April 13, 2011 (2011-04-13) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters
International relations
Law and crime
Politics
Were more than 24 horus without an update and this seems the biggest thing happening today. Its also the first time South Africa has come meaning it now covers every continent of the "glboal south" and a strengthening of emerging market bonds. Like the G7 of the northern hemisphere.Lihaas (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support big meeting between countries with a large percent of world GDP and population - possibly even a candidate for ITNR. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 7 (Al-Arabiya), (BBC), (AFP via Yahoo! News).
- JustinSpringer (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support any one of these stories. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support including the addition of Mubarak's emergency hospital visit (below).--NortyNort (Holla) 12:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - after his resignation the only importance will be his death. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The arrest of a former head of state isn't ITN material for you, while an aftershock that killed nobody is? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, obviously notable given his resignation was only about a month ago. Nightw 13:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Head of state arrested..that's enough for me as long as there's an update. RxS (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Major milestone in a national revolution. Indicative of the permanence of the change there and what's to come in terms of investigation and prosecution. Not every step of his trial will be newsworthy, but the fact that there will be one certainly is. Ocaasi c 13:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This do NOT mean there will be a trail. hes been arrested for 15 days as part of investigations. being a trail is the big deal i agree, but no asurety of that just yet. at any rate, hes also in hospital so dont know how much will b e done.Lihaas (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the articles is updated? NW (Talk) 13:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Clearly ITN stansard news considering that the ITN has not been updated from 27 hours. Also, I have added the blurb and other sources. JustinSpringer (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If anyone can suggest a better blurb, please do me a favour. JustinSpringer (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mild Oppose: our usual trigger for court proceedings is conviction. To have arrest, arraignment, opening of case, conviction is overkill. This is not an arrest after a long hunt for someone who has been on the run for many years: his whereabouts for the last few months has been a matter of public record, and an arrest could have been affected at any time. Kevin McE (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @Kevin McE, how many heads of states have been arrested on such charges. And also, if we can post the arrest of Laurent Gbagbo, why not Hosni Mubarak, who was the subject of the largest revolution this year? JustinSpringer (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware that I could only post an opinion with your approval. I've contributed to a discussion: that contribution will be borne in mind by whoever eventually takes it upon his/herself to adjudicate on the strengths of the arguments presented. Kevin McE (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither was I aware that I needed your approval to present my opinion on your view and the discussion thread. And even my response will be borne in mind by whoever eventually takes it upon his/herself to adjudicate on the strengths of the arguments presented. [[User:JustinSpringer|JustinSpringer]] ({{SUBST:click|image=Zeichen_101.svg|size=20px|link=User talk:JustinSpringer|title=Caution|align=right}}[[User talk:JustinSpringer|<u>Talk at your own risk</u>]]) (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Significant development in the Egyptian Revolution and the arrest of the former head of state. Nuff said. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of order: There is pretty clearly consensus to post this. What is also true is that the blurb will not be posted without a significant update for the article in question, which has yet to be pointed out to all. NW (Talk) 16:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
April 12, 2011 (2011-04-12) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
- Almost all of 169 Chinese Christians detained on Sunday, after they tried to hold an outdoor prayer session, are released; the unofficial Chinese church vows to hold more services. (MSN Malaysia News) (BBC)
Disasters
International relations
Law and crime
Politics
Sport
Southern Mehtodist University Lewis Binford pinoneer in the "New Archeology" dies. Letter from the President of the World Archaeological Congress Leader in his feild... some would even argue the "founder" of Modern Archology as he tunred Archeology into a science. He may have been old but He is in the middle of teaching a class this semester thus unexpected enough. If some one could mop up his article its postable. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.221.69 (talk) [reply]
- I just read the first three paragraphs of Processual archaeology (the real name of the article - New Archeology is simply an anachronistically confusing redirect), and I'm lost! It seems to be written by and for insiders to the archaeological "industry". Full of jargon. Any chance something could be created in clearer, simpler English? HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At present, the article fails to meet this part of the death criteria: "the article needs to have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death (in accordance with ITN updating criteria), and the article as a whole must be B-class and/or be satisfactorily filled out with no major omissions of the person's life and effect." NW (Talk) 22:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This a a job for Recent deaths, which is already linked from ITN. Thue | talk 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Fukushima I nuclear accidents-Now rated at 7
- Article
- Fukushima I nuclear accidents
INES level jumps from 5 to 7 ,as rated by Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, ...
