Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 2010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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


Archived discussion for January 2010 from Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates.

January 31

ITN candidates for January 31

Mexico student party massacre

Anything for this? --candlewicke 21:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait for details. The BBC article linked suggests this may be linked to drug violence which, sadly, is not that uncommon in Mexico. However, I'll likely support once all the details are known. Any sign of an article or shall I start one? HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 21:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Article ?--yousaf465' 04:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 Australian Open (men's tennis)

Roger Federer, the 2010 Australian Open men's singles champion

The 2010 Australian Open finishes in Melbourne on 31st January. If Andy Murray wins the final, he will be the first Briton to win a Grand Slam since 1936. ISD (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't Virginia Wade count then? Physchim62 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I mean the first British man since 1936 to win a Grand Slam, and the first Scotsman to ever win one. ISD (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Well Roger Federer's taken the first two sets, so it looks like Murray is continuing the great British tradition of not winning. Physchim62 (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And now, from the ITN/C breaking news service:

Federer has just won 3-0 after a third set tie breaker. MickMacNee (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I assume that someone will be updating 2010 Australian Open with a match report, as they did yesterday for Serena Williams. It is pretty much impossible to put the update on Roger Federer, the guy has just won too much! Physchim62 (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Support The women's result is already up so the men's result which happened a while ago should be up as well.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
If nobody can be bothered to write at least a couple more sentences with a couple more references about the match then sorry, it shouldn't go up. Compare the description of the men's final with description of the women's final just above it! Physchim62 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added Federer to the blurb, the match section has been updated enough now. I will swap it over to his image in a short while - Dumelow (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Africa Cup of Nations

Support once result is known and article updated (also on ITNR). Modest Genius talk 17:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Support See my reasoning below.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From the ITN/C breaking news service:

See below for the discussion about the second half of the blurb. Physchim62 (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Support including both somehow if any more support is needed. --candlewicke 21:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
And, according to the BBC, Egypt's win is a record seventh if any more reason is needed. --candlewicke 21:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Posted. -- tariqabjotu 03:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

52nd Grammy Awards

Normally you guys should include the Record and Album of the Year awards. –Howard the Duck 04:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Awards telecast is 0030–0330 UTC Monday. Physchim62 (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
"Use Somebody" by American (but more popular in the UK until recently) band Kings of Leon won Record of the Year. –Howard the Duck 02:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The article has been updated. –Howard the Duck 06:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Suggested blurb:
Taylor Swift
I was thinking of using a Kings of Leon photo but the photos were bad at 80px. –Howard the Duck 06:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Posted, thanks - Dumelow (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I dont wanna be kanye west here but it looks awfully odd that beyonce isnt mentioned in blurb with her record 6 wins in single grammy, since that seems to be the main news for this grammy awards. -- Ashish-g55 14:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Beyoncé seems to be the news. (And we have lots of pictures of her.) -SusanLesch (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I seem to be in a minority, but I prefer to look at Taylor Swift! ;) There's a discussion about this going on at WP:ERRORS if people want to chip in. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 18:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
no i also prefer taylor's pic. but beyonce should be mentioned besides her. -- Ashish-g55 18:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Togo banned for four years and fined after team bus attack

Togo national football team in 2006

(BBC Sport). I have learned a lot in recent months about the ways and rules of football authorities but this seems like a new low... --candlewicke 00:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded it and offer: The Togo national football team (pictured) are fined $50,000 and banned from the 2012 and 2014 Africa Cup of Nations for withdrawing from the 2010 tournament following the fatal attack on their team bus. --candlewicke 01:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
FIFA suspending teams after withdrawing from an international tournament sounds like normal fare. –Howard the Duck 01:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Even after they've been attacked? --candlewicke 01:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Normal fare? When is the last time this happened? Algebraist 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, I was hoping someone might. It seems this has happened more often than I thought, oh well. --candlewicke 02:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
the only reason i would 'oppose is because we already posted the attack on the bus. if we hadnt posted that then this would have full support. -- Ashish-g55 02:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment We are due to post the final of the 2010 Africa Cup of Nations later today. Are we going to consider doing both items? They're related but I'm not sure how to put them in a single blurb easily.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Sporting federations such as FIFA always suspend a team when they withdraw from a tournament when the tourney is ongoing, no matter what is the reason except when an entire team dies. FIBA suspended the Philippine national basketball team in the 1960s, for example, while they didn't suspend the Krygyzstan national basketball team when they didn't play in the FIBA Asia Under-18 Championship 2008 when the entire team perished in a plane crash. –Howard the Duck 04:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Well... apparently "not since Buckingham Palace took so long to respond Princess Diana's death in 1997 has an organisation so badly misjudged the mood of the public". --candlewicke 04:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hyperbole again? I would accept this being a part of the Africa Cup of Nations blurb when the final is done, but not on its own. –Howard the Duck 04:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably. How about a mention in the "UK Soccer" section of the website of The New York Times? --candlewicke 04:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Or "The crime of Togo's punishment" on Al Jazeera? --candlewicke 05:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd bet it's not even the top story on either the NYT or Al-Jazeera. –Howard the Duck 07:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as a separate blurb. That would be three blurbs for the Africa Cup of Nations, two on the same day. Possible support if it can be fitted into the the blurb on the final winner, but I really see the actual winner of the tournament as bigger news than this. That said, if England were banned from the European Football Championship, I'm sure we would be posting that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Support a blurb like "Ghagypt beats Egyana 1–0 to win the 2010 Africa Cup of Nations, while Togo is excluded from the next two editions of the tournament." Physchim62 (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Support - its pretty notable for a team to be kicked out of two editions of such a big tournament, especially given the circumstances. However, there is a logical reason for why its happened and that because the Togolese government told the team to withdraw (the majority of players and staff were willing to stay), which isn't allowed because because its considered government interference, which is itself not allowed. As such, they've been penalised not for actually withdrawing, but for the fact that the government told them to --Daviessimo (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Then this is somewhat more frequent, FIFA suspending federations due to government interference, but the "sentence" is quite harsh. –Howard the Duck 10:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Quite. The Confederation of African Football (CAF) had discretion as to whether to suspend the team or not, it would have been wiser to use it in this case. Physchim62 (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
We should wait. I'm betting FIFA would rescind or lessen the punishment. If they lift the suspension this is a non-story. –Howard the Duck 11:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
But it is the severity of the punishment that makes this notable. Yugoslavia was only banned for one tournament when they where bombing the hell out of their neighbours, so for Togo to be punished like this is quite frankly remarkable --Daviessimo (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
When the final is over and FIFA still hasn't rescinded, it can be added along with the final result. I'd oppose a separate blurb or adding it before the final is over. –Howard the Duck 11:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment--FIFA did not issue this ban and have made no comment regarding it.1 I think it can be reasonably assumed that they don't support it but they're not going to interfere with CAF.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd answer this below. –Howard the Duck 14:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Support This is about as far from normal as you could get. MickMacNee (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Although the CAF press release says the sanction is for government interference, the sanction is based on a forfeit by the team (Art. 78, CAN Regulations), not on a withdrawal (Arts. 80–85). Makes it all the more ludicrous, but at least it gives the CAF a way out if it chooses to take it. Physchim62 (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Support - worldwide importance - TouLouse (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Question--Togo is appealing the ban; is it worth waiting to see if the ban is rescinded? I think given the reaction to it, it's a possibility.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd say wait until Togo has exhausted all means for reconsideration. –Howard the Duck 14:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Will it be remembered then? The rest of the world (outside Africa anyway) might have moved on. And what exactly is Togo's last option? --candlewicke 16:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Support if combined with the result of the final. Certainly extremely unusual. Modest Genius talk 17:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Per Modest Genius, unusual but since the original attack was posted it's best to combine it with the final result.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • CommentThis is a totally separate story to the final. It absolutely no surprise to see it being tarpitted into oblivion though. Posting it with the (very imminent) final result of the ACN would be an absolute utter joke. As ever, ITN is an utter joke. MickMacNee (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Learn to take rejection a little better please. i am getting tired of you continously calling ITN a "joke". looking at figures physic posted at main page talk i would say ITN does a pretty decent job. I opposed to this story and others have compromised to add it in single blurb. i will change to support for single blurb too. i see nothing wrong with it since ITN has limited space. -- Ashish-g55 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • SupportTo me it's seems to be quite an unusual step, instead of supporting a victimized team, FIFA bans it! I think football is the most followed sport currently. Well we may decide whether to combine it with final story or not.--yousaf465' 04:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wittelsbach-Graff Diamond

There's something important going on here I think but is it important enough? (BBC) (The Irish Times) (The Daily Telegraph) --candlewicke 05:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Article needs an update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

January 30

ITN candidates for January 30

12 dead and at least 20 missing in boat incident

Weak Oppose i'm not sure that is really important. - TouLouse (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Australian Open (women's tennis)

Serena Williams, 2010 Australian Open Women's Singles Champion

Currently in the final set. Apparently an exciting match, but I've only got text commentary :( Physchim62 (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And from the ITN/C breaking news service:
Now we just need an article update! Physchim62 (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
We have to wait until tomorrow when will ends the men's singles to mix in one blurb - TouLouse (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
No we don't, that would be silly. We can post the women's result now, and then mix the blurbs tomorrow. That's what we do as a standard on developing stories – we certainly don't delay a story artificially! Physchim62 (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Physchim62. After all, if Andy Murray wins tomorrow it will become an even bigger news story, as will be the first British man to win a Grand Slam since 1936 and the first Scotsman ever to win a Grand Slam. ISD (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
We waited last year and what was the result? People were typing "Serena Williams" into the search box on the day of the women's final, but fewer were clicking on the link the day after when the ITN story was posted. ITN serves as a simple set of links for people to access stories that are "in the news": to artificially delay a story as we did last year and as TouLouse wants to do this year is to go against the raison d'être of the Main Page section. Physchim62 (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)..
Support Let's post it right away. (Edit--support pending article update--The Serena Williams article has adequate prose update but isn't sourced.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added a couple of sources for the result. The update isn't glorious, but the content is uncontroversial. Physchim62 (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree with posting if you add something to the article and hook make it a bit more historically informative. How about Serena Williams draws level with Billie-Jean King in the all-time Grand Slam winners' list with victory at the Australian Open (noting that I copied that from the BBC article)? The update here has been made to List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions. Carcharoth (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I hardly see how getting to be joint-sixth on a list is more particularly ITN worthy than winning a major sports tournament. Physchim62 (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
She has won it four times before and won eleven other Grand Slam titles, and is the world number one woman's tennis player. Henin played well (and I wanted her to win), but it's not like it was a surprise that Williams won. I'm not objecting to posting, but sport updates don't really tell the reader any more than "this player/team won the event". As you said yourself, "The update isn't glorious". The ITN entry can just announce the event and result, but the article needs to go further, to have updates and reactions to the story. For that, you need to wait and see what the news services write about this victory. Ditto for tomorrow - if Murray wins, there will be a lot of news coverage and the article will be updated over the next few days - it is those updates (which lag by a day or two) that we should be showcasing, not just the result. Anyway, per Bradjamesbrown, post it now and edit the blurb to include tomorrow's men's final. Carcharoth (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Post it now and edit the blurb to include tomorrow's men's final. Bradjamesbrown is travelling (Talk to my master) 16:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Post it now - the admins seem to be bottling it and pretending not to notice until they can merge them anyway. Why do we have to wait for it to be old news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveRwanda (talkcontribs) 20:58, 30 January 2010
Posted. I changed the blurb a bit to clarify that it was her fifth win at the Australian Open, not overall - Dumelow (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I have also changed the bolded article to the event which is how (I think) I remember we do sports events. The event article has a reasonable bit on the match - Dumelow (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

January 29

ITN candidates for January 29

Korean situation

I think an article is needed about the current conflict event between North and South Korea. Any thoughts? - TouLouse (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

These flare ups are rather common in Korea, and it doesn't seem to affect the North/South Korea relationship much. If it resulted in a significant worsening of ties, then maybe.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Recall

2010 Toyota Vehicle Recall is the article and its decently updated already. 2.3 mil cars worldwide recalled with stoppage in 6 production plants and sales of all recalled cars is quite a big deal. Acceleration pedal sticking isnt a small deal to begin with. This is major news in pretty much all news papers and the headline in all business sections. Toyota is biggest car company in the world. I will give it a support for being international news affecting many people world wide. -- Ashish-g55 16:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Was going to post this myself after seeing it on the BBC. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, clearly of international interest. Possible caption ..Following the discovery of an accelerator pedal fault Toyota announces the recall of 7.5 million vehicles worldwide. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Support I like it, the story is good, and that the article about it is pretty well-developed is a bonus. Random89 19:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, I'd been wondering when we should post this. 2.3M cars is a lot of cars! far larger than any other product recall I can remember. Physchim62 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
However, 2010 Toyota Vehicle Recall (sic) has a quite justified orange tag on it... work is needed (and not just at Toyota). Physchim62 (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Support once the article is ready. Bradjamesbrown is travelling (Talk to my master) 19:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
even though the tag is there i dont see what can we put to make it more international since it already mentions that recall was extended to europe and china. i think its big enough for ITN right now and it will improve once its on main page. -- Ashish-g55 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, as not knowing much about the car industry I came here to ask if this was a large enough recall and finding it already nominated I will support as well. If it has its own article it must be unusual. --candlewicke 21:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
woh i didnt notice before. it should not be 7.5 mil, only 2.3 since the rest are not for accelerator fault but rather the size of mat. we can say 7.5 but then we should also mention that its the total for accelerator and floor mat. -- Ashish-g55 00:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
How is it now? --BorgQueen (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks for fast fix -- Ashish-g55 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
actually im still not sure about the numbers. since the article says 5.2 mil for mats and 2.3 for pedal but it doesnt say that they are mutually exclusive. i will research more in a bit but hopefully someone will give the proper number in WP:ERRORS. -- Ashish-g55 00:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I was just coming here to mention that. The Toyota Press Release says "2.3 million vehicles to correct sticking accelerator pedals", "separate from the on-going recall of approximately 4.2 million" for floor mats and "Approximately 1.7 million Toyota Division vehicles are subject to both separate recall actions". Therefore the number is 4.8 million (2.3 plus 4.2 minus 1.7) by my reckoning. I'll fix the article - Dumelow (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that was just for the original recall, there have been others since. Apparently the worldwide recall currently stands at 9 million. I'll mention that in the article (and ref it) - Dumelow (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Guess what, Honda joined the club. [1] --BorgQueen (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
And Peugeot. --candlewicke 05:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Iraq Inquiry

