SheikhIssa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a member of the United Arab Emirates' ruling family, is acquitted of all charges connected to the videotaped beating and torture of an Afghan grain dealer. CNNReuters "It was the first time that a member of the ruling family of this wealthy Gulf Arab nation had been put on trial, but human rights groups were quick to criticize Issa's acquittal."[1] Seems significant enough to me. Any comments? --BorgQueen (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a lot of work though. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a BLP nightmare to me, and one where the person concerned is extremely rich and powerful (as well as alledgedly being not very nice to people he doesn't like). Just try writing a blurb, and you'll see what I mean! Physchim62(talk) 22:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That thought occurred in my mind. I suppose we can only post guilty verdicts, not acquittals then. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go to that extreme! In fact my analysis is rather different. In this case, it would have been the detention the most significant act, as it is very rare anywhere for a member of a royal family to be held in prison for seven months on the charges of a commoner. Unfortunately, we seem to have stopped posting significant detentions about six months ago, insisting on a verdict instead.
An aquittal from any of the international courts would be a potential ITN piece, I'm sure (depending on the state of the article). I'm equally sure that we would post the detention of Ratko Mladic, regardless of our recent push towards "verdict-only" posts. So let's not add dogma onto dogma, but take each of these cases as they come. Physchim62(talk) 18:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not updated. When it is, tentative support. --Tone 16:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pretty big news (many news reports) and don't think this position will change in our lifetimes or maybe also the story about China become the no 1 market for cars.
Is this one a prediction? --candle•wicke 21:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The date is 3 jan I think, or otherwise it could have been for people in western side of our globe, because sun rises first in Japan.--yousaf465' 12:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Arrests are not enough, a conviction is required. Even then, I doubt this is important enough. Modest Geniustalk 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I think darts is a waste of time, but we post other minor sports, so it should go up. As discussed previously, BOTH titles should be combined into a single blurb. Modest Geniustalk 13:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't this have all the problems of the college football piece? A sport which is centred on a single country – and championship darts (as opposed to the pub variety) doesn't even have much of a following there. It's all very well to give ourselves a nice cosy warm feeling inside by being inclusive to minority sports and all that, but we're not supposed to be compiling this column for ourselves. The 2009 BDO championship got about 2000 hits a day while it was on: that's more than hurling but less than chess. That hardly suggests a large pool of darts fans who are being let down by Wikipedia coverage. Physchim62(talk) 13:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not a big sport, and I fully understand your concerns. However, it's certainly international (I count 19 different nationalities in the PDC event, and 7 in the BDO), and the highest level of competition in the sport worldwide. Unlike college sports there are no major restrictions on entry, and competitors are professional. If we're going to continue listing events in hurling, snooker, aussie, canadian and gaelic rules football, badminton, sailing etc then this qualifies too. Modest Geniustalk 15:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people it would seem, judging by the amount of countries mentioned here, and they're not all located in the same part of the world. --candle•wicke 00:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per concerns above. This is a relatively minor sport and I don't favour those on ITN unless something really spectacular happens. --Tone 16:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Players from England, Norway, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Australia, Netherlands, Phillipines, Germany, Finland, Canada, and holy fuck, even the United States, participated in these two televised World Championship tournaments. College football this is not. MickMacNee (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can add Northern Ireland, Spain, Slovenia, Sweden, Japan, Gibraltar, Austria, Denmark*, Guyana*, Russia*, Poland*, South Africa* to that list as well (*=preliminary round). A Chinese player was also due to compete but had to pull out after he couldn't get a British travel visa (he was replaced by a Dutch player). That makes a total of 25 nations competing across the two championships. That makes it more of a worldwide event than many of the other sports we feature - Dumelow (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the Philippines sent in a representative? It got ZERO press here. The BCS game sure had a lot more press. –HowardtheDuck 01:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go on, support. To post this, just after we refuse the ten-times more popular college football game, on the grounds that the darts championships are somehow "more international", will make us look SO RIDICULOUS that it might even knock some sense into our choice of sporting events to feature. Physchim62(talk) 21:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is a tongue in cheek supprt, but yes, if you do the math, a higher percentage of the UK population looked at the 2010 PDC World Championship page on the final day, compared to the percentage of the US population that looked at the page for the 2010 BCS National Championship Game. (0.0096% of the population is the US interest figure in the college football page, which means around 6,000 UK people would have to have looked at the darts page, whereas it was actually looked at by nearly 8,000 people, which is more like 0.013%) So yes, if you supported the college football page based on sheer