On a 0-7 scale. This claims NHK here: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_05.html
Did this really (just) happen?--Alcea setosa (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify no one else seems to report this (yet) . I was just checking the article for updates when I noticed this posted by a new IP.--Alcea setosa (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I got it on Forbes Support purely symbolic move but also means thing have been worse than they have been letting on The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•
(contribs) 00:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The last 7 was Chernobyl, so this is highly significant, een if purely symbolic. Clear support. StrPby (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: just noticed all the report are saying Japan will do it in the "future tense." Lets not jump the gun here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I agree http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-may-raise-nuclear-accident-severity-level-to-highest-7-from-5 --Alcea setosa (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only level 7 one was Chernobyl. IFF this is rerated as level 6 or 7 then it is worth reposting (there was only one level 6 until now anyways). Nergaal (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as both NHK and Reuters report level 7. Nergaal (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Posting soon. The update is a bit short but the accident rating section is overall well-updated, I think it is acceptable. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We could including in the blurb ...comparable with Chernobyl disaster? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the hook is already long enough. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
April 11, 2011 (2011-04-11) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters
International relations
Law and crime
Politics
Sports
Gagarin's flight: 50th anniversary
- Article
- Yuri_Gagarin#50th_anniversary_tributes and Yuri's Night
- News agencies
- WSJ, BBC, Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, Reuters, AFP, Washington Post, ITAR-TASS, Fox, and many more.
This is a major anniversary (April 12)), and if I remember well, Russia in planning various events to celebrate it. Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose unless there are events worldwide. It is also included in On this day. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose ITN isn't for anniversaries. Grsz 11 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, you guys really believe that shooting of 6 people in Netherlands, or winning a golf Masters is more worthy of ITN feature than the only 50th anniversary of the only first spaceflight in human history, then I congratulate you. Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The event is already going to be on the front page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- humans love numbers that are multiple of 10 or 5 or even better both. other than 50th anniversary being a number nothing new has happened here. so its not really for ITN. we have OTD dedicated for this stuff -- Ashish-g55 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Even though this has a small mention on OTD (nothing mentioning the anniversary, might I add), it would be nice to explicitly highlight the moment... I mean, it is the first time a human has ventured into outer space and back. That's quite a big moment in our history. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "nothing mentioning the anniversary": what do you think OTD stands for? Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As in outlining that it is the 50th anniversary. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. What exactly's in the news about this? A simple anniversary is not what ITN is here for; as others have pointedout that's OTD's job. Would only support if there are international events that take place to mark the date as that would be what ends up "in the news". StrPby (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify I would support per Strpby. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: These events are meant for On this day. Otherwise we could have added things like Rama Navami is celebrated in India or 150th anniversary of American Civil War. Also, it is already covered in On This Day. So no need for this special coverage. And I request User:Nergaal to assume good faith and not campaign for this event. @Nergaal, he is the only one pictured in on this day! Be Happy! JustinSpringer (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At least six deaths. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is a terror attack, I'd support. Article needs major work though. WhiteKongMan (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At least a piece of news should be written about that. 178.121.73.135 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to say we have consensus. What we lack is a sufficient article. Even with all the support in the world, this isn't going to be posted until the article is expanded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- its about time an admin statement like that be made.Lihaas (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that once the references are tidied up the update is sufficient. The article looks in a better state than 2010 Jiangxi train derailment does today, and that was posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, the article looked like this when I made that comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the article is now improved enough for the news to be posted.--Avala (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a few sections; it should be all set to go. Nutmegger (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated + changed blurb to reflect updated toll. Nutmegger (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The article looks pretty good to me. It seems clear that considerable work has been done on it. The notability is also there, in my view, as this event raises the stakes in this former component of the USSR. Jusdafax 07:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted. --Tone 09:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laurent Gbagbo the President of Côte d'Ivoire from 2000 to 2011 is arrested by French special forces and hand over to rebel fighters, effectivly ending his time as president.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support if an adequate update is provided. Nergaal (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, confirmed, broad-reaching implications. Abductive (reasoning) 16:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- concur with cenarium. it seems to be spculative at the momtent iwth only claims thereof. if it is then it should be added for sure. may need to wait a few hours instead of jum[ping to senstaionalist news.Lihaas (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The UN, France and the Ouattara government have indicated that it was Ouattara forces, denying the claim by the Gbagbo aide. Reliable sources seem to consider that the UN/France/Ouattara version is more likely. We may never know for sure, so we should post. If we want to be prudent, we can add "It has announced that...". Cenarium (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Posting. --Tone 18:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- seems fair, cenrium's "his arrest was announced" is more npov.Lihaas (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's confusing now. Please agree on the npov blurb and then I'll put it back. --Tone 19:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- also its not quite "concluded" that is clear OR. (esop as it comes within hours of his "arrest"Lihaas (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworded the blurb. Cenarium (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BUT WHY was i t re added without any comment whatsoever? not sure who the admin wqas who readded it but he has given no explanation whatsoever despite Tone's responsibility.Lihaas (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another strong aftershock - 7.1 magnitude. - [4] - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Individual aftershocks are, like all other earthquakes, not ITN material unless they result in lasting effects/impacts. Any article should be redirected to the main article's aftershock section for now.