For those unfamiliar with the topic, please allow me to explain this before making up your minds. Tony Blair, the prime minister who took the UK to war in Iraq is to give evidence to The Iraq Inquiry, the most comprehensive inquiry into the Iraq War which is investigating everything from the legality of the war to the type of boots worn. This is attracting attention from media across the world- The Washington Post, CNN, Al Jazeera!. Although the article, The Iraq Inquiry, does not meet our criteria, List of witnesses of The Iraq Inquiry most certainly is sufficiently updated and up to date. Suggested blurb:

--HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 08:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how this story is going to work. We need an update to an article somewhere that goes beyond what is said in the blurb and that gives background information to the news story. We can only do that once Blair has been questioned, and there's no single page where the update would easily fit. We can't just report what he said, that would be for Wikisource (and it's copyright anyway). We can't just say that he appears, because that can be summarized in the one-sentence blurb.
Also, if we do run it, we shouldn't just call it "The Iraq Inquiry" in the blurb, as most readers will not know what we're talking about. Physchim62 (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
An update at List of witnesses of The Iraq Inquiry with a summary of his evidence and possibly the surrounding events (there are quite a few protesters outside making a bit of noise) would, I would have thought, be sufficient. The inquiry article is effectively a stub and an update there wouldn't fit. Even if it isn't a huge chunk of prose, the list is a far better place to put it. As for the name, it's called The Iraq Inquiry and it's linked for those who wish to read about it in context. To call it anything else would seem strange. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 09:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, for now Unless he says something shocking. If not, we can wait until the commission gives its final report.Random89 19:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Big step forward in fusion power?

BBC announced[2] that a breakthrough was made at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory yesterday, giving hopes that fusion power might become practical in the near future. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a fairly technical 'breakthrough', which apparently just turned out to not be as big a problem as they thought it was going to be (rather than an actual problem that was overcome), so I'm going to oppose. If/when someone gets more energy out than they put in, we can post that. Modest Genius talk 17:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is notable enough, but in any case the information should be added to HiPER first.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I just noted that the info is present in the correct article NIF. Since the result is apparently highly praised by a competing experiment's team, this makes a support from me. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

January 28

ITN candidates for January 28

Bernanke re-appointed as Fed chief

  • The U.S. Senate votes to give Ben Bernanke a second term as chair of the Federal Reserve.
    • Hugely important to Wall Street types and the most hotly contested Fed appointment ever. Only three paragraphs about his re-appointment in his article, but we tend to ignore that criterion when it comes to the election of political leaders. Bernanke was the 2009 Time Person of the Year. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Stock markets around the world are always looking at Wall Street, US economic data, Us monetary policy, Greenspan, Bernanke etc, and when they raise/lower rates YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Globally important position (and it doesn't change very often). Physchim62 (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. The head of the central bank of the world's largest economy works for me. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 09:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Updated; posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Support as well; though I doubted the Democrats would go against Obama in this right now at any rate. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Death of J. D. Salinger

  • I know we generally don't like an expected death, but I wondered if J. D. Salinger would be notable enough for our death criteria. His iconic The Catcher in the Rye remains "widely read and controversial, selling around 250,000 copies a year." The article is thorough and extensive, just needs some update on his death. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll support. Salinger has a certain iconic status about him, even if (or perhaps because) he hasn't published anything in 45 years, nor given an interview in 30 years. And we have a good biography. Physchim62 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Support: "Source from the BBC Possible caption: American novellist J. D. Salinger, author of The Catcher in the Rye, dies at the age of 91." ISD (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong support. Author of one of the most commonly and widely read books of the 20th century. (added comment, it's already made the news in Russia)--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Author of a very popular and iconic book. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 18:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Iconic author. Hektor (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Additional source - BBC Obituary ISD (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears that the article already contains all the information given in the mentioned sources. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The article has been updated. Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
No pic?--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
No. Do you expect a free image from a recluse? :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps an image of the Catcher cover could be used? UnitAnode 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Pile-on support, if just to show I don't auto-oppose deaths. Now here's an example of a front-page death. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Who says ITN never gets anything done? That was fast. (i.e. completely unnecessary pile-on support) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow! That was fast... support as well and thanks to the ITN section of Wikipedia for telling me this first (sort of undoes the point about Wikipedia not being breaking news). --candlewicke 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
its already been posted. but ill pile on more support -- Ashish-g55 21:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally I oppose this on the basis that there are too many supports and this quite clearly contravenes the unwritten rule of ITN that all candidate based discussion should descend into talk about obscure, not even remotly related topics. Bah Humbug :P --Daviessimo (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove Can items be removed after they've been posted ? If so, then remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.90.165 (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

They can, but why do you suggest removal? SpencerT♦Nominate! 03:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Note - this has been posted. —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I repeat the question about using an image of the book? Is there no usuable image of Catcher? The current pic is of the third story down and really should be replaced.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

January 27

ITN candidates for January 27

Death of Howard Zinn

This probably has little chance given the recent posting of Salinger's death, but I thought it at least deserved a nomination. He's certainly a widely read and influential writer, Coverage: Guardian, NYT--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Situational oppose because there don't need to be two writers on the front page at once, and I'd rather keep Salinger. (Not sure I'd support this nom without Salinger, even.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
May deserve a nomination, but does not, IMO, deserve a place in ITN, so oppose. Wide read, but I can't say that his works were crazy sellouts. SpencerT♦Nominate! 03:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - certainly influential to historians, but he does not compare to the writer of one of the most influential works of the 20th century. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sinosauropteryx

"a team of Chinese and British scientists reported Wednesday in Nature, providing the first clear evidence of dinosaur colors from studies of 125-million-year-old fossils of a dinosaur called Sinosauropteryx."

New York Times —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiplevelone (talkcontribs) 02:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Support as well. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose. The headline looks great "Scientists discover that dinosaur was ginger with white stripes", but v little further reading reveals that the evidence is far from conclusive and only pertains to its tail, the dinosaur in question is not one that features in public perception of dinosaurs, and they don't know what shade the red pigment might have rendered, nor in what type or body covering. When early stages of research make headlines, they often make mislading ones. Kevin McE (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But I think since the article was published in Nature, the research meets a respectable starting point. Shiplevelone (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons as User:Kevin McE. Interesting, but not earth-shattering and the headlines are indeed misleading. Modest Genius talk 00:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Machu Picchu

Is there any article for events there? It seems quite bad from Portal:Current events in recent days, with people dead and tourists trapped, and it doesn't seem like anybody has nominated it? --candlewicke 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a town in the valley below Machu Picchu, so noone is really trapped. Really it depends how many people were killed in the landslides. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Although we didn't post 2010 Rio de Janeiro floods, this is a major flood at a major tourist site and is linked to El Nino. ~AH1(TCU) 02:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Algeria and Egypt

I have no idea if this has happened yet or if it will be important but maybe it will. It is a football game which appears to be highly controversial. Their foreign ministers have been phoning each other, the Arab League has commented, one of the footballers, Mohamed Zidan, has said it is "war" and "a matter of life and death". The best summary of their history I could find was in The Times of India, describing brawls, violence spread as far as France and Sudan, one footballer sentenced for blinding the other side's team doctor with a bottle, one Egyptian footballer who refused to join a team when he learned there were players from Algeria there, etc, etc, so not a very ordinary rivalry at all and one of which had political importance even outside the two countries. However, I don't know if anything has happened or will happen. --candlewicke 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if a serious conflict develops.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well Algeria finished the match with eight players on the pitch, so it sounds like it was pretty muscular! Maybe one for April Fool's Day ("War between Algeria and Egypt concluded in less than two hours") Physchim62 (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
DYK would love it. ITN, well, holding on to it for 2+ months means it isn't exactly news. 3 red cards for one side is a lot, but it's still just a football match, which we'll be posting soon enough when the Cup of Nations concludes, so oppose. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Apple announces iPad

  • Apple tablet to be announced shortly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.43.106 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • And the article is at iPad. Haven't had time to think about this one yet. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Was thinking about nominating it myself. Perhaps it's worth waiting a bit to see what the general opinion is of the Ipad's significance, but this was certainly a highly anticipated event.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
At the very least this can't be truly considered until Jobs finishes his presentation. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes, it is getting a lot of coverage, but we should be cautious that we're just not providing advertising for Apple. There isn't any indication (other than hype) that this will be the next Big Thing. -- Flyguy649 talk 19:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
strong oppose - this is just announcement of a release which isnt that big of a deal to begin with. ITN would look like an apple fanboy. -- Ashish-g55 20:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment. If we posted Windows 7, why can't we post this? —  Cargoking  talk  20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
we didnt post the announcement... we posted the day it was released. and windows 7 isnt a new product that people may or may not use. its a release for software that like 90% of computers use -- Ashish-g55 20:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, we don't feature the Paris Fashion Week either. Physchim62 (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going neutral on this one. I can't see any good reason not to put this up but I can't see any strong argument in favour of it. What about an update, anyway? HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 20:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I prefer Live Nation Entertainment, makes more sense in my opinion. --candlewicke 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
"A news item involving Windows 7 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In The News section on 23 October 2009." Theres been quite abit of hype on this, more than 7, I think 7 sets a precedent. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
this is no bigger than google's nexus one which was no posted. and that was actually released not just announced. windows 7 reason i explained above. its not about the "hype" -- Ashish-g55 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, let's revisit the iPad in March when it is available. -- Flyguy649 talk 01:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
There's really no other way to put this: Hell no. Modest Genius talk 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Opposed Now I have had time to think about this one- and agree, posting this is just giving Apple a quarter million+ eyeballs. This could be the next iPod. It could also be the next Apple TV. We just don't know yet. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Opposed It's just a product of a company, I think we are not a Tv channel.--yousaf465' 05:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It's probably a futile gesture but I'm going to offer weak support here because this item is clearly in the news. Admittedly a large portion of those google news hits are tech-specific sources but the mainstream media covered this heavily. Given the extensive coverage already given to this announcement I don't think there's a worry if it's posted at ITN--we'd just be repeating what the mainstream media has already done. The article we have is good as well. And if I understand these statistics correctly, the article is already popular among WP viewers.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising. For a new product announcement to be featured on ITN it should have clear and obvious international impact at the time of announcement, not just potential impact or regular incremental change. Examples of product announcements that would have been appropriate are the 1981 IBM PC (transforming microcomputers from toys for hobbyists to legitimate business tools) and New Coke (redefinition of the best known brand in the world). This is just another product in a steady stream of regular technological improvements. --Allen3 talk 12:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

January 26

ITN candidates for January 26

Avatar

Wall Street Journal makes it official. Nergaal (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The version that gained consensus on the 24th is:
"James Cameron's Avatar becomes the highest-grossing film of all time, surpassing his 1997 Titanic."