popularity, you would have to do the same for Darts on principle (which is not even just a UK sport). (unless of course you are ony measuring popularity in raw total numbers, which I am sure you can see has huge issues w.r.t. Wikipedia and basic US centrism) Ignoring the similar levels of apparent interest, I opposed the college football listing because it is just sheer US centrism, irrespective of how popular it is, whereas darts is a top level international interest sport. MickMacNee (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, the BDO World Darts Championship viewing figures peaked at 3.5k hits on 9 January (10th was 2.5k; no figures for 11th yet, which might skew things slightly): that's 57 readers per million of the UK population (and rather less if you insist that darts is really an international sport). The BCS Championship viewing figures peaked at 23.9k on 8 January: that's 77.5 readers per million of the U.S. population (nobody suggests that college football is an international sport). Physchim62(talk) 17:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did say PDC not BDO. I won't bore you with the reasons why one is more popular than the other, that would require you getting into the whole 'what is professional darts' issue, but suffice to say, this is a double nomination because there are two World Championships, and because they both occur at nearly the same time, it was logical to defer listing the PDC until the less popular BDO version finishes. MickMacNee (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's Darts. The fact that it's 'international' doesn't make it notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But why is it considered not notable? As Dumelow said it is played by many more nations than some other sports which have featured on the Main Page. --candle•wicke 00:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure its played in a lot of countries, but few people in those countries play it (professionally) and care about it. ~DCTalk To Me 03:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support if this is indeed the world championship of darts. --PlasmaTwa2 01:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not notable necause it's relagated to a very minor headline in the BBC Sport] page; it gets NO mention at L'Equipe, Gazzetta Dello Sport, ESPN.com, and CNNSI.com. The sport doesn't have Olympic status or a major international fanbase. This is a trivial event at best.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not how "international" a sports event is, not whether it is professional or "recognized by a governing body," whatever that means. The question is how "big of a deal" it is, that is, how many people follow it, how many people care, how many people watch on TV and how much of an economic impact it has. I can't imaging darts qualifying in any of those categories. Oppose. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BDO version, seen as the lesser of the two, has just had wall to wall coverage on the BBC, the UK's national terrestrial broadcaster. The PDC version gets prime billing on Sky Sports, one of the reasons why this year it was a £1 million tournament. Professional darts is not a trivial or marginal interest sport, and if counting pub leagues, the number of players is gigantic in many countries, it even gives the national sport of football a run for its money in the UK that respect. MickMacNee (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, as the final of the highest level tournament of an international sport. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it should have been, there is obviously not a consensus to post it. Physchim62(talk) 13:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this must be the only Wikipedia discussion venue that you can both participate in the discussion and call the consensus on it then. Tone seemingly will only post these 'minorty' sports if they contain spectacular events, well maybe he is just unaware then that the PDC victory represented an unprecedented 15th world title for a single player in Darts. MickMacNee (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that in the BDO version, another record was set - Adam's now holds the record for consecutive world championship tournament appearances, at 17. MickMacNee (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are always records broken in events such as these championship game/s; there's bound to be at least one record broken or tied in each sporting event ITN featured. –HowardtheDuck 14:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure there is no logical basis for that assertion. Granted Adams creates a new record unless or until he doesn't qualify, but that was merely an afterthought. What actual record is broken if Taylor doesn't win the PDC though? I can't see it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Tone, but I'd assume the record he refers to must be of importance that even non-followers of this championship would care about. For example, in North American sporting championships last year, all 4 had at least one record broken. In baseball, the Yankees broke their own record with most World Series titles (and Hideki Matsui being the first Asian to win the World Series MVP award); in the Super Bowl, Wes Welker had the most catches; in the Stanley Cup, the the Pittsburgh Penguins have the most Americans in the roster to win the title, and in the NBA Finals, the Orlando Magic had the record for highest field goal percentage in a game. I'd argue all of those records weren't that important. –HowardtheDuck 15:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it can be taken to ridiculous degrees, but I would dispute whether Taylor's 15 titles or the Yankees similar record are insignificant acheivements. Infact its probably the only record non-Darts people are even vaguely aware of. MickMacNee (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In both cases, it calls into question the real level of competition in these events. You see the same thing in Formula 1 racing, and sometimes in cycling, where the rules are bent to preserve the spectacle. Physchim62(talk) 15:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