Note that there is an active tsunami warning so the situation might change. Nothing happened in the end, onshore quake so no tsunami, no apparent impact, so sticking to oppose. StrPby (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The French ban on face covering is met with severe protests on the first day of its implementation. Women appeared with their faces covered in front of Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. Parisian police arrest 61 including 19 women. Veiled women risk a 150 euro (£133) fine or having to attend special citizenship classes, but not jail. Those who force women to wear a veil are subject to up to a year in prison and a 30,000 euro fine. Although only a small minority of France's five million Muslims wear the veil, many see the ban as a stigma against the country's second biggest religion. The ban affects women who wear the niqab, which has just a slit for the eyes, and the burka which has a mesh screen over the eyes. Refrences:
- Yahoo!
- AFP
- Montreal Gazette
- The Independent
- Washington Post
- Forbes
- The Telegraph
- Belfast Telegraph
JustinSpringer (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Comment: Trending issue in France due to alleged 'racism' and violation of Freedom of Expression and Religion. JustinSpringer (talk)
- Is that directed at me? I don't see how my statement held any POV — that a democratic country that professes freedom of religious expression as a fundamental civil right is now enacting laws that retract from said civil right is exactly why it is notable. Notability is what is being decided here and that was the intent of my comment. Would you mind retracting your accusation? Nightw 18:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural comment In light of the previous comments I strongly suggest to avoid posting before it has been made clear that the article and the blurb have no WP:NPOV issues. The blurb seems POV, I've not seen any evidence of RS reporting severe protests on the first day of implementation. The 61 arrests were made regarding a protest on Saturday, not today. A neutral blurb like: "The French ban on face covering has entered into force." would be acceptable, but not the proposed one. Cenarium (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support:France is the first European country to have such a Ban.[5] AFAIK no "severe protests" have occurred anywhere. Blurb should instead reflect the fact that France is the first country to have such a ban which is notable since France has the biggest Muslim population in western Europe.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support not sure if it is an important step towards individual freedom or on the contrary, but it is an important step nonetheless, with potential large implications. Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind the blurb, the article (or at least the updated portion) is POV. If I'd read that and didn't know otherwise, I would think this was totally uncontroversial and every Muslim in France was looking forward to being liberated because they all have oppressive husbands and none of them wear a veil by choice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If anyone has a better blurb, do me a favour by updating it. JustinSpringer (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- done.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @HJMitchell: It is possible that every Muslim in France was looking to be liberated but the concern is that France is a democratic country and supports freedom of religion in their country, yet they pass such laws which hurt the very sentiments and laws of Islam. It is an important news trending in France and more so, even Britain has taken the back-foot in this controversial topic as they support diversity and freedom of religion. Also, the article is considered a high-importance article in WikiProject France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinSpringer (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not NPOV. There are positives with women wearing a veil, such as avoiding getting judged on your appearance which is fetishised by Western culture. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article doesn't appear to be updated either, there have been no substantial changes since the 25 March. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @Justin many Muslims have said that Burqa and other such face coverings are not required by Islam. Other Islamic apparel like Chador is exempt from this ban. Since many Muslim women don't have a say in what they wear this may possibly be construed by some as a step in the right direction--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus it had been in the news for a long time, and France does have a large Muslim population who will be negatively affected unlike Belgium I do believe. Passionless -Talk 18:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Caution with blurb: Belgium has had a ban, although I believe specific to the burqa, for some time: some towns for a few years now.[6] The French legislation is apparently different, and so in some ways a first, but not totally unique. Kevin McE (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC clearly states France is the 1st country to enforce such a ban.[7]--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does (although their TV news broadcast earlier today acknowledged the Belgian precedent): they appear to be wrong. Kevin McE (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Belgian law hasn't cleared the Senate. Al Jazeera and the other sources I looked at when updating the article said it was the first country to go with such a ban. The current lead seems fine to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Last year (2009), the city of Brussels fined only 29 women — down from 33 in 2008" Legislation clearly was in place in Belgium. France will become the second country in Europe, after Belgium, to apply the ban, starting April 11 (The Telegraph) Kevin McE (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural comment Please maintain NPOV. WP's Main Page cannot be used to advocate a point of view, comments in support of posting with the intent of advocating a POV will be disregarded. Cenarium (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- support if w didnt cover the legislation being passed (i sense we may have)