Nergaal (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Posting. Is there any free image of those blue guys? :-) --Tone 08:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I highly doubt it, but I think Cameron's bust would be appropriate also. Nergaal (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I can only find fair use ones, as well. (And unless someone was in that make-up at the premiere or something, its doubtful one exists.) All of the ones we use in articles are fair use. Cameron's face would be appropriate, since the hook is as much about him as the movie. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
File:JamesCameronStarDec09.jpg might be pushing it, but in a way also deserving. If not, File:JamesCameronCCJuly09.jpg would work. Nergaal (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Either image would work for me. 'Chemical Ali' has been hanging there long enough. ~DC Talk To Me 08:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm on it. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Quick note on the blurb now: "The science fiction film Avatar, directed by James Cameron (pictured), becomes the highest-grossing film of all time, surpassing his 1997 Titanic." the second his is confusing as to whether it is referring to Avatar or Cameron. Nergaal (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
How is it now? --BorgQueen (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think just witching to " surpassing his previous 1997 film Titanic" would be fine (but I might be wrong). Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
That would be a bit too wordy - "previous" is unnecessary, I think. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This new item as frased is wrong, IMO. The only measure which makes sense when comparing amounts of money over time, and which I expect unless otherwise specified, is gross adjusted for inflation. Titanic and Gone with the Wind still outgross Avatar by that measure. Thue | talk 12:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The story which is "in the news" is the headline figure, not adjusted for inflation, and so that is the one which is appropriate for a section entitled "In the news". Physchim62 (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Just because some news media are sensationalist or incompetent, it doesn't mean we should emulate them. Thue | talk 14:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we're safe to go with the "sensationalist or incompetent" Wall Street Journal, or the equally "sensationalist or incompetent" BBC! We really have no need to insult our readers' intelligence by pedantically reminding them that a 2010 dollar is worth somewhat less than a 1997 dollar, and far less than a 1939 dollar. It is a topic worthy of discussion in the article that Avatar has gained about two-thirds of its receipts from the 3-D version, which had significantly higher ticket prices than is usual for a normal 2-D film, but that is not the news story. Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I shall gladly call the WSJ or BBC sensationalist or incompetent for bringing those stories without mentioning inflation adjustment. Because I am capable of independent evaluation, and not just repeating other people's inaccuracies. Also note that I could not find a corresponding new iten at the NYT, which usually have a higher standard. I say that Wikipedia ITN should aim at the NYT standard, not the BBC or WSJ standard. Thue | talk 14:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
That's what letters to the editor are for. ~DC Talk To Me 15:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
we are not trying to aim at any standards here. This story was discussed 3 weeks ago then again 2 days ago then now. and it was decided on that inflation adjusted figure is not accurate since this is worldwide gross. If NYT doesnt have this story then that means their updates are too slow. not because their standards are too high. -- Ashish-g55 15:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course we should be aiming at a high standard here. The reverse, that we don't care about news quality, is just an absurd idea. I mentioned the NYT because they have a high standard, not because they have an arbitrary "NYT-standard". And it would be quite possible to calculate a reasonable worldwide inflation-adjusted figure, for example by first converting the foreign gross to US dollars before adjusting for inflation. As also discussed at List_of_highest-grossing_films#Issues_with_calculation, ranking films non-inflation-adjusted is basically meaningless information. We should not select meaningless information for inclusion in the Wikipedia ITN; if this news item can not be fixed, then it should be removed. Thue | talk 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Movie grosses are not matter of simple calculation. you can see that in the List_of_highest-grossing_films#Issues_with_calculation. inflation is not the only factor that effects it but also the ticket prices which maybe different in many countries during different times. All such calculations are only guesses and nothing exact. the 1.84b number by titanic is only decent exact value that we can compare avatar to and we did that. Its a big international news with a nice article. i see absolutely no reason why it should not be posted. -- Ashish-g55 16:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Ashish & Physchim re posting the gross sales record.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lankan presidential election, 2010

The President of Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Ongoing now[3], results will be out by this time tomorrow. This is a pretty controversial election, coming just after the war ended, with the former Chief of Defence Staff competing against the current president. If this does go up on ITN, will it be now or when the results are out? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Normal policy is to wait for results.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Right, thanks. Plenty of time to get it ready then :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Support but wait for result as Johnsemlak said.--yousaf465' 07:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Naturally. Support when results are known. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
All results have now been declared, so we can post this as soon as people are happy with the update. We're still waiting for the election commission's spreadsheet to give us the total votes for the minor candidates, if anyone wonders why the able is still looking empty: we could, in theory, calculate them ourselves, but there are twenty minor candidates so it's simpler if someone else does it! Physchim62 (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Official results are now out (Dept. of Elections) and the article has been updated, with a lot of help from Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs), Chanakal (talk · contribs) and of course Physchim62 (talk · contribs). Should be good to go now. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Yep, this one's ready to fly: it helped a lot that the article was already in good shape before the results came in! There's also a free image we can use: we might want to wait a while for an image change, as the current image has only been up twelve hours or so, but I've linked it anyway. Physchim62 (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Posted. Feel free to update the image. --Tone 12:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

PS3 Hacked

Call me crazy, but the more I think about this one the more I say, 'Why not?' Certainly of international interest. Potentially affects millions of PS3 users. Not a commercial story since Sony wouldn't want this publicized. Any support for this? Right now this is the most viewed article on the BBC website. Plus WP users are probably more interested in tech stories.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tech stories (except for major records) actually tend not to appear as much on ITN. The key word you mention is "potentially". Unless there are definite effects, then I oppose. SpencerT♦Nominate! 03:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I would agree in principle, but I think you might be overemphasizing the word 'potentially' here, and perhaps I could use a more precise word. It can be fairly reasonably assumed that a large number (hunderds of thousands, if not millions) of users will be affected. (assuming that the hack is in fact something which will be used on a mass scale). I'm basing this on the already widespread use of hacked Xboxes, Wiis, and PS2s.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
the problem i see is that the guy hasnt released the code yet. so all we have is his word that he hacked it. this might become a story once the code is released to see what impact it causes. i suggest waiting till then -- Ashish-g55 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose even if I had the code in front of my eyes. A game console is claimed to be hacked. Compared to the rest of the stories currently on ITN, this is of little importance- and is of none at all until it becomes more than a claim. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is of any less importance than a number of sports-related items regularly put in ITN. But if the details of story is unsubstantial at the moment then yeah, let's hold off.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


January 25

ITN candidates for January 25

Live Nation Entertainment

Support (for ITN I mean). -SusanLesch (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This says the US District Court in Washington first has to approve. (Reuters said the deal was done.). -SusanLesch (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Opposed Neither company is of great significance. The best analogue I can think of was the XM and Sirius merger from a couple years ago, which is interesting in that they both created near-monopolies, but I question the global interest/significance of both. (Article talk pages have no evidence that merger was featured on ITN, either) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Opposed per above. --Tone 12:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Rolling Stone said, "Live Nation and Ticketmaster, the two biggest players in the $4.4 billion worldwide concert business, received U.S. Department of Justice approval Monday for a merger that is likely to affect every live-music fan, artist, agent, manager and promoter." So I guess you guys want what's coming to you. Good luck! -SusanLesch (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Support for the following reasons as well as Susan's above. MTV says the merge is "creating a live entertainment conglomerate the likes of which has never been seen before in the music industry" and that Live Nation Entertainment will be a "ticketing and promotions mega-company". The BBC's business section describes the controversy surrounding this: "Consumer groups, ticket resellers and some politicians have been worried that the new firm will control too much of the concert-going experience". From The Sydney Morning Herald, "Its operations span more than 30 countries" and it "will handle all aspects of the concert business, including promoting them, selling tickets, beer and parking, putting out albums and managing an artist roster that includes U2, Madonna, Jay-Z and the Eagles" so that's not one part but a lot of parts as well as many recognisable musicians. So the effects are felt in many countries therefore I think this is a good reason to include it if it is ready. --candlewicke 18:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Support as per SusanLesch. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a hard one. its just companies merging as usual but it happens to be 2 significant international ones who have quite a large impact on people on daily basis. we posted kraft buyout of cadbury. IMHO this one is more significant than that. so i must support this. -- Ashish-g55 02:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. This just doesn't seem to impact much outside the entertainment sphere, and it's not even that big an entertainment story. It's not getting much prominent coverage, and I think it's global significance is minimal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Both of these companies are smaller than Cadbury plc, which itself significantly smaller than Kraft Foods. This isn't in the same league of business story as that merger, at least not in financial terms. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
its not big in financial terms but it impacts people way more than kraft cadbury merger. as this has created an almost monopoly on live entertainment. ticketing and live entertainment itself. i think general population would care more for this merger than kraft/cadbury's. -- Ashish-g55 04:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
In what way will this have an impact on people?--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I can try to explain. The Wall Street Journal says ticket prices might rise and that scalpers could be cut out (this is in the vertical area of overlap that the Justice department tried to eliminate). Also for example Billboard (story is about radio and Clear Channel): Live Nation, which spun off from Clear Channel, is worrisome in that you are unlikely to get a show unless you have a deal with them which serves to narrow the whole music business. Live Nation in effect becomes the gate keeper for what music audiences see and hear. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So it basically affects ticket purchasing/prices. This seems to be a very narrow range of impact--and it won't affect the music itself, just getting tickets to concerts. Also, most people either go to concerts rarely (once a year or so) or never. Live concerts are far and away not how people usually experience music. I can't see the impact on people as a major argument for this item. I realize it may seem different to people who go to concerts relatively frequently (or used to) but I'll maintain that that's still a relatively rare event in people's lives compared to switching on an Ipod, or going to the cinema. That said, perhaps I have a skewed perspective as I live in a country where these companies don't operate and I don't go to concerts.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree with the above, particularly the statement "Live concerts are far and away not how people usually experience music", as well as "Just getting tickets to concerts". Perhaps it is due to where I am in the world or some other reason but I was under the impression that live performances were more financially beneficial to musicians than releasing an album these days. I cannot remember the last time I switched on an Ipod, or went to the cinema actually but I think it likely I went to a live performance more recently. It could be argued that people also go to the cinema on rare occasions or once a year (I haven't been at all in the last several months but I understood and supported the current cinema topic) and there are certainly many who don't have an Ipod. And in the SMH quote above it does mention albums and lots more besides... --candlewicke 19:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela's vice president resigns

Support. Neutral He was also the Defence Minister. His wife, the Energy Minister, also stepped down. I'll see if I can work on the article. Grsz11 22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
(I thought there was something more to his resignation, not just for "personal reasons".) Grsz11 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there something I'm missing? The news link says he resigned fro "personal reasons" which odes not sound that significant in and of itself. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 23:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
That's how I looked at it as well. But he was also the Defence Minister, and his wife was Energy Minister. That's three cabinet posts. Grsz11 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
If we're going to have a Venezuela item I think the removal of the anti-Chavez cable TV stations is of higher news value. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Picasso

Misposted at WT:MP, transferring here. Physchim62 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This item - from todays news Jan. 25, 2010 should be mentioned in the news: Picasso Rose period painting The Actor 1904 at the Metropolitan Museum of Art was damaged when a woman fell into it after losing her balance. The painting had a 6 inch gash that the museum said can be fixed. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernist (talkcontribs)

Opposed The damage was minor, and is expected to be easily repaired. Interesting, but not really news. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
And there is presumably no separate article for the painting itself... one more reason to oppose. --Tone 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Saint Kitts and Nevis general election, 2010

Comment Thanks for the tip, I'll see what I can find. But remember that we only post stories if there's an update to the article within a reasonable time after the event. For Caribbean elections, that can be difficult. For example, at the moment, I don't even know when the polls close (UTC) in Saint Kitts and Nevis, which is fairly fundamental for looking for results. Physchim62 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment Do sovereign state elections always go up if there's an update? There are only ~50K people in the country, my county commissioner has a larger constituency. However, there seems to be a bit of a disturbance surrounding the election that may make it more worthy. Grsz11 23:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:ITNR includes all sovereign state elections at the national (or federal) level, meaning that policy dictates that they should be posted w/o the need for consensus here. The article requirements need to be met, but as far as I remember the articles usually get updated. Beyond that, in my half-year here I've seen that elections have a near 'sacred' status as a news item. They (and replacement of head of state for monarchies or the like) are one item in which all nations regardless of size are treated pretty equally in terms of ITN coverage.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Elections are something of a tradition on ITN! I'm sure we can find some worthy reason why (I can think of a few, but I'm not sure which is the historical one) but its basically just a harmless idiosyncrasy. And I doubt that Grsz11's county commissioner election got coverage in The Washington Post, so we're not the only ones with a minor national election fetish! In practice, we do miss a few (like this one last week) because of problems with updates or articles or just because we forget. Physchim62 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The Prime Minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis, Dr Denzil Douglas
OK, results are in, at least in terms of seats (and, even then, only a couple of hours ago). The overall result is no surprise, the article has been updated. We have a free picture of the winner, although the version I've proposed here has been mirrored so that he faces left. That's slightly controversial for biographies, but I don't think it's a worry here. No voting figures yet. Physchim62 (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'd just like to see some more support and then this is ready to post. I agree with the proposed blurb. --Tone 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I was just posing a question, I do Support this item. Grsz11 16:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A note to check the article as well to see if there's any problem that I've missed: I think it's done, but that's just my opinion. The result is now also Washington Post (article updated), so we're not just relying on small local media outlets. Physchim62 (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I have posted it, I changed the blurb slightly as I don't like to start with "in..." but if it doesn't sound right someone else can feel free to change it - Dumelow (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to say, uploads are disabled now so I couldn't add the image (I am not a fan of flipping images just for stylistic reasons). I'll add it when they are re-enabled - Dumelow (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The flipped-and-cropped image above is already on Wikipedia, but no probs. The image could probably do with some tone adjustment anyway, for the bright sunlight vs dark skin in shadow. The current image hasn't been up for 24 hours yet so there's really no rush to change. Physchim62 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It's funny how this sailed through, and there was a huge fight when the Democrats lost their supermajority in the US Senate. Just sayin'... UnitAnode 00:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Not all that confusing- this was a general election in a sovereign country. Massachusetts was a by-election in a first-level national subdivision. ITN always puts up these, whereas by-elections are very rarely of any importance. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the explanation is much simpler. That's all I'll say about that. And you do realize that the Massachusetts election involved a loss of the Democratic supermajority, right? And that that fact affected the national government, right? UnitAnode 05:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course I realize the effect of the special election; in the US one would have had to avoid newspapers like the plague last week not to understand it. The process worked; though. Remember that the special election in fact did get posted. (And I have no idea what subtext you're implying with the "That's all I'll say about that) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm implying that the reason there was a huge fight about the US story was because it was a US story. UnitAnode 05:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Just popped on to change the image but David Levy has already sorted it (and found a better pic), cheers David - Dumelow (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Chemical Ali

  • Ali Hassan al-Majid, nicknamed Chemical Ali for his role in Saddam Hussein's gassing of Kurds is executed in Iraq after umpteen death sentences.
    • I think we agreed, upon his latest sentencing, that we'd post this when the sentence was carried out. According to the BBC, it's just happened. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 14:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
support--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
BBC link. Just been announced in any case. Support as per previous discussion, and so that we don't have to add his recurrent death sentences to ITNR. I count four in total, each for different crimes. There's a free image as well (I'm getting tired of the Serbian Orthodox Church...) Physchim62 (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Support when updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It's updated, I will post it now. Bye, bye, bad guy. Jehochman Brrr 14:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Romanian winter

For the moment, I see no international coverage. And we have had two stories about the cold European winter already this year. How many people died from road traffic accidents, or influenza, in Romania in those five days? Oppose. Physchim62 (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Martin Kaymer

