since the second world war. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose -- ahmadenijad's visit to lebanon was as rare and first adn not sdeemed notworthy "just an ordiniray bilateral visit"Lihaas (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Hardly significant internationally (already great allies), and the location is probably not even all that significant to most of the locals. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but more general blurb. Seems internationally significant, eg. frontpage news in Helsingin Sanomat web edition this morning. A significant portion of en-wiki readers are either British or American – very newsworthy in both countries. Not just any state visit – this was Obama's first official state visit to the UK and Ireland. [23] --hydrox (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose What's next, first time a President signed the year of his election rather than the current year on the guestbook? μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, because that's the same. FFS. MickMacNee (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppose. Historic event. --bender235 (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] NASA's Spirit rover mission on Mars is formally concluded

 Jusdafax 06:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, however, some corrections to the article are now required to reflect the end of the mission. --Tone 12:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's meant by "formally concluded"? Did it finally lose contact? Is it still in contact, but they don't care anymore? Are they still collecting data? Throw us a bone here. MickMacNee (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They lost contact a year ago. They have now officially given up on contacting it and disbanded the team. jorgenev 14:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they lost contact and this is simply abandoning efforts to re-establish contact. It is nothing unexpected - from memory it got stuck in sand in such a position that its solar panels couldn't keep it powered up over the winter. Attempts to re-establish communication were more in hope than any real expectation. Now those have stopped and personally I would not call that particularly significant: space is probably over-represented anyway, since any launch is an ITNR item. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose then. Seems nothing more than a formality. MickMacNee (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but posting the formal milestone of important event is a part of reporting news [clarification edit: normal ITN procedure]. For example when the a country enters the EURO, the fact that the country will enter is known in advance, and the country's currency long locked to the EURO but we still regard the formal entry as news. Thue | talk 15:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITN is not a news source of any kind. We don't need to be bound by one individual's notion of good journalistic practice, particularly one that the media does not seem to share. ITN exists purely as a convenience to the reader so that we may highlight fresh content that is relevant to what is being reported in the mass media. Where is this in the running order of a normal mainstream news broadcast? It is nowhere. What is the fresh content we are highlighting - a whole two sentences? The idea that we should post this as a tribute (to an inanimate object at that) seems similarly ridiculous. If communication had been re-established that would have been notable, but this was regarded as a virtual inevitability come the onset of the Martian winter. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

As for this only being a 2-sentence update, that is not a problem IMO; the ITN item is a summation about everything leading up to the formal conclusion, so there is plenty of story. As for this not being the main frontpage item in newspapers, that is a valid criticism; my only answer is that I personally think Wikipedia should focus more on science news than the general press, in keeping with our enlightenment mission. Thue | talk 22:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The formal end of an important experiment. Thue | talk 15:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. I know I said I wouldn't post any more but I feel too much of a need to say something about this particular item. This is not a formality. Spirit and Opportunity were both rovers expected to last just 90 Mars days (sols), but they ended up going on for six years. NASA had been having problems with Spirit a few years ago but it was only until March 2010 when they finally lost contact with it. They decided to wait until the following spring, when the area would receive its highest output of energy. After that failed, they tried some last-ditched efforts to make contact, but they officially concluded (or gave up) the mission today.

We did not post when NASA lost contact with Spirit, so this is obviously the best time to commemorate it on ITN. One can look at the discoveries it made if they remain unconvinced. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my wording is a bit off. One could just say the mission has "officially ended" or even just ended. However you phrase it, it is the end of a pretty important era in the history of the exploration of the planet Mars. Jusdafax 19:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not a huge story, but Spirit's never been on ITN, and there hasn't been much posted for a while. Dragons flight (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See January 3: [24] and we also posted again later that month. There may be others but I'm not too inclined to try and track them down now. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Support; formal end of one of the most important Mars missions. C628 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A more substantial update would be welcome. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a long standing area of interest and it's a great article. I think it's close to being update enough since the end of the mission is pretty well chronicled in the article. RxS (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some material about transistioning assets to the new Mars rover. RxS (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I suggest we mark this as 'ready to post?' Jusdafax 04:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but I'm not going to be the one that does it (IMHO it should be left to the admins anyway). On a sheer count of votes we're currently at 6:3, plus the nominator. That isn't truly overwhelming (and consensus is more than a show of hands) but reading between the lines it seems the opposes are not vociferous - mine certainly isn't. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough. Jusdafax 06:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. The update is sufficient and there seems to be a rough consensus. --Tone 08:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb Can we perhaps shorten this blurb as well? There is certainly no need for the passive voice and the Latinate verb. I believe Spirit is also italicized.

• NASA formally ends the Spirit rover's six-year exploration of Mars.

strikes me as much more efficient than:

• The Spirit rover mission on Mars is formally concluded by NASA after six years of planetary exploration.

μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to eliminate the passive voice earlier, but I realized that doing so would force us to use a particular English variety (American, given NASA's involvement); "NASA formally ends" is incorrect in British English (in which collective nouns, such as organizations, are treated as plural), but we obviously can't use "NASA formally end." Whenever feasible, we try to use English variety-neutral wording, and the current blurb accomplishes that. —David Levy 02:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will remember that the next time I see "Mexico defeat Italy". The solution is simple, and even shorter yet:

• NASA's six-year Spirit rover exploration of Mars formally ends.

This also allows unpiping planetary exploration if we like.

μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I independently arrived at a similar solution:

• "NASA's Spirit rover mission on Mars formally ends after six years of planetary exploration."

This is more accurate, given the matter discussed above. (The rover landed on Mars in 2004, but communication was lost last year.) —David Levy 02:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get the point about the interruption. The blurb could still be less redundant (on Mars/of planetary) if we use:

• "NASA's Spirit rover mission formally ends after six years exploring Mars."

μηδείς (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Reposted] Oprah's last show

Oprahs last show is today. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• QUESTION - What makes it a minority topic? (Yes, I've read the link. Still curious.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree, the "minority" thing is wide open to abuse and I don't see how this is a minority topic as defined in the link. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought culture was on the list. I've removed it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did we post Larry King's last show? I don't remember but I suggest we act the same here. Very similar case. --Tone 12:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't, unfortunately. I nominated it, so I remember the result. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - And if I remember correctly I nominated the termination of Keith Olbermann's show which did not make it. I made a case for the abruptness of MSNBC pulling the plug on their top-rated show. Point being, precedent appears to be more or less established against last tv shows. Jusdafax 13:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, out of pure joy. Night w2 (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't believe Oprah and Larry King are comparable. Oprah is usually near the top of those "most powerful women in the world" lists and, even though I've never watched, her show - and herself - is something of a cultural phenomenon in the States. It will be especially interesting to see how many people watch this finale... --PlasmaTwa2 15:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Understand, I Can't stand the woman even tempted to say I hate her! BUT Her impact on is widely felt in the United States and remain a prominent influential figure in American life. How many of Oprah Book club's" books ended up on the NYT bestseller list simply because she recommended them? This show made her Multimillionaire (maybe billion?) and promient in culture in away Larry King never was. Her show as served as launching point for Dr. Phil and half dozen other TV shows. Time does a real good work on her impact here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am about 99% sure that her "brand," (if you can call it that) which revolves around the TV show made her a billionaire several years ago. I'd also like to point out that if we put this up, well perhaps she will buy us all new cars. --PlasmaTwa2 15:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Idea! I am emailing her producer now! and I knew she was extremely wealthy I dont follow her close enough to throw her net worth around. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I agree with Plasma that she's in a different league with Larry King and Kieth Olbermann. She's one of the most influential women in the world and was once the world's only black billionaire. Her fame goes well outside the US, coverage is truely global: Malaysia, UK, Australia, Russia. I"m not sure how to consider her final show in the context of her new OWN Network but my inclination to to just post it, given the appropriate update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a purely commercial event scheduled many years in advance. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per precedence for last shows.Lihaas (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Who says it's her last show? It's the end of one commercial TV series, a primarily commercial event in its own right. It would have to be close to a certainty that she will have some sort of new show on her own cable channel. We will simply be promoting it. And if culture is the excuse for it being a minority topic, someone's idea of culture is very different from mine. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yeah, I know, it's not my cup of tea, either. But it's hard to overstate the influence of "The Queen of Daytime" on American culture since the 1980s. Oprah is one of the most-recognized faces in America, the only African-American billionaire and possibly the most-successful African-American women ever (sorry, Condi Rice). She dominated mid-day TV for 25 years, helping to bury the soap opera. She was famous enough to be responsible for the "Oprah effect" -- making a bestseller out of an obscure book by naming it in her book club. The show aired in 146 countries, according to our article. The show spawned a 2.5-million circulation magazine, a cable TV network and four spinoffs.

oppose only because instead of a show she now has her OWN network (the reason why she is ending the show). thats like ending small thing to start even bigger one. so is that really ending it? no. would have supported otherwise. -- Ashish-g55 22:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, although she'll have as little as 70 hours a year of new material on OWN, and OWN's ratings are minuscule compared to syndication on major-network affiliates. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, I can't believe there's so much opposition. The show is broadcast in 140 countries... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you need to actually look at the points made by those with a view different from yours, and respond to them, rather than just expressing frustration, along with the implication that those opposed are stupid or something. This is a Discussion page, not a Vent Your Frustration page. It's possible that I could be persuaded of a different view, but not by your post. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]