- more importanylu, mitchell and eraserhead need to keep political discussions off, that is for the ta;k pages of each user ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Guys if we need to post this, we have to post this fast, we have less than 5 and half hours before the date changes. But the thing that bewilders me is that why wasn't this topic added to the In the news: Future Events section of Wikipedia, JustinSpringer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- We can easily post this tomorrow ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An issue of accuracy regarding the blurb has been raised, I've removed the [ready] mark until it's settled. Also it would be appreciable that some users independently check for NPOV. Cenarium (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've updated the blurb so it doesn't state France is the first country in Europe to implement the ban - looking at further sources its unclear as to whether Belgium has implemented their ban. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how women in Belgium have been fined in the absence of legislation. If Reliable Sources are inconsistent, we should be conservative in our claims. Not mentioning whether France is first can't be wrong: multiple reliable sources (including BBC TV News) suggest that it is wrong to say that they were. Kevin McE (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't a nation-wide law. It was the city of Brussels taking those actions. RxS (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your source for this being...? Kevin McE (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera, BBC, Sky News etc etc. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blurb posted is erroneous, as I have pointed out several times already in this thread. France might be (the sources are not consistent on this) the first country to have a nation-wide ban: it is not the first country to have a ban. Question: Was there legislation enforced in Belgium on this issue prior to this week. Answer: Yes. Kevin McE (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed that part from the blurb. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NortyNort isn't an admin. I think he meant that he supported posting it soon. Since we've had several new items on ITN in fairly quick succession, I'm inclined to leave this for a few hours and post it this afternoon (UTC) so we don't end up with lots of stale items and no new postings. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I saw your comment after posting it. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clear that France is the first nation to enact this kind of law. The confusion is coming from the fact that Belgium law allows local authorities to make rules of this nature, for example [10]. But there are plenty of sources that point that out. In addition, sourcing the fact that France is the first nation to enact the law is simply done, there are hundreds of sources saying that. RxS (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's clear that the French are the first to ban it nationwide, but I think that's too much qualification for ITN. Readers can click through and read the article for that kind of detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- France being the first nation to take this action is what makes it ITN material. It's a pretty simple concept, and one that major news sources think is appropriate to make for their readers. Are our readers simpler? RxS (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
April 10, 2011 (2011-04-10) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economics
Disasters
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport
Early results have shown that the Icelandic people have rejected an offer to repay (over a period of 30 years) the British and Dutch governments 4 billion euros that they paid to guarantee savings lost in the collapse of the Icelandic banking system. This follows the referendum last year where a scheme with a higher level of interest and a shorter repayment period was rejected. Finance Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson has ruled out a third referendum with the matter to be referred to the court of the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority. (BBC) Article needs some work and obviously we should wait for final results - Dumelow (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. $4 billion is a big deal, especially for Iceland, and the follow-up to the banking crisis is an interesting context. Thue | talk 10:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While referenda are not ITNR a case can be made for this. but id say wait till final results. it looks liek a rejection but nothing is confirmed jus tyet.Lihaas (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - big deal. itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Enough many votes have been counted that the result is sure, so no need to wait any longer. Narayanese (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- no, thats not precedence we work with. it has to be certified wholly.Lihaas (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There were quite a few elections (this is not really an election) where the whole results were in but were certified by the authorities and was posted. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Europe's finances are in a mess, and this is an interesting byproduct. The article seems OK. Jusdafax 08:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This item is good to go. Can I get some help with the blurb? Icelanders reject another proposal to repay guarantees in a referendum? --Tone 09:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- per HTD "whole results were in but were certified by the authorities " the whole results are NOT in thus it cannot be wholly certified. the page needs the update, so it can be ready to go.Lihaas (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification on my comment as Lihaas didn't understand it: In some cases, the authorities declare a winner (in this case announce the result), despite not all ballots being counted. For example, the lead is too wide and the remaining ballots would not overturn the result. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support UK and Holland are planning on suing Iceland already. Nergaal (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE article is all set with final results announced. Should be posted..