Martin Kaymer
Oh, I've just discovered this as well which says he has to "play the entire 2010 season with the plates and screws in his foot which were inserted after last year's go-karting accident" and might make his win more important perhaps (or not)? --candlewicke 00:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose this really isn't an important golf tournament. Its not one of the four majors, or the Ryder/Presidents Cup. ~DC Talk To Me 00:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DC. Grsz11 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Opposed The only golf tournaments that really matter are the Majors and WGC's. This wasn't even the biggest golf tournament this week. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I just LOVE hyperbole. –Howard the Duck 03:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose-- Non-major golf tournament.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Iraq capital Baghdad rocked by deadly triple bombing

  • I'm not sure about this one myself with several fatal incidents reported recently, but this certainly has a high causality figure--36 deaths at least. There's also debate about whether it's connected to the Ali execution.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. 36 dead in a Baghdad bombing isn't enough. And the link with the "Chemical Ali" hanging seems spurious to say the least: don't forget there are also elections in Iraq in March. Coincidence seems more likely to me, especially as the bombings were being reported before the reports of the execution. Physchim62 (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
oppose. per phsychim. too common for baghdad. if it was deaths over 100 then it would be easier to consider. -- Ashish-g55 18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopian airlines crash

An Ethiopian Airlines plane with 85 passengers on board crashed into the Mediterranean sea shortly after taking off from Beirut airport in the early hours of Monday, airport sources said. The plane disappeared off the radar shortly after takeoff, the sources said. There were no further immediate details. [11] --Priyanka 02:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. --candlewicke 02:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Support when we have something substantial. I created Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409. Grsz11 03:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The article is still developing of course, but it's on the way. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is nearly ready I think.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Posting, using the blurb from CE. --Tone 08:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

January 24

ITN candidates for January 24

Kelly Kulick

She became the first woman to win a PBA Tour event, winning the Tournament of Champions. Her article needs expanding though. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 19:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. --candlewicke 19:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The article will need some work- it's little more than a stub, it only cites three references and they're not properly formatted. I have no strong opinion on whether or not to feature it if the article is sufficiently improved. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. She won the PBA Women's World Championship back in October, the first time it was held by the PBA, that's a PBA Tour event. See PBA Bowling Tour: 2009-10 season. Grsz11 20:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar - the best grossing movie worldwide

It will become the best grossing movie worldwide[12] within probably less than 24h. Once that happens, this should go on the main page. Nergaal (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • since i nominated this a while ago. here is the discussion moved... -- Ashish-g55 18:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wanna start a support/oppose debate on this since i can see this being controversial (being a US movie, plus being a movie...). Will we post if Avatar were to beat Titanic's worldwide total of 1.8 billion$? (Notice the "if"). It still has many millions to go and there is no way to project if it will. But i will give it a strong support if and when it does. Being the first one in 12 years, and clearly affecting people worldwide (plus its worldwide gross). PS: i have been gone for couple months :) im back and hopefully can get back on ITN. -- Ashish-g55 02:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. Yes. If. And not because it is or isn't American. Welcome back! :-) --candlewicke 02:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Although really shouldn't they figure inflation into account with these things? I wonder how much Gone With the Wind would have made in 2010 dollars. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, as per obviously. Also, with regards to accounting for inflation, I think BoxOfficeMojo.com has a ranking where they've already done that. I know they used to, but I haven't used the site regularly in quite some time. UnitAnode 04:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
well there are 2 separate lists. i personally support real number of 1.8b rather than inflated amout since inflation is a guestimate. -- Ashish-g55 04:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, even though I strongly suspect this is going to lead to nasty arguments about advertising etc when/if it actually happens and is put up. Nil Einne (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. I thought about nominating Avatar when it became the fastest movie to take in $1bn, but didn't in the end. We regularly post the winners of the major cinema awards, so I don't think the 'advertising' argument is a reason to to run the story. Besides, if it is already the "Most Popular Movie of All Time"™, what difference would a few thousand page hits on Wikipedia make??!! Mwalcoff makes a valid point about inflation, but we should probably post it at the same time that everyone else is shouting about it (ie, not taking inflation into account) – we'd risk looking a little precious if we didn't. Notice as well that the article has had more than 150k hits per day for the last 19 days, peaking at 371k hits on 21 December and 227k hits on 4 January! Physchim62 (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Highest-grossing film ever. Pretty big deal. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Support as soon as the takings reach whatever the record is (if they haven't already) and even in the highly-unlikely-event that it doesn't, its failure would probably be newsworthy! HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong support If any movie is worthy of ITN, this is the one. We also included Harry Potter on ITN so this should go up too. ~AH1(TCU) 20:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Avatar breaking a record that some thought would never be broken for twenty years is huge news. --PlasmaTwa2 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Update Reuters and HollywoodReporter say Avatar is only 2 million behind Titanic's 1,843 million mark. Nergaal (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Support That James Cameron sure knows how to make movies. Is it worth mentioning in the blurb that he bested his own film? Grsz11 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that can't have happened very often either. --candlewicke 20:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
James Cameron's Avatar becomes the highest-grossing film of all time, surpassing his 1997 Titanic. Grsz11 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
James Cameron's Avatar becomes the highest-grossing film of all time (not accounting inflation), surpassing his 1997 Titanic. Nergaal (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Update2 HollywoodReporter states "Monday is the day "Avatar" flies past "Titanic" in its historic global journey." So I guess at some point tomorrow morning someone can easily put this on the ITN template. Nergaal (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

and getting banned in China. That should be put up as well YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
What?! That's ridiculous. Humanity needs to wake up to its own conscience now. ~AH1(TCU) 03:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Citation please. ~AH1(TCU) 03:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Erm, the 2D version is being pulled from Chinese cinemas (AP), but that is hardly the same as it "being banned"! It is already the highest-grossing film in China of all time (Hollywood Reporter). Seems like YellowMonkey has got the hyperbole bug ;-) Physchim62 (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it necessary to mention 'adjusted for inflation' in the blurb? I find this a bit of a subjective detail. It's not as if there's a definitive 'inflation-adjusted' list.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree. It's a factoid that deserves its place in the article, but not on the top corner of the Main Page. The story that will be "in the news" will be for the simple unadjusted figures. Physchim62 (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea, could you also mention that I'm now richer than King Alfred the Great? But sure, Avatar now has a real shot at #25, that's newsworthy. Lampman (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Iranian plane crash

All 170 passengers and crew escape from a burning aircraft after a crash on landing at Mashhad International Airport, Iran. (ITAR-TASS Created by Zaps93 (talk · contribs), nominated by Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to oppose this one I'm afraid. There seems to be a precedent of not posting plane crashes that don't cause injuries- there was one in Scotland not so long ago that wan't posted. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - no deaths - TouLouse (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty rare that there are no deaths in an airplane crash. That said, the BBC article does not call this accident a 'crash'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There were no deaths in US Airways Flight 1549 either, and that accident made ITN. In this case, the aircraft has been effectively destroyed. <soapbox> I note the BBC are still spouting the crap about sanctions against US sourced parts are the cause of Russian built aircraft crashes. Again there is no evidence to say that this was a cause in this accident. </soapbox> Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I wouldn't make an absolute rule against aviation accidents with no deaths, but there has to be something to make the story a bit different – otherwise we would post every single accident, and we don't and can't – and I can't see anything special about this story. Third serious aviation accident in Iran in less than twelve months doesn't do it for me. Physchim62 (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Support. 170 people surviving one of these incidents is as notable as 170 people dying in my opinion. Deaths were not required for US Airways Flight 1549 (as Mjroots has said) and that seems to have had several dozen less passengers. --candlewicke 17:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Third doesn't seem very much. In the same year as US Airways Flight 1549 the United States had Northwest Airlines Flight 253, Southwest Airlines Flight 2294, Colgan Air Flight 3407, 2009 Montana Pilatus PC-12 crash, 2009 California mid-air collision, 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision. --candlewicke 17:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There are 47 incidents listed at Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2009: if we posted them all, we would almost always have an aviation incident story on ITN. That seems to be an exaggeration of the importance of aviation incidents in the news and on Wikipedia. We posted a story on FedEx Express Flight 80 at the same time as a story on the 2009 Montana Pilatus PC-12 crash: the FedEx story was pulled from the Main Page as not sufficiently important because there were only two deaths (the FedEx story got more than twice the interest from our readers than the Montana Pilatus story, but that's another issue). So I'd say we need to make some sort of a choice between aviation incidents, even if it is a subjective one and if we sometimes make "mistakes". Physchim62 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
That's true and I wouldn't support them all either but I still believe that 170 people surviving a fire on a plane in Iran is of similar significance to less people surviving an incident on a plane in the United States. In fact the pilot alone saved the passengers in the US incident, I doubt he ran around the plane to carry them all out of this fire so that they all escaped alive is remarkable enough. --candlewicke 18:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a key fact you're neglecting when talking about US Airways Flight 1549- planes don't land on rivers very often! HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
That's also true but doesn't take away from the significance of all these people saving themselves. Some more facts just revealed here: the captain is being blamed, the 46 people who received treatment were simply "shocked" and all but seven were fine by that afternoon. There was one similar accident with a fire on a plane in Iran last year but 16 people died on that occasion. As Press TV said earlier, "An explosion separated almost a third of the plane's fuselage on landing, ripping away the rear section. The aircraft had ultimately landed off the runway. One of the wings and the landing gear also came apart in the fire, as the flames spread through the fuselage". It still sounds no different than all people surviving an incident in the United States (where far more aviation incidents seem to occur) but that could be just me. Some emphasis put on faulty planes being common in Iran, suggesting accidents are also common, but if it was the captain's fault for ignoring a warning it doesn't matter how high or low quality your plane is or where you are in the world. --candlewicke 20:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Was undecided, now strongly opposed- the Ethiopian story above is likely more important. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
They could be combined. It is just unfortunate timing that they happened so close to each other, it has been ages since there was a proper plane crash. :) --candlewicke 04:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ages? Caspian Airlines Flight 7908 was only six months ago, and we had a rush of them around that time. These accidents have nothing in common- not even the date- that could be used to naturally link them. ITN didn't feature |AA 331 because it was in the end analysis, insignificant. Same with this one. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

January 23

ITN candidates for January 23

2010 Canada anti-Prorogation protests

There does not seem to be an article on this at the moment, but many Canadian news sources has coverage on this, and it is notable since the protests took place all over the country.[13] According to a facebook event page posted by the original group that started the protests, the rallies have occured in over 60 different towns and cities, in addition to international locations: London, New York, Dallas, San Francisco, and The Hague. ~AH1(TCU) 01:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Best article I can find right now is the 2010 Prorogation section of the Stephen Harper article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
40th Canadian Parliament would be a better candidate in my view. In one sense, the prorogation issue seems like a reasonable ITN story. But 3000–7000 protesters in Toronto? I know it's cold in Canada at the moment, but that hardly sounds like an internationally important protest! Not sure, but leaning towards oppose. Physchim62 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, convinced, Support. Physchim62 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, according to the images on this blog, it appears that more than 10,000 people attended the Toronto rally. Also, there were protests in 64 different cities in Canada, and also in other countries: the US, England, the Netherlands, and Costa Rica. Over 200,000 people attended the rallies in Canada, and since we featured last year's parliamentary crisis on ITN, this should be featured as well. We never mentioned the actual second prorogation, but these rallies are notable enough for an article. I could create one myself, as there is enough news coverage. Strong support if a separate article is created. ~AH1(TCU) 14:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose we didn't put the tea party protests on. Listing this would be pure Canada-centrism. ~DC Talk To Me 16:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Support the article I found at tea party protests describes a national event across many cities. If this one also occurred internationally I believe it is more internationally significant and therefore more important than the tea party protests. I don't think this is "pure Canada-centrism". I don't recall hearing much about the tea party protests when they happened but I heard this yesterday and I am not in Canada or in North America. --candlewicke 18:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think "Canada-centric" is a new accusation for ITN! But I think the analogy with the tea party protests is completely spurious: people protesting peacefully against taxes or the government in general is not usually news anywhere. However, the Canadian prorogation is a bit more serious. Imaging if a U.S. President said that Congress couldn't meet for 2½ months because he didn't like what Congress was discussing! Yet that is what happened in Canada (just before the New Year, so it didn't get onto the international news radar at the time). Running the protests would just be a way to belatedly run the prorogation story, and that certainly isn't Canada-centric. Physchim62 (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
i am from canada hence ill stay neutral... but "canada-centric"? are u kidding me. we have one of those in span of years. IMO i wouldnt post this for opening up a huge hole for certain other country. otherwise we will see a quite a large amount of protest news going up just because this one did (no matter how important they are). -- Ashish-g55 18:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment We need a blurb. How about "Over 60 protests take place in Canada and in other cities outside the country against the prorogation of the 40th Canadian Parliament by Stephen Harper"? We could link and bold "protests" when an actual article is written. ~AH1(TCU) 20:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Support protests this big against our government aren't every day occurences. You should probably mention that Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister in the blurb, though. --PlasmaTwa2 20:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Tweaking proposed blurb: Harper didn't formally do the prorogation he requested it, but if we say "at the request of PM S.H.", it sounds like Harper requested the protests! Physchim62 (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The protest in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, against the prorogation of the Canadian Parliament
Is there a way to get a "pictured" tag in there so we can put up one of the many pictures that Commons has of these protests? - Dumelow (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Protests (pictured) take place. But which one... --candlewicke 20:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say one from Saskatoon, but that's only because there's a chance I'd be in the photo. I think this one might be the best one as a thumbnail. --PlasmaTwa2 20:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the one Plasma suggests is not the best for the Main Page – it really needs a caption to explain the placard. I'll suggest one of the Saskatoon ones, in fact, because I think the snow goes nicely with the image of protesters: you must have to be angry to go outside and protest in the middle of a Canadian winter! Also, picking a fairly small city illustrates the nationwide nature of the protests. I've modified the suggested blurb accordingly.
It could work without picture as well. The item has my conditional support but the update needs to be much bigger - there are currently two lines about the protests in the paragraph. I am saying this because it is not clear from the state of the blurb and the article whether we would like to highlight the prorogation or the protests. If protests, I'd suggest a separate article. If they are as big as you say, it should not be hard to write one. --Tone 21:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could turn the blurb around: The prorogation of the 40th Canadian Parliament leads to protests across Canada and in cities outside the country. That way, as well, we could get Stephen Harper in there without ambiguity ("the prorogation ..., requested by PM Stephen Harper, leads to...") Physchim62 (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for having important Canadian news in ITN, but should we have had the proroguation (sp?) itself rather than the protests a couple of weeks later? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to nominate that too, but didn't have enough time. ~AH1(TCU) 03:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Mwalcoff that we should have had the prorogation rather than the protests. However, we haven't posted anything related to this story so far, and the protests are directly linked the the main story. We can link to the 2010 Prorogation in the blurb. So, I Support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
We need more of an update on the article. The news item is the protests (the prorogation was in December) and they just have two sentences at the moment - Dumelow (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've created a separate article: 2010 Canada anti-prorogation protests. It's still under construction but we could post the blurb now then update the main link to direct to the article. ~AH1(TCU) 22:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Netherlands Antilles elections