?. Are you saying we would never have listed a Schumacher World Championship win because it's not a competitive sport? No rules have been bent, Taylor is just a phenomenal player, much like Schumacher was a phenomenal driver. MickMacNee (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is no need to single out people. Tone removed it since there is no clear consensus which there isnt yet. I will support this for being multinational event at its highest level. And for the matter of sport not being popular enough, i am not a fan of darts but we posted hurling. need i say more? -- Ashish-g55 15:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment, I removed the item because of no consensus, as already pointed above, and not because of my preferences (that are not relevant in this case). And according to length of this debate, I really doubt whether we'll reach some consensus here... --Tone 16:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I proffer no opinion on the underlying nom, but the removal by someone who had already made their opinion known doesn't seem appropriate to me. UnitAnode 16:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We won't see any consensus if simply the ability to type and not the quality of the debate is the only thing being looked at by (un)involved admins. You are involved, and you over-rode an uninvolved admin to support the side that has such brilliant arguments as 'it's darts' and 'who cares'. Why should people even bother making suggestions in such an environment? MickMacNee (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infact, Wikipedia:In the newspermalink only calls for evidence of multiple supports, which existed. It says nothing about the presence of a consensus, least of all whether that has to be assessed by involved or uninvolved people. (note that I have raised this as a wider issue at ITN talk also). MickMacNee (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
reading all the posts. i would say there is consensus for posting since out of 4 opposes 2 dont even attempt to justify the oppose. we all know posts like "who cares" do not get taken into consideration. I think ITN/C should have little more strict policy towards posting opposes/supports without any justification. This is not a poll! -- Ashish-g55 17:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read on, I back it up later with the comment that it may be played in many countries, but few people play it. Also, the fact that it gets little media attention anywhere illustrates my point that people don't care. ~DCTalk To Me 17:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is shockingly also true for US college football over here. No coverage in the news and no channel carried it, a complete opposite to darts. Conclusion - who cares? MickMacNee (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
College football is irrelevant, esp. since we didn't post that. However, 'little media attention anywhere' is plainly false, since two of the half-dozen largest television channels in the UK carried the two championships live, and booked out many hours of prime-time to do so. It was all over the sports pages of the newspapers too. I don't know about media in other countries. Modest Geniustalk 20:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, change it to "little media attention in most of the world". ~DCTalk To Me 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polls close in the run-off round of the Uzbekistani parliamentary election, 2009–2010 at 1500 UTC. When the results will be announced is anybody's guess (it took 48 hours for the first round count, although this round is smaller and simpler). Physchim62(talk) 10:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support when we have the result. Grsz11 17:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presidential election is taking place today. According to predictions, the difference in votes will be high enough to be able to call the winner in the evening already. --Tone 10:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think we can wait till the results are announced. Which admin will be online at that time ?--yousaf465' 12:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Is there consensus to add elections of heads of state (as well as general elections) to WP:ITNR? Modest Geniustalk 13:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's been our general practice, yes, even indirect elections to the head of state (we ran the German presidential election, 2009, for example). I would say that the notable event is the change of head of state for whatever reason, to include monarchies, although the election should take precedence over formal inaugurations unless there's a good reason to include the inauguration as well. Note that we don't usually run changes of heads of government (apart from elections) unless there's a particular international significance. Physchim62(talk) 13:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. For elected heads of state the election is obviously what we should post, but what about unelected ones? Is it the succession, or the coronation/investiture? If the former, the death/abdication of the predecessor and the succession could be incorporated into a single item. Modest Geniustalk 14:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, when did we have the last change of monarch on ITN? I think in this case death of old monarch is the key, as the successor is usually known well in advance. --Tone 16:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, succession is instantaneous, though it's possible for abdication as well as death to be the reason. We could end up with an ITN entry akin to 'John I of Genericland dies at the age of 83, and is succeeded by his son Frank II' or whatever. Feel free to change what I've written if you have concerns. Modest Geniustalk 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, abdication or abolition of monarchy (Nepal, not that long ago) is also possible. Coronation is then just a ceremony. And yes, the generic wording seems appropriate. --Tone 17:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, back to the original topic, Josipović won in a landslide, according to exit pools. I think we'll be able to post this shortly. --Tone 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't "Social Democrat" be capitalized, considering that Josipovic is a member of a Social Democratic Party and not merely a person who subscribes to social democracy? Lockesdonkey (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