- btw, per Tone, those details are in the article alreadyLihaas (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] The Masters
The 2011 Masters is wrapping up. On ITNR and should be added when updated. Grsz 11 22:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably worth mentioning what sport this is. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While this is an ITNR event, the article has no sources or references for any of its prose. Seems like it's been updated by people who followed the event in an OR style without sourcing. Therefore, unless this issue is rectified, I have to strongly oppose. StrPby (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- no need to oppose for issues with article. it wont go up unless those issues are fixed... -- Ashish-g55 01:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- HJ, of course, is right. It's golf! (A fun game is to look for articles on the sports pages of newspapers, that never name the sport being discussed. They are remarkably common.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for ITN, good candidate; big internationally represented golf event.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Just a point of order, opposes based on the article's quality aren't absolutely necessary, since neither I nor any other admin would post it without issues like sourcing being addressed first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I find such opposes to be distracting. When it comes time to judge consensus, I have to just assume they'd support the nomination because they don't comment on anything but the article quality. -- tariqabjotu 02:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've posted a couple opposes due to article quality before, but I now agree with HJ and Tari above – if there are quite a few comments on a nomination, they get really distracting. If the article is later updated, they can create the illusion of no consensus when there really is. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out an article is in poor shape, but perhaps we could dissuade people from using the bold oppose for those items. Maybe they could write something like comment article lack references, poor prose, etc. WhiteKongMan (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with HJ and changed my vote. I never opposed it in general, just the lack of references.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
April 9, 2011 (2011-04-09) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Restored St Francis tomb reopens
BBC Seems interesting. The media coverage has been sparse, but it surely is of interest to thousands of potential pilgrims to the site worldwide. A good chance for a history posting as well. An update is needed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sounds like an interesting story, and one we don't normally cover. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - interesting one.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently htere's a fair bit of news about this in Italian some saying there are cameras now for longdistance prayer!.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support when article updated--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Director Sidney Lumet Dies
An aclaimed and influential film director dies. His more notable films include 12 Angry Men, Serpico,Murder on the Orient Express, and Network, which won 4 Academy Awards. The update is short at the moment. I think it might be worth waiting a bit until some notable reactions come in, which can be used to form a substantial update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose who? None of these films are that notable. Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that the response of the classic Wikipedia editor? The young, male, geek who needs to get a life? Sorry. Some humour is intended there but really, that's a very silly post. I'd suggest a short study of what films are regarded as classics historically, not just this century. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that notable? Are you high? Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I very much contest your presumption that 12 Angry Men is not notable. What standard do we use for determining death postings on ITN if not something as prestigious as multiple Academy Awards?--WaltCip (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He created bunch of movies, won some awards. This isnt quite an exceptional individual as far as some directors go. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the movies he directed are now classics. I'd say the quote in the New York Times obituary about why he got his honorary Oscar is apropos: a "consolation prize for a lifetime of neglect." Still, I agree with the others that he's not quite notable enough.--Chaser (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of classic movies that are certainly of note, but his golden age was decades ago and he was in his 80's, so... In the interest of getting more stories, however, weak support. Nightw 21:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose no great notability. every director is not news-worthy,.Lihaas (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To those saying "not notable", how many Academy Award nominations make a director notable? Lumet had four. Does one need five? If not, how many? This is a classic example of a discussion where numbers of comments (voting) must NOT count. All comments that say a person with four Oscar nominations is not notable should be disregarded as being written in ignorance. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A little clarification on his oscars. Lumet 'won' one Oscar, a lifetime achievement award. He never won the Oscar for best director himself, though he was nominated 4 times. His films have been nominated for about 50 Oscars in total, a notable achievement. His film Network (not 12 Angry Men) won four Academy Awards (actor, actress, supporting actress, and screenplay). Generally, his films were noted for strong acting performances, and garnered many acting awards.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. Highly notable and influential, but as User:Mkativerata says, "recent death material". Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the lifetime achievement award until 2009 was only given to one person a year, and so if we posted every film person who had received that award - and any similar award in India, we would only be posting 2 film deaths a year (as some people are clearly notable enough but haven't won this award - e.g. Elizabeth Taylor) I think we can post this guy (even though I personally haven't heard of him). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Mkativerata, this is what recent deaths exist for. Thue | talk 10:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section Sidney Lumet#Death has a substantial update now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that there's an update I'd like to add some more reasons that I think this deserves posting. The film 12 Angry Men, while as I noted did not win Lumet an Oscer for directing, was awarded the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival. It is now widely regarded as a classic. It is #7 at the IMDB all time best films list and has a 100% critics rating at Rotten Tomatoes. It is listed by US critic Roger Ebert as one of the 'great films' (and receives similar praise from other critics). Also, appropriately, it is about a group of 12 men attempting to arrive at a consensus. The film has been remade many times, including an Indian version and a Russian version which won the Golden Lion at Venice. Overall, as noted above, his films earned over 50 Oscar nominations. The Guardian's obituary called him 'one of the most significant film directors of his time, a man dedicated to the cinema as an art form and to the pursuit of truth and social justice as a dramatic theme.'1. Lumet easily qualifies for death criterion #2:The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to further comment that the New York Mayor, Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese have made tribute after his death. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marking [Ready?] as the argument above by Johnsemlak is highly persuasive and we judge on consensus not vote counting. I would like an uninvolved administrator to check however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it needs more discussion. On useful comments, were basically 50:50. I do find Johnsemlak's argument persuasive, but not so persuasive as to counter the opposition of half the commenters. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- please dont mark items as ready if you are involved and there does not seem to be clear consensus. thanks -- Ashish-g55 16:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given HJ Mitchell's statement saying that the useful comments were 50:50 and that Johnsemlak's comment was persuasive then given the additional two support !votes I think the consensus was clear enough here. Additionally the instructions make it quite clear that the posting admin is supposed to judge consensus anyhow. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are certain things that require an involved editor or admin to do, such as closing an AfD discussion. I'm not sure that marking and ITN blurb 'ready', which is just meant to help admins who still must judge consensus, really requires an uninvolved editor.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- i only meant for discussions where consensus is not clear. the ready system is useless if admins cant use it to post items that are ready to be posted. which should also mean consensus has been reached. and IMO i dont think an involved editor who supported should decide if consensus is clear... HJ said it needs more discussion and according to Eraserhead Johnsemlak comment was persuasive... not something an involved editor can use to decide on consensus. should be atleast an admin -- Ashish-g55 18:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing was after HJ Mitchell made his comment there were two more good supports from Wikireader41 and RxS, that's why I marked it [Ready]. However I think you have a point, in future I'll mark a similar case [Ready?]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- pull it. on what reasoning was it posted? mitchell said "basically 50:50-" we hardly have stronfg support for it. what people have already said here is that thsi is too american-centric. if its because of the timer then we have the st francis tomb thats unanimous in support.Lihaas (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The St Francis tomb hasn't been updated. And I don't see anyone mentioning explicitly his nationality. RxS (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) No, we're not pulling it. The arguments in support are much more persuasive than the ones in opposition, and my reading of the consensus (and BorgQueen's as well) is to post. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguments against seem to be able to be summarised as 1) I'm young and have only watched movies made in the past 20 years, so I've never heard of this guy, so he cannot be important, and 2) Old people cannot be important. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As is mine, now there are more supports. His nationality is wholly irrelevant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Gunman kills five in the Netherlands
I've updated the History section at Alphen_aan_den_Rijn.—Biosketch (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus is not built by vote counting. Every nomination here is presumed to be "itn material" that comment doesnt constitue any reason to include it.Lihaas (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose how major is it? The attacks arent that uncommon in europe (gernmay, finland, etc)