More by some sense of duty than any real conviction! This one is really inconsequential, unless you're into postcolonialism and are willing to write something about it. Nevertheless: "A coalition of parties backing the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles wins what is expected to be the last general election in the Carribean multi-island territory." Physchim62 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, wasn't dissolution already certain, it's just a matter of what each entity votes decides to become afterwards? I would favor what remaining referendums there are, but I'm not too sure about this one. Grsz11 15:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Looking more, I would say oppose to this. It's just a legislative election for a small territory. Grsz11 16:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have give a news link there: (Netherlands Radio). We think the last referendum was the Bonaire constitutional referendum, 2010 – I say "we", because it was discussed on this page only last week! That story wasn't posted, in part because of the difficulty in getting results: If Netherlands Radio is correct, Bonaire must have voted for the "municipality" option. As for the dissolution, it has already been put off (at least) twice, in 2008 and 2009. The Staten of the Netherlands Antilles (elected Friday) would deal with the last remaining questions, at least in principle! I've lived in the Netherlands, I can read Dutch reasonably well, but I'm still fighting to find any more info than that! Physchim62 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
According to that article, the vote didn't happen, but according to other articles here, Bonaire was already set to become a municipality. Grsz11 16:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Death of Jean Simmons

I'll oppose here, we already have one obituary on ITN and I'd prefer keeping the Sultan. --Tone 15:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Though she had a long career and starred in many films, I'd say there's nothing particularly notable about her. I wouldn't say she was one of the most influential actresses of that period. She didn't win any Oscars. From that period I'd say Katherine Hepburn, Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Vivian Leigh, and several others were more notable Hollywood actresses.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti

I'd prefer keeping the current blurb until it cycles out. This is just a part of the whole story. --Tone 15:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Tone on this one. The Haiti earthquake is still "in the news", and we're still getting very respectable viewing figures for the Wikipedia article but, at some point, we have to stop bumping the story up the list so that readers can get some new stories. The story is obviously cycling down in both external news sources and Wikipedia article hits (even if it was still viewed nearly once a second yesterday), so I think the time has come to let it slowly drop off the bottom of the ITN list. Physchim62 (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed- not to mention this isn't all that surprising. It's a cold calculus, but we all knew in the back of our minds the SAR efforts had to end sometime. There may still be significant stories left in this, but this one isn't it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with above posts. The story is now a 1 1/2 weeks old so it's probably time to let it drop. We did 'bump' the story up once, which is something which we rarely do, so I think we've given the earthquake its due coverage. However, if a further development in the Haiti earthquake aftermath occurs that is notable, we should consider it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

January 22

ITN candidates for January 22

Sibutramine suspended

  • The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has told doctors to stop prescribing sibutramine. - [14] - TouLouse (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Death of Iskandar of Johor

  • The sultan dies at 77. - TouLouse (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Support since he was formerly King of Malaysia. Article needs more work on the death section first, though. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't support simply on the basis that he was a former King of Malaysia: I don't think we should be systematically posting the deaths of former heads of state (as opposed to those who die in office, which I have no problem with). On the other hand, he does appear to have been a particularly – how can I put it, controversial? extravagant? psychopathic? – ruler... responsible (at least partly) for the loss of sovereign immunity for Malaysia's royal families (there are several, who elect the King from among their number). There seems to be material in the article to justify an ITN piece... Physchim62 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Iskandar_of_Johor#Death needs expansion, but the article as a whole seems in good shape. Unsure, but leaning toward support, when it comes to notability. And that's IF the death section is expanded. SpencerT♦Nominate! 02:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Current Sultan of Johor. ... (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is certainly very extensive. The update is short however.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Updated more. ... (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice work. Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
A bit late, but I oppose bringing this on the main page. Deaths of former heads of state is not notable enough IMO, especially when they only had five years of rule.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I would support this one as it says above he holds a "current" position. --candlewicke 04:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Guantanamo

I'll nominate this as it will almost certainly get more international attention, and so that U.S. (or otherwise knowledgeable) editors can clarify if this is a major development or just another minor one. Physchim62 (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure on this one. There have been a lot of recommendations and whatever else over Gitmo. I think I'll oppose until we have something concrete (an action rather than a recommendation). HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Have to agree with HJ Mitchell- The federal government here issues "recommendations" all the time; very few of which are of consequence. There are four or five people whose opinions really matter with respect to Gitmo- and none of them have spoken here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the recommendation becomse something more stringent. SpencerT♦Nominate! 02:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as per HJ Mitchell.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

ADE 651

Breaking in the UK at the moment. Apparently, these useless devices have been widely sold to the Iraqi police force at US$40k a time. The director of the company that makes them was briefly arrested then released on bail under suspicion of fraud. Physchim62 (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A curious one. I'd be inclined to wait, at least a few hours, to see if anything big comes of this. Where would and update go, out of curiosity? HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 18:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I would update the bolded article, ADE 651. It's been done partially (thanks to someone who isn't me), but not yet with all the details. I've just had to update the proposed blurb after clarification from the UK govt. As for timing, I would be "polite" to wait until after the Newsnight programme on BBC2 tonight (finishes 2300 UTC), and the story is hardly "urgent". Physchim62 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'll make a point of watching Newsnight. It makes a change from trying to reference 50,000 flaming BLPs! HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I've seen the coverage of this now, but I'm not convinced it's Main Page worthy, interesting and controversial though it is. One to keep an eye on though... HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 01:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Getting some international coverage: (Radio New Zealand) (Seattle Times) (Washington Post) Physchim62 (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be 'big' news but we have a decent and well-referenced article on it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Patriarch Irinej

This should be included in the ITN. Precedent is that the death of the previous Patriarch, Pavle, was on the MP. Patriarch in Eastern Orthodox Churches is similar to the position of Pope in Roman Catholic Church, the difference being each of the recognised churches elects an equal patriarch.--Avala (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. Senior religious figures such as Patriarch Irinej are probably more influential than many of the Prime Ministers and Presidents we mention. Also, they don't usually change that often, so there's no risk of bogging down ITN! Physchim62 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. We posted the election of some senator in the US! This is obviously of considerable significance in Eastern Europe and, as Physchim says, it doesn't happen that often. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 18:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I should link to the BBC story and this piece from Hürriyet's English-language service (Turkey). Plenty of regional sources as well, the article seems OK. Physchim62 (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I support but would prefer if the article were expanded a bit. It just barely meets the update requirement and has really very little information on the new Patriarch.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Support as soon as the article is updated just a little more. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
What else do people want to see in an update? There are nine references, from various different countries, all of them apparently published in relation to the event (I can't read all of the languages, but I can usually figure out dates!) Our biography is at least as long as the one on Serbian Wikipedia, and gives the basic details of his ecclesiastical career – it is much more than a simple date of birth. The "readable" article (as DYK likes to put it, ie not counting infoboxes and such things) is 363 words, and the article would easily qualify for DYK. We probably have the best resource on this person currently available in English, and yet we don't want to tell people about it?! Physchim62 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy with it now. It needed work with copyediting, reference formatting, and I also added a couple new sources I found. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 00:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Umaru Yar'Adua

Time to put this story up I think. Its been ongoing for two months now in a large country, and was mentioned in media reports in connection with the 2010 Jos riots. Yar'Adua has long suffered from kidney problems, and is currently in Saudi Arabia being treated for a heart condition, usually quoted as pericarditis. He has given only one interview over the last two months, leading to widespread speculation that he was dead or permanently incapacitated. I realise that many will prefer to wait for the Cabinet's decision, but I think there is no harm in putting the court ruling up now, given the long duration of the story. Physchim62 (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

i think the decision after 14 days would be lot more notable -- Ashish-g55 14:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Wait until the decision is made.--Avala (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I concur. When the decision is made, I'l be much more inclined to support. HJMitchell You rang? 16:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Count me as a support if they decide to remove him, I'll finally be on wikibreak by then. Grsz11 01:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


January 21

ITN candidates for January 21

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Support! Astounding that it hasn't even been proposed before. It is or was the lead article on most American newspapers (tabloids excluded) as well as of the international pages of BBC, Le Monde, and the Dutch newspapers I checked. This decision seems awfully consequential. Afasmit (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
"Influence elections" seems to imply impropriety. Something more like "finance campaigns" would be more appropriate. Grsz11 01:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Support the proposal, and Grsz11's proposed rewording. (See below This opinion is a sea change in U.S. election law. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
A clarification: I don't think the ruling overturns the bans on direct corporate contributions to candidates' campaign funds. I think it allows corporations to spend money independently on "propaganda," or whatever you call it, aimed at swaying voters one way or another. The wording shouldn't mix that up. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Ooh... you're right. This ruling doesn't allow direct contributions to campaigns, it only allows political expenditures independent of a campaign. (Like running TV ads "Not endorsed by the candidate or candidate's committee"). Strike that part of my last comment, then. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, then say "finance campaign ad" or something like it. The most important issue is we cannot use "influence elections." Grsz11 02:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose primarily per lack of importance or significance outside of the District of Columbia and because, examining this, it doesn't appear all that significant at all- yes, it reverses a previous decision, but that's how the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent works. This didn't, as far as I can tell, overrule the President or some government action and it didn't, for example, alter the US Constitution so I fail to see how it is much more than a few judges overturning a previous decision. Finally, I would comment (but it didn't decide my oppose) that we already have on item on American politics on ITN. HJMitchell You rang? 02:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Huh? This ruling voids limitations on campaign spending that have been part of US Federal Law in one form or another since the Tillman Act of 1907. It's a huge deal from the point of view of permissible election advertising, as it allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of their own funds to promote specific candidates (that by implication might be expected to craft legislation favorable to the corporations). The ruling also establishes for the first time that corporations are entitled to the same free speech guarantees as individuals. It's being called the most important ruling of the Supreme Court since Chief Justice Roberts joined. Dragons flight (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Likely to have a large effect on the conduct of US election campaigns. Also see my comment above. Dragons flight (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Not opposing or supporting. but Likely? wikipedia isnt a crystal ball? -- Ashish-g55 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, likely. Content guidelines about what can go in articles are not some straitjacket that prevents us from taking positions in meta discussions based on reasonable judgments about the future. And for the record, much of the news coverage is making the same prediction. Dragons flight (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as domestic politics, not of international interest (I can't find any mention of it in the UK media for example). Edit: I found an article buried in the Guardian `world news' section. Still not major coverage. Modest Genius talk 11:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The OSCE has expressed concerns over the ruling.   — C M B J   05:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Reading the article gives me this huge weary sense of "so what?". The Supreme Court has ruled that one section of a law is unconstitutional: that is its job to make such rulings. That single section has no direct international implications. This is big news if you're running for public office in the United States, and we notoriously have some such people (or their direct employees) among our occasional editors, especially at election time, but it's really no big deal even for 99% of the U.S. population, let alone anyone anywhere else. Physchim62 (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's hope you're kidding. These are still headlines in US papers today: Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Finance Ruling, Ruling on Spending May Alter Political Terrain, The results of the Supreme Court decision will be nothing less than revolutionary,
Neutral for now. (EDIT now support) I do agree with Dragonsflight that this is a BIG deal, perhaps bigger than the media is making it out to be. It WILL affect all elections in the US in the future, though the exact affects are yet to be determined according to this. I agree with Modest Genius that it hasn't been covered prominantly in the UK media or in the Irish Times or in the Sydney Morning Herald. While this does seem to be a very significant US domestic story, we've just posted a US domestic item amid some opposition and perhaps it's better to hold back on this one. (not just because of opposers here, but because we may draw some outside complaints).--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support. It's a drastically important ruling, and I think one that's not being understood properly.----occono (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure it is "drastically significant". In Washington, D.C. To most Americans? Probably not. To anyone outside the USA? Not a hope! HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 18:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not supporting this item for now but this frequent argument that items are 'not significant to anyone outside the US' could be made to most items posted on ITN. Nearly all ITN events are not significant to the majority of WP users. I really think its a meaningless argument. As to it being significant to Americans, I'd say that to believe that this ruling doesn't matter to most Americans requires one to believe elections don't matter, though I would agree the exact effects are somewhat speculative.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't let that logic lie without a comment! One can believe that elections are important and still feel that this story is somewhat banal. If we followed the logic above, we'd run stories about every redistricting which occurs, because we know that redistricting is important in the United States, home of the original "Gerrymander"! Physchim62 (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This has a much broader effect than any redistricting decision. It will affect all elections in this US, not just particular districts.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It affects the whole of the US, not just Washington D.C. It applies to any kind of election, Federal or State. Also, I'm Irish myself. ----occono (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I know this is a monumental decision, but there needs to be some sort of limit on the number of US Supreme Court cases appearing on ITN, and I personally don't find this as an extraordinary decision. It's just campaign financing. I probably wouldn't support a campaign financing ITN in general. Note that I'm not opposing because it's related mainly to the US. SpencerT♦Nominate! 02:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • And also, the whole article should be updated (see the sections with the tags for more content) if it were to go up. SpencerT♦Nominate! 02:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Hugely significant. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support. The significance of this ruling can be best understood by the explanation presented in this video at -15:41. This headline should be listed ITN before anymore time passes; frankly, I was surprised when I realized it was absent.   — C M B J   04:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm switching to support on this one. The Massachusetts election story has been removed, and I was uncomfortable with having two contentious US domestic stories up at once. I actually think this is the more important of the two.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This event was the lead subject for several weekly news roundup shows in the US 1, 2. In the first link above, a NYT journalist compared its significance to Plessy vs Ferguson and suggested it will appear in future US history textbooks.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Just goes to show that you can get ridiculous hyperbole in the NYT too! Physchim62 (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Switch to neutral. I still fail to see any great importance outside of Washington, D.C., however, I think it's probably of more significance and has a more lasting effect than the special election. I was uncomfortable with having 2 US domestic politics stories on ITN, but since the election has been removed, I won't object to this, but I won't support it either. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 13:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to list this one now that a couple editors have switched their positions to be more supportive, or less opposive. Jehochman Brrr 13:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Finally!----occono (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Conan O'Brien leaves The Tonight Show

See 2010 Tonight Show host and timeslot conflict as well as the thread on this subject on our discussion page. Short version: While we almost never have entertainment items, this is somewhat different because it's become more of a general news/business news item (it was one of the lead stories in The New York Times the day before the earthquake). It's gotten a lot of attention because of the iconic nature of The Tonight Show, which has had five hosts in 55 years, and because of the tremendous amount of money involved in this -- not the amount of Conan's settlement but the billions at stake in ad revenue at the 10 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. slots. While The Tonight Show and Doctor Who (whose change in star we didn't have on ITN) are similar in viewers and stature, this is different because of its unexpected and hostile nature. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OPPOSE. maybe we will post this on april fools day. Even Jimmy Kimmel described this whole thing as a prank played by leno -- Ashish-g55 00:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing of substance. Just a TV talk show. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Opposed I disagree that there's "nothing of substance", but there's not much, and ITN turns down far more significant stories every week. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs has paid out US$16 billion in bonuses. I'm not particularly sold on this, but it's making news internationally (Telegraph, AP) Grsz11 22:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose If anything, the record Q4 profit would be the thing I'd post, and I'm opposing that too. SpencerT♦Nominate! 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Opposed Making news, but not, IMO, of broad enough interest or noteworthy enough for ITN.Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. There are a number of strories nowadays involving companies connected to the bank bailout in the US last year. We can't report all of them.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose. I can't see anything which replies to the question "Why Goldman Sachs on the front page?". That was also my worry about the Japan Airlines story, but at least JAL had lots of support from other editors. I can see that the Kraft–Cadbury deal is a bit out of the ordinary, and so a good candidate to be posted simply because of our general lack of business stories. This one, it's a news story, but it's a bit bland for my liking. Physchim62 (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I'd like such bonuses. I'll accept it in Gold, man! —  Cargoking  talk  22:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
In the UK, bankers' bonuses have in the past been given out in works of art, to avoid National Insurance. Physchim62 (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Gold, man as in Gold and Goldman Sachs. —  Cargoking  talk  23:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd accept it in sex as well, to give the other common joke on the name of the bank! Not sure I'd be able to cope with the quantity, and certainly not in a politically correct manner that would still be acceptable to my current partner but, in any case, we are proving that this story is not good for ITN (which is what we're here for). Physchim62 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I would say we're here to promote something to the Main Page. But in this case we gave Goldman Sachs the axe, and that's the facts to the max. That is a bit off the tracks. Now time for some snacks so I can relax. —  Cargoking  talk  16:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

John Edwards admits illegitimate child

Not sure on this either, but has international coverage as well. (BBC, Wash. Post) Grsz11 22:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo –Howard the Duck 22:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Nooooooooooooooooooo as in dont post or Noooooooooooooooooooo as in you cant believe he has illegitimate child...lol -- Ashish-g55 22:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Noooooooooooooooo as in noooooooooooooo effing way. –Howard the Duck 22:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose as utterly inconsequential. Other people's sex lives only interest me if I'm directly and physically involved in them. Physchim62 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
lol physically involved. -- Ashish-g55 00:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose. Even if I have to invoke IAR, no. Absolutely not. This has no place on the front page of an encyclopaedia of all places- we're not a tabloid newspaper. HJMitchell You rang? 22:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Strongest Oppose. As mentioned above, we're not a tabloid. Absolutely not. No. We don't put Tiger's mistresses and we don't put his stuff. --Smashvilletalk 22:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Support (!). Sure we're an encyclopedia -- the kind of encyclopedia that has articles like John Edwards extramarital affair, which is an extraordinarily complete article with 116 references. Maybe people shouldn't be interested in politicians' personal lives, but many are, and this saga has been covered in all of the "serious" U.S. media, which I think makes it different from a Paris Hilton-type story. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Opposed Just, no. HJ Mitchell is right- we are not a tabloid. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Irrelevant, if there was some major political ramifications, like Clinton, or Berlusconi appointing his mistresses into positions of power using govt money etc, COI, then yes, but no, there is nothing involved here. If Edwards wants to hire personal staff on their looks or whatever instead of skill, that's his own problem YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose His private life is not anyone else's business. Even if it was, this is lacking in any significant ramifications that might lead to widespread notability. If people want to write an article (and can keep it within BLP guidelines) fine, but that doesn't make it suitable for ITN. Modest Genius talk 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. (not strong, just 'oppose') Pretty much what people have said. Although it is 'in the news' and we have articles on similar topics, I think the appearance of a tabloid-style story in ITN would draw complaints.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: the reaction of most of the world outside the US will be, "Who the hell is John Edwards?" Kevin McE (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but we have John Edwards (disambiguation) for those people... Physchim62 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
John & Edward had a child? Tongue.png Cargoking  talk  21:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It's true that they're a bit young, but 18-year old fathers have never been uncommon in Ireland (or in most other places, for that matter). And, as identical twins, they have been forced by Irish law to have their child out of wedlock – we'll just wait for the press release from Simon Cowell and we can post the story! Physchim62 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tabloid hogwash is antithetical to both ITN and Wikipedia in general.   — C M B J   05:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

I've a feeling this one may be slightly contentious, but worth nominating, nonetheless. according to the BBC, "Police in Northern Ireland have launched a criminal investigation into the financial dealings of [...] Iris Robinson" which I'm led to believe is related to her hubby, Peter stepping down as First Minister of NI. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in the area can fill in the blanks? HJMitchell You rang? 19:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If this turned into something on the scale of Rod Blagojevich I would possibly support, but we've voted down the Robinson issue here a few times already, and there doesn't seem to be much worth mentioning. Grsz11 19:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose for the moment. There have been rumours (and more-than-rumours) going around for a while about the penal implications of the Robinson case, but they seem to be consistent that the amount of money involved (£55k, $90k) is pretty small on the scale of normal political corruption. Obviously, that's more money than most Wikipedians have in their wallets at the moment, and so it's normal that the police investigate, but the story is still far too local for me to support posting on the Main Page of Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's also not forget that we have never run stories about a prominent 73-year old man sleeping with women (plural) less than half his age, so I don't see why we should run a story which is basically about a 61-year old woman sleeping with a man less than half her age. Physchim62 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Dominican Republic to grant Zelaya asylum

Honduras has agreed to give booted President Manuel Zelaya safe-passage from the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa where he has been for months to the Dominican Republic. Looks as if this will finally end the issue. (Washington Times, Reuters, New York Times) Grsz11 03:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If we're planning to use the Manuel Zelaya article, it needs an update, and it is also flagged for lack of neutrality.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've updated 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Grsz11 16:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. It's not the perfect ITN story, but at least it is a possible solution to a long-running international crisis. Physchim62 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Support if he agrees to go. I don't think the mere offer is noteworthy enough, but if he agrees to take the offer, thus resolving this situation, then, yes. 23:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Zelaya has now agreed to the arrangement. (NYT, Reuters). Grsz11 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not against this one, and I'm not an expert on this situation. This isn't the change of a head of state for Honduras (that happened). I'm not sure if it resolves the situation in Honduras--can someone better outline what effect this actually has?--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, i'll try. Last year, the Supreme Court ordered the military to arrest President Zelaya because they claimed he was undermining the constitution trying to earn more time in office, so he was removed and an interim government took over. He later returned to the country and has been living in the Brazilian embassy for months. There was an election in November that Lobo won, and he is to assume office on the 27th. Zelaya had previously maintained the illegitimacy of the election, but agreeing to this arrangement indicates he is stepping aside. Grsz11 01:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Angola abolishes presidential elections

The Angolan parliament has voted to amend the constitution, abolishing direct presidential elections, declaring Portuguese the official language and designating Luanda as the capital. This is a highly controversial move in a country which has had allegations of electoral fraud in the past and is seen by some as a one party system. The Angolans have also been accused of using the African cup of Nations as a distraction for this vote, which was originally scheduled for March. (BBC). I haven't found an update yet, but Constitution of Angola is probably the place and I may have time to update it later - Dumelow (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Support if there's a decent update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Support when updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I have updated Constitution of Angola - Dumelow (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice work. Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing about the language or Luanda in the article yet. Besides, nothing about the controversy you mention. I support this on ITN once some more updates are made. Also, what would be the blurb? --Tone 14:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The BBC changed their story just after I posted this, which didn't have the stuff about Portuguese, Luanda or electoral irregularities in it and I couldn't find it elsewhere. I will keep looking and add any more info that comes out - Dumelow (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
In that case, I recommend waiting a little while until all the facts are clear. I support the story itself, but the world is not going to end because we didn't put it up "on time". Is this being covered by any of the big news outlets other than the beeb? Maybe they could shed more light on it. Regardless, I'd rather wait than risk another embarrassing incident like the "diamond incident". HJMitchell You rang? 14:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the story has stabilised enough, how about: "The National Assembly of Angola passes a new constitution which abolishes the direct election of Presidents". Though someone can probably improve on that - Dumelow (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. HJMitchell You rang? 19:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Why not mention they're exchanging direct election for the party-list system? Grsz11 19:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In most countries I'd agree that a change in the method of electing the President would be news-worthy. But in Angola, where they've only had two Presidents in 35 years of independence? How about being brief and to the point (as it's true that we need a new story) and just saying: "The National Assembly of Angola passes a new constitution. Physchim62 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's quite significant that they've changed the election system itself, but maybe I'm just being an anorak? HJMitchell You rang? 21:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support New constitution, new system of electing presidents- I think the presidential change is significant enough to mention in the same blurb. Sure, they've only had two, but the incumbent has been in office since 1979. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, but prefer to just mention the new constitution, not the presidential election bit. Modest Genius talk 02:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


January 20

ITN candidates for January 20

2010 IPL Player Auction

This auction has generated enough debate in Pakistan, that I think it deserves a place in ITN. Pakistan players hurt and angered by snub and Ijaz Butt 'highly disappointed' by IPL cold shoulder Ijaz Butt 'highly disappointed' by IPL cold shoulder. Even our parliament has discussed it in detail, with parliamentary delegations trip to India has been called off. --yousaf465' 03:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is flagged. Probably not a good candidate for the main page at the moment.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't think it's big enough. It's a domestic tournament, albeit a big one, and the Indian businesses refused to buy the Pakistani players even though Pakistan won the last World Cup. This is more likely due to the fact that they didn't want to buy Pakistanis when the Pakistani govt banned their own players from participating last year, lest they end up with a bunch of unusable personnel. Secondly, this isn't any different to a captain or coach of a big sports team being sacked in controversial circumstances. When Sourav Ganguly was sacked as India's captain, people in his home state staged fiery protests and the parliament passed a motion. Not important enough. When Pakistan lose badly, or to India, sometimes the govt starts a senate inquiry or accuses the players of matchfixing and they investigate them. It's not as though India convinced all the other countries to ban Pakistan from competition or anything, or that a major doping or matchfixing ring has been uncovered. We can't have an ITN item each time India or Pakistan have a bad day because the silly politicians decide to waste time on debating frivolous things instead of national security, education, poverty, clean drinking water etc YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this just a player draft? I don't know a thing about cricket, but Oppose. Grsz11 04:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment I have read it again and again before posting it here, at first I wasn't supporting to post it here, but when Pakistani opposition and government started sharing the same sentiment in National assembly then I decided we should get an opinion from fellow wikipedians whether to post it.

This argument that franchises feared that players might be not be available, is without any base,according to a report published in an Indian daily )published before the auction), it was quite clear that Lalit Modi has "advised" the franchises not to bid any Pakistani player Pak players' unavailability theory thrown up by IPL bosses is fiction. And according to cricinfo

..inclusion of Pakistani players in the IPL's final auction list, released on January 6, was on the basis of specific requests received from the franchises - every player on that list had to be officially sought by at least one franchise...