- theres not change whatsoever of getting a 1 line article upLihaas (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per Raintheone. -EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus is not built by vote counting. A mere "support" doesnt have value. WP:CONSENSUSLihaas (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- well, in fact it has value. as it shows a pattern of users that feel this story is ITN-worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- that may very well be (and obvious) but WHY thats what Consensus has against vote-counting.Lihaas (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose such attacks are not uncommon unfortunately. If this was in the US it would likely not be nominated ever. death toll is relatively small.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It sounds cynical that "location counts", but this is a unique event in the Netherlands. I have no recollection of any such shooting with multiple deaths outside the criminal environment (let alone with an automatic weapon). L.tak (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and the 8 pm News, the best viewed News-programme in the Netherlands just spend 17 of its 25 minutes on the issue; so there is at least no doubt on what the impact is inside NL... L.tak (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: major incident for Holland. Crnorizec (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose at least until the article is improved. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Major and unusual event for the Netherlands. Mjroots (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support In my opinion, location does count. Mass shootings are much rarer in Europe than the United States, hence why I would generally support putting up European shootings and not American shootings. In this instance, it's even rarer for an event like this to happen in the Netherlands. Fair amount of casualties, so support. Franklinville (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In response to the "Death toll is small", well what does that have to do with it being ITN worthy. You have to look at the context in which the incident occurs and the amount of subsequent coverage it gains in reliable news sources. IMO this is a rare thing for the Kingdom of the Netherlands and there are sources to back the claim up. It's got world coverage, so it is not limited to national attention.Rain the 1 BAM 01:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted. Discounting the two support !votes which add nothing to the discussion, it's 5:3. That's not the strongest consensus we've ever seen, but we are 24 hours without an update and there is a case to be made that these events are rare in Western Europe and especially so in the Netherlands. We also have another shooting with comparable casualties currently working its way down the template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-post oppose. To me it's simple. If this happened anywhere else in the world, would we post it? If this was the US, probably not. If this was Fiji or Samoa, probably not. If this was Africa, probably not. If this was Indonesia or Singapore, probably not. Western Europe shouldn't be "special" just because "it doesn't happen". "It doesn't happen" in a lot of places which we wouldn't post anyway. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Error in post The posted indicates 7+killer, while it is "7 including killer" (I have seen no reports of an update of the death yet; posted some time ago to ITN/errors as well, but am not sure how well that is watched) L.tak (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Atifete Jahjaga is elected as Kosovo's first female President in a majority vote by the Parliament.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have re-nominated this historic political event as the original hook wasnt correct and by that those in favour /or not in favour didnt get the correct information.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- we dont need to move it up just to get more responses. At anyrate, with the new article now its more warranted to get posted.Lihaas (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- disagree with blurbing but support posting May I point out under Kosovo current constitution she is only the third offical president thus not really as big a deal about being the first woman. Since 33% of Kosovo's presidents have been female, that not really too big a deal to emphasize in my book The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I must point out that this is not covered under ITN/R, since the criteria explicitly rules: "Disputed states ... should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." But since I disagree with this clause, I'm supporting. Nightw 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per my reasonings below. Stop reposting proposals to distract from oppose votes. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And one more thing, neither the president article or her article are in anywhere near decent state to deserve posting. Nergaal (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please dont accuse users of doing bad faith edits just because you happen to disagree with them. The president article is OK for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NEITHER article says why there was an early election. To a complete outsider this could as well be something like "hey guys look at us we have randomly chosen a new president ONLY 6 weeks after we chose the last one." Nergaal (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per ITN/R. Kosovo is a recognized state by most of the free world. Crnorizec (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean most of the less than half of the UN members? Nergaal (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You might not like Kosovo or what ever.. But that doesnt change the fact that Crnorizec is correct.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support new head of state- not necessarily a fan of emphasising her as the first woman to hold the post, but the change itself is enough. Courcelles 23:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I find both the President and Jahjaga's articles to be in very poor condition. I am still confused as to how/why this woman became President of Kosovo, which is the main point of this item, is it not? --PlasmaTwa2 00:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Plasma2. The articles are conflicting, it's difficult to judge her importance.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support new head of state; the confusion on how or why she became president articulated above would also apply in many minds to George W. Bush, the confusion which after 10 years remains.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, ITN didn't exist in 2000. But we can't post these articles on the main page in their current condition, IMO.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Jahjaga's article is in a terrible state—the vast majority of it is totally unsourced and there's no explanation of how she came to be a candidate or any background information. The consensus is leaning in favour of posting, but the article needs serious work before it can go up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
|
|
|
|
|
In the news toolbox.jpg)