Cricinfo

It has already started a major diplomatic row, with Leader of opposition in NA, quoted as asking for ban on any sporting relationship with India(which includes the upcoming Hockey World cup). --yousaf465' 05:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not a cricket expert, but as I understand, 11 Pakistani cricketers (I assume 'big name' cricketers but I don't know the sport well) were drafted into the IPL, but have not been signed by their clubs due to political reasons, specifically that they will not be issued visas. To add a bit more context, the IPL I believe is the only purely professional club cricket league along the lines of the English Premier League in soccer or the NFL in American Football and has top players from India, Australia, England, etc. (the point being that I think it would be false to call it a mere 'domestic' league as there are very few, if any, equivalents in other countries). Anyway, I think we need to see more evidence of the effects of this before we consider posting it, and the article's flag must be dealth with.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The IPL has been described by no less of a source than the BBC as "the new powerhouse in world cricket", and the India–Pakistan cricket series is listed at ITN/R, just to give some background to those who do not appreciate the beautiful game. I do, but I'd still like some more explanation in 2010 IPL Player Auction as to what this story is all about before I could support posting it on the Main Page. Physchim62 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for several reasons, but I'll try to keep it concise. Firstly, this is not the highest level tournament (if I was to support a cricket item, it would have to be the world cup [or equivalent] or, at a push, something like The Ashes and only then if there was a news story). Second, India and Pakistan are not exactly known for being the best of chums so it's hardly surprising that politics has come into this. I did have a third, but I've forgotten it. HJMitchell You rang? 14:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm going to oppose as well. The story is basically about player transfers in a franchised sporting organization, and we don't usually cover those. We have occasionally covered transfers in soccer, but then soccer is a far more global sport than cricket (and the sums of money are far higher than those quoted for the IPL auction): also, soccer teams are not usually franchised, although I admit that the practical difference these days is pretty minor. I agree with HJM that it is well known (and hence not "news") that India and Pakistan are "not the best of chums". I read an interview with India's deputy foreign minister in the Spanish press yesterday: just after discussing relief efforts in Haiti, he was asked about Pakistan, to which he replied "and there's another disaster zone!" Nice way to treat your neighbour, not! But not news either. Physchim62 (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
oppose as this is only issues with player auction. We will post the results of IPL when it is done as we did last year. @HJ for the issue of this not being highest level tournament. we discussed this last year and came to decision that it is highest level for a cricket league. Just because it is happening in india (and the name IPL) doesnt mean its purely domestic. The players are mostly from outside that specially come to play in the league. It is pretty much like NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB etc. for cricket its at highest level. but ya oppose for this auction. -- Ashish-g55 14:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose We came to consensus last time that the IPL wasn't important enough to even post the winner. Internal details regarding who plays for whom certainly don't qualify. Modest Genius talk 21:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
care to explain? because we clearly posted it last year and i just explained above why... -- Ashish-g55 00:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
No, the IPL results should not be in ITN (I edit cricket articles). Only the Indian internationals can play the full tournament, as the overseas players have commitments for their own country and only about 50-70% make themselves available and even then they are often there for only half the time. Also, as only 4 of the 11 players in a team can be imports, the other 7 must be Indian and many of these players are mandatory inclusions under the youth and regional quota, and aren't close to international standard in many cases. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
we will just discuss this again when IPL finishes... no point doing it all over again -- Ashish-g55 02:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure the IPL was posted? I remember it being debated, but am fairly sure we agreed it was a national championship and not notable enough for ITN (it's possible it went up briefly). Furthermore, we've discussed this at various times when the Ashes and India-Pakistan stories have come up, each time agreeing not to add the IPL to WP:ITNR (sorry, I don't have difs, the page history for this page is frightening). Modest Genius talk 02:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
yup im positive it was posted. there were 2 conversations that took place. i know the one you are referring to. that one got out of control with usual name calling lol (maybe howard can confirm) so there was another one in which we decided otherwise. i would also like to give a diff but its ridiculously far back and i dont remember the date. and i am not entirely sure why ITNR does not have IPL. i really thought we added it when we posted it on main page. -- Ashish-g55 04:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Link to the discussion. Heh. That was bad (but the Massachusetts election was worse). And I supported for IPL. (The link below screwed up-- it's March, not May, where the long discussion happened.) –Howard the Duck 14:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
We're now off topic but here's the May 2009 ITN discussion--see the May 25 section. The IPL final result was posted. And I'm surprised at the opposition to it, it's clearly the top professional 20/20 club cricket league--if not the top professional club cricket league in general--with players from around the world. The cricket world cup may be a much bigger deal, but that's not a club competition.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another Earthquake in Haiti

I think we can add that an aftershock as hit Haiti at 6.0 on the richter scale. This just happened. [15]--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Support' - an article need for example: List of 2010 Haiti earthquake aftershocks. - TouLouse (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
support considering this is still one of the top stories all around. i suggest replacing the current earthquake blurb to mention this aftershock and moving it up. -- Ashish-g55 14:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, and updates could simply be added to the main earthquake article. UnitAnode 14:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, + agree with Unitanode. Ks0stm (TCG) 15:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI there was an earthquake of a similar reading yesterday. —  Cargoking  talk  15:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. There have been quite a few serious aftershocks, so perhaps a list isn't a bad thing, but it could always be added to a section in the article. The blurb is getting old, but the story isn't so I see no problem with this. HJMitchell You rang? 15:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
If someone can update the main article a bit more (it is two sentences at the moment) and can think of a good blurb then I am happy to post this - Dumelow (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Support--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Updated. I've added 3 or 4 refs to news services and all the essential details. Background information was already present. Is that sufficient? HJMitchell You rang? 17:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks great. Can you think of a blurb to go up? - Dumelow (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, best I can think of is:

The article has plenty of pretty pictures in it, can we use one of them? HJMitchell You rang? 18:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not just change the current blurb to say "An earthquake, and a series of very stong aftershocks, stikes Haiti."? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I think a new blurb is probably in order to avoid it going stale- the original quake was over a week ago now, so it's probably better to take a slightly different angle. HJMitchell You rang? 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I've extended the blurb to cover other recent developments that have been internationally reported: I hope this won't offend anyone who was only supporting the relatively minor aftershock. Physchim62 (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I see no problem with that- I've got BBC News 24 on at the minute and they're reporting the other developments. You wording's better than my hastily concocted blurb anyway! HJMitchell You rang? 18:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
reading it again, after a few minutes pause, the "local" should be removed! Nobody's perfect, especially not myself! Physchim62 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Posted I considered adding the new material here, but I think we'd be talking about too much; the aftershock and the UN/US stuff isn't exactly related. However, I think if we were to include more info about recovery efforts, we should omit the piece about the U.S. Marines. There are a lot of countries helping out in the effort, and I don't see any reason why one country (the U.S.) should be singled out for their efforts. The UN peacekeepers are a more collaborative effort, so that's fine. -- tariqabjotu 19:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't entirely agree, but discussion (if anyone wants to make any) should be directed to WT:ITN please. Physchim62 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a good way to keep Haiti in ITN for a little longer. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


January 19

ITN candidates for January 19

United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010

(Carried over from the talk page) As mentioned in the talk page, this is not a typical special election (by-election) for several reasons:

  • If the Republicans win the seat, they will have enough seats to successfully filibuster legislation if they maintain party unity.
  • Speculation is that if the Republicans win the seat, it may derail the Democratic health-care legislation.
  • Massachusetts is often considered the most Democratic state in the country, and the seat being contested had been won by a Kennedy in every election since 1952. A Republican victory would generate huge waves in the American political scene and be a sign of tremendous trouble in the Democratic camp going into the nationwide general elections in November.
  • Obama is personally campaigning for the Democratic candidate in Massachusetts, and a loss would be seen as a major blow to his prestige.
  • Because of the above factors and the Republican's unexpectedly strong showing in the polls, the election has generated tremendous national attention, far more than would be the case in a typical special election for a congressional seat. It is right now (before the polls have closed) the top story or among the top stories at Google News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today and will undoubtedly show up on the top of more places when the results come out. Google News counts 5,546 articles in its thread on the election including Reuters (that's UK), AFP (France), BBC, the Telegraph (UK), the Guardian (UK) and the Canadian Press.
  • There's solid Wikipedia content on this topic.
  • To repeat what I said on the talk page, U.S. senators have tremendous leeway and power and are not comparable to backbenchers in a Westminster system or even first-term members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

I'm of the belief that because this race has generated such crazy attention, it's very newsworthy even if the Democrats hold onto the seat and should go up either way. Polls close at 8 EST (0000 UTC).

Suggested wording:

I'm done now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Conditional, and weak, support Normally, I would oppose this type of nomination, because it's dealing with a single senate seat in one country. However, so long as the blurb talks about how this victory has lost the Democrats their supermajority, I would support ONLY IF Brown wins. It's one thing to be dealing with a nomination regarding a couple of governors, as we had a little while back. However, if the Democrats lose their their supermajority, this is a big deal, and I'm saying this as a Brit with a track record of opposing this kind of nomination. IF, however, Coakley wins, I would not support, because that result won't have altered the strategic situation, regardless of the national coverage. HonouraryMix (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested blurb if Brown wins: The Republican Party victory in the Senate election in Massachusetts results in the Democratic Party losing their supermajority in the United States Senate. HonouraryMix (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Oppose if Democrats retain the seat, because it's just business as usual YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Conditional support if Brown(R) wins - As pointed out above, the important issue is the balance of power. A Brown victory would have the result of the Democrats losing their current super-majority and thus causing a significant change to the current balance of power. A Coakley victory will simply maintain the current situation until the next regularly scheduled election. --Allen3 talk 00:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose if Democrats retain, as that changes nothing; very, very weak support if Brown wins. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose. This is of no relevance to anyone outside the United States. The reason we don't feature things like this and state gubernatorial elections is because, despite the number of people affected (cue hurling of statistics to prove how important America is...), it has no bearing on the international community- nothing will change outside of the US and very little will change within Massachusetts on a day to day basis as a result of this election. Someone will inevitably argue that we feature the national elections of "obscure" small states with populations of only a few hundred thousand but these have a direct impact on that country and its neighbours and the foreign policy of those countries. Hence, various heads of state/government fly to meet them. Whoever wins this election, though, life will go on as normal everywhere except Capitol Hill- I doubt the Canadian Prime minister or the Mexican President will be queueing up to meet some state senator. For the record, my opinion would be the same wherever this was happening. It simply is not of international significance, regardless of how significant it is in America. HJMitchell You rang? 00:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
"It has no bearing on the international community" ... So what? Who says we can only include items with "bearing on the international community?" If there is a great deal of interest among Wikipedia users in a subject and it is "encyclopedic" and it affects a lot of people and there is quality Wikipedia content behind it, what possible reason is there not to put it up? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, Ted Kennedy (whose seat this was) was not a state senator. A state senator would sit in the Massachusetts Senate in Boston. Kennedy was a U.S. Senator, which is quite a different thing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The election has got the sort of international coverage we usually require for ITN pieces, so I won't oppose on those grounds. I still think we shouldn't run it if the Democrat wins: echoing other people above, a Democrat winning in a Massachusetts election is not a big deal. On the other hand, a Republican win would mean that the democrats lose their supermajority in the United States Senate, which is probably an ITN story. Physchim62 (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
In the case of a Republican victory, my suggested blurb is: "The Democratic Party loses their supermajority in the United States Senate after a special election in Massachusetts."
Minor tweak: U.S. English would say its supermajority, not "their." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The AP is now calling the race for Brown. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per HJ. No international significance. Even the domestic importance is speculation and requires the assumption that health care was going to pass in the first place. Grsz11 02:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement that ITN items have "international significance." The only requirement is that there be "international interest," which in this case has been demonstrated. There is little "international significance" in many ITN items, such as the bus crash in Papua New Guinea. As for the "domestic importance," the entire national American media thinks this is important enough to dominate the news right now (along with Haiti follow-ups). If The Wall Street Journal and New York Times and Washington Post and CNN and MSNBC and Time and Newsweek and every other "serious" news outlet you can think of considers this to be "important," doesn't that indicate that it might be? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm afraid I must oppose. Although this is a highly significant election here in the US its significance is essentially that the US Health Care Reform Act will likely not pass in Congress, at least in its current form. This issue is almost strictly domestic.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't mean to try to dominate the discussion, but I'm afraid I'm having a very hard time understanding what the big issue is with this being a "domestic" item. First of all, we have plenty of domestic items. The death of the West Bengal chief minister is an Indian domestic item. The bus crash in Papua New Guinea is a PNG domestic item. The riots in Nigeria are a Nigerian domestic item. Secondly, who cares? All ITN items are of interest to some people and not to others. The eclipse item is of interest to astronomy fans. The diamond thing was of interest to people who like chemistry. The item on the stolen art was of interest to art lovers. None of them were of interest to everyone. This suggested item is of interest predominantly to Americans. So what? It's only one item! No one's suggesting making it the only item. All that's important is that, to quote the ITN criteria, it's "of wide interest to the encyclopedia's readers." The ironic thing is this election is probably of interest to many times more English Wikipedia users than most ITN items. Can't people see the fallacy in disqualifying exceptionally notable American domestic items on the basis that not everyone is interested in them while regularly putting up items of interest to far fewer users? Am I the only one who sees this? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • <unlurk>In my opinion, this election probably has more global significance than at least two of the items up there now, and possibly more than three. <relurk> J.delanoygabsadds 04:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Mwalcoff - no, you are not alone in seeing that. —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 04:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the Democrats have lost the supermajority now (BBC News), so this is no longer a hypothetical discussion. Physchim62 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral. The election of one US senator is clearly not an ITN item by itself. The notability clearly lies in the 'supermajority' issue. The loss of power in a country's legislature by the ruling power would be reported in the normal course of events for any country. The loss of a 'supermajority' isn't quite that big a deal. My main problem here is that I'm not sure most Americans know what the 'supermajority' really is, let alone people outside the US. It's only become significant in recent years. In past decades I would have assumed a 'supermajority' meant enough to override a veto (67 votes).--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment--I think the 'no international significance' argument here is invalid. As Mwalcoff has demonstrated many items on ITN have arguably little or no international significance. And 'international significance' is highly subjective anyway. This item certainly has some international significance as the US senate deals with foreign policy, plus it is being reported in foreign newspapers.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support - what's more important here: the death of Jyoti Basu, a West Bengali politician, or the Democrats' loss of a supermajority and the resultant loss of the ability to stop a Republican filibuster? Anti-American bias sickens me just as much as pro-American bias. This has attracted much international attention, and—when you factor in that 3395 million people from the US come to Wikipedia in any given month—it would be utterly ridiculous for this not to appear on ITN. —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 04:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support - I actually keep checking back here to see if it's been updated yet. I love how the most significant story with the strongest influence isn't up there, while Japan Airlines, a candy company, and a West Bengali Communist politican are. As if the death of a West Bengali socialist has any international influence? Bizarre. 75.69.179.131 (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Well Support and the bus crash should be kicked off. Sad, but unfortunately, transport safety is horrible in third world countries, and while a plane or rail crash will lead to inquiries and maybe reforms, a bus crash or other road accidents never do, and there is never any "legacy". As for the Bengali, well he was regarded as the spiritual head of the communists across India in addition to his explicit rule over 100 million people for 23 years, and the communists have been in coalition with the ruling Congress, and did try to scupper teh nuke deal with the US. So communists do have international impact (unfortunately) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd strongly oppose any anti-candy bias here at ITN. :P –Howard the Duck 05:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support per the two above. I suggest it be worded "Republican Scott Brown wins the Special election in Massachusetts for a seat in the United States Senate, ending the Democratic supermajority" ~DC Talk To Me 05:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: There has to be more prose updates on the article. The only prose I see is the "Review" section. We need more reactions and stuff. –Howard the Duck 05:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support when expanded further. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: You guys should put this on the main page as soon as possible, this is probably the most important American election since Obama was elected. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Additional Above, at the top, I gave my weak and conditional support. Well, further to that, I want to reiterate my position. Brown has won, and the Democrats has lost its supermajority, so I support. I'm saying this as a guy who has a consistent record of opposing this type of nomination. I don't support on the grounds that a dude became a Senator. I support because Brown's win has resulted in a huge shift in power that's up there with the importance of midterm elections. To the fellows that oppose, I hear you. I really do, as I'm usually there opposing with you. But, some individual elections are extremely important, and I believe this is one. HonouraryMix (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • There'll be Congressional elections in the States later this year. Are you guys posting that or only if the GOP becomes the majority? –Howard the Duck 06:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • If you're talking about the midterms, those will be posted, because there's no dispute over whether we should be posting high-level broad legislative electoral events. If you're talking about elections outside the midterms, then the vast majority of the time, no. HonouraryMix (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
        • He's refereeing to the midterms I assume since there are no more special elections planned. ~DC Talk To Me 06:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I was referring to the midterms. Not too many countries have midterm elections so there'll be little to compare it with. –Howard the Duck 07:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification. As I said, midterms will be posted. HonouraryMix (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Right, so shall we put this up on the front page now? Remember, there is a consensus that any blurb should note the Democratic Party has lost its supermajority. Something like "The Republican Party victory in the Senate election in Massachusetts results in the Democratic Party losing their supermajority in the United States Senate." HonouraryMix (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The article still has to be updated. –Howard the Duck 07:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Support as a natural continution of our decision to feature the feature the Al Franken victory last time something which I supported then and in fact and issue which I was one of the first to raise/suggest IIRC. Note that this support only arises because Brown won Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No particular oppose but in the interest of the sadly too often overlooked clause of ENGVAR that calls for the use of version neutral English wherever possible, I would argue against this word supermajority which I, as a fairly close follower of the news, have never come across before reading this thread. My knowledge of the workings of the US Senate is limited, but it would appear that the phrase three fifths majority would be clearer to an international audience. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was only by-elections, we going to have almost upto 10 of them in March. Not significant according to our standards --yousaf465' 07:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose It is one seat, and like yousaf said there will be more in March. Ten seems to be more significant than one. --PlasmaTwa2 07:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Where are the articles for the special/by-elections in March? Are these in the States? Is there a mathematical possibility of the ruling party being beaten? –Howard the Duck 11:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, the "no international significance"-argument is both irrelevant and wrong. First of all, international significance is not a criterion, secondly , anyone who has been alive and awake the last 10-20 years will know what enormous significance it has for the international community which partly is in charge of Washington. I'm not too sure about the headline though. Is it strictly correct to say that the Democratic Party have lost their supermajority, seeing how there were only 58 Democrats, and two independents who caucus with the Democrats? Perhaps "the Democratic caucus...? Lampman (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

oppose not significant enough. 'nuff said.Rhodesisland (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not "'nuff said." It's "significant enough" by a country mile, as this is being reported on all over the English-speaking world. If this doesn't go up, it will be just another brick in the wall of proof of ITN's anti-American nonsense. So, I guess you might want to count this as a strongest possible support. UnitAnode 11:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • BTW, would someone post this already? It makes the English Wikipedia look absolutely frigging idiotic to have "The Liberal Democratic Party wins a plurality of seats in elections to the Legislative Chamber of Uzbekistan" and not have a much more significant electoral happening in the largest English-speaking nation in the world up. Sheesh! UnitAnode 11:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I just posted it. Purge your cache. ;) Jehochman Brrr 11:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • ITN items are supposed to be posted by consensus. Now, my maths may be off here, but going strictly by numbers, I count almost 50/50. I wouldn't call that consensus. Kudos for having the stones to post it though. HJMitchell You rang? 11:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
        Yes, and consensus isn't number-crunching. The opposes here were all a weak variant of "too American" or "not enough international significance." The former is a laughable and expected argument, that pops up any time a significant American event happens, and the latter is even more laughable, given that we have electoral results from Uzbekistan included. UnitAnode 11:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Consensus also goes by strength of argument, not just numbers. I found the argument that this event has very substantial geopolitical significance to be convincing. At the moment this story is on the front page of websites such as The BBC, Le Monde, and Al Jazeera (English). I doubt anybody would accuse those sites of having a pro-American bias. Jehochman Brrr 11:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I'd like to add it's the lead story in this morning's edition of Canada's two national newspapers, the National Post and Globe and Mail. -- 199.172.169.33 (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
          • The same 'front page story in many countries' argument is routinely ignored for non-US events. Nobody here should be pretending this went up for any other reason other than US centrism. While this circle is not squared in the ITN guidance, nothing will change, and this same hypocritical dance will be played out again and again. MickMacNee (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Let me know next time that happens and I will do my best to set things right. If wrong in the past, we are not required to continue being wrong for the sake of consistency. Jehochman Brrr 13:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: How come a by-election (no matter how different the outcome of it is) is just for one seat of a state in USA? Has ITN ran out of other significant international stories? Just because it is a election happening in "English-speaking" region of world does not mean it features in ITN. --GPPande 11:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The people supporting the item has replied to the opposes. Those who opposed still have to reply to the replies. –Howard the Duck 11:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I would like to point out that the article hasn't had significant prose updates since I last pointed out that fact. The article has detailed per-city results, though. –Howard the Duck 11:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Local politics, nothing more, nothing less. The idea that this event has international significance would never ever scale up to other countries items - it is pure US centrism, but in the bad way - picking stuff nobody outside America is extremely interested in. That it 'may' stop legislation and 'harms' Obama's ratings are frankly not Earth shatteringly significant events, except to Republicans, who are not particularly known for their world view perception skills. MickMacNee (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    Nonsense. Many major foreign press organizations are covering this. And for god's sake, we covered some random development in Uzbekistan's electoral process. Your oppose is nothing more than anti-US bias, and complete and utter rubbish. Fortunately, this isn't a vote, and such nonsense as "not Earth shatteringly significant" are most likely simply discarded. That there are regulars at ITN that actually believe such nonsense is just astounding, and it makes Wikipedia look insanely stupid. UnitAnode 13:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    And 'it should go up because we have Uzbek elections' is the same tedious and pointless apples and oranges argument that ITN/C sees everyday. You won't ever see me support the boring treadmill of national election items, but that position is utterly irrelevant to whether this item has merits though. The 'many foreign stories' is another argument that shockingly only seems to work more often than not, for US events. Yes, ITN is insanely stupid, you won't get an argument from me on that point. But sadly, there are enough who think everything's hunky dory to mean that ITC/C just rehashes the same crap day in day out, wasting page after page. I would support anybody attempting to codify the obvious will in some people to have a US bias in ITN, but right now, it goes against what little routinely ignored guidance we do actually have, and more importantly, it blatanly violates NPOV, so my argument is valid - no story with only US implications should get coverage unless it is extremely significant outside of the US. If you think its Earth shatteringly significant, feel free to actually tell me what it effects in non-US citizens people's lives? I'll tell you what I think it affects - sod all!. MickMacNee (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    Complete rubbish. There is no requirement that the event be "earth shatteringly significant" to be included. Nor is there a requirement that "effects in non-US citizens people's lives" be shown before inclusion. You really need to stop allowing your anti-Americanism to color your statements. It makes you look quite foolish. UnitAnode 13:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
@Unitanode, i have chosen not to participate in this discussion but im still reading... please do not call anyone's comments rubbish or nonsense. You were warned about it before and you are doing it again. None of your comments will be taken seriously if you continue it. -- Ashish-g55 14:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
@Ashishg55, save your lectures. When someone (in this case, MacNee) posts anti-US rubbish, I'll call it that, thanks. I've backed up my reasoning with facts (international media coverage, particularly), while the opposes have used only rubbish like "not earth shatteringly significant." Sorry, but calling rubbish "rubbish" is not inappropriate. If you don't like it, that's fine, but it doesn't make me wrong to have done so. As I said, save your lectures. UnitAnode 14:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. You can bring your spade to any future debate on a similar non-US item, it will come in handy digging that big hole you will find yourself in when you try and reverse your arguments to keep the item off the page based on 'international significance'. I'll be there with my 'bias' making the exact same points, and you'll be ... well, we'll see what you do. MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Unitanode, can I point out one tiny difference between Massachusetts and Uzbekistan? The latter is a country. A sovereign state. The former is not. We didn't cover a very important story about the head of the Northern Ireland Assembly stepping down (probably more significant to UK/Irish politics than this is to American politics) and rightly so, because it was of no interest to the majority of readers outside Western Europe at most. This is of some bearing on Massachusetts politics and a bit on US politics, but nothing more. HJMitchell You rang? 14:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This election affected greatly the legislature of the US, making your "it's only a state" argument completely without merit. UnitAnode 14:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It's one seat! One seat in a legislature is not a big deal. Frankly, give it 24 hours and most Americans will have forgotten so how can the rest of the world be expected to give a flying fuck? HJMitchell You rang? 14:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The "one seat" removed the Democratic party's supermajority. And there's some irony in your dropping of a moronic civility warning on my talkpage, while simultaneously talking about what you don't give a "flying fuck" about. UnitAnode 14:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I couldn't give a monkeys what you think my motives are or what general insults you want to fling my way. My arguments and observations are there in black and white, and hold water for both US and non-US stories. It is utterly pointless to be talking about what the 'requirements' say, they don't say anything useful at all, as you well know. MickMacNee (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose! Last summer I was in a debate over the death of Ted. I opposedddddddd. People chit-chatted about me on the far corners of the internet. I don't care and am fighting now. I am giving with this example: Senator X of the National Congress of Bolivia (the equivalent of where Ted was) has died. Everyone is sad, so they should be. Senator X of Party J had held the party seat for decades. Now, Person Y of Party J is contesting Person Z of Party K for Senator X's place. Person Z wins the bye-election reducing some crappy majority that helps stop Party K from delaying Senate proceedings. This is not changing the government nor changing Party J's majority. Based on discussion above this should be posted. So should every bye-election, every time a politician dies or moves aside. But no. No person in their right mind will post all of these. But sure you can post this, because it's the US. This is wrong. —  Cargoking  talk  14:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    Congratulations. Your oppose has just taken over as the most anti-US and uninformed yet. You should be proud. UnitAnode 14:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with both of those titles. I am not "anti-US". On a separate note, some people have mentioned the international coverage. Take a look at all the other Wikipedias. It is quite visible that they do not have this story. —  Cargoking  talk  15:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This is "In the NEWS", not "In the non-English Wikipedias." UnitAnode 15:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment by closing admin

As I said above, I was not at all convinced by the oppose arguments. I also discounted any opposes prior to the close of the election who said "no if the Democrat wins" because in fact the Republican candidate won. At the moment this story is on the front page of news websites such as The BBC, Le Monde, and Al Jazeera (English). I doubt anybody would accuse those sites of having a pro-American bias. Clearly this is a highly notable event, drawing news coverage around the world. It appears to be much more substantial than some of the other ITN listings. The meta debate going on here about appropriate ITN criteria should be taken to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Should another administrator wish to review my decision, please do two things, (1) contact me, and (2) make sure you get my agreement or a good thorough consensus here before reversing this listing. Thank you. Jehochman Brrr 14:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  • What is the international implecations of this election? Atleast within US? Is it affecting entire US? Also, what is the impact of the election result? One party losing a supermajority in Senate of one US state is the only impact as seen from the blurb. There are many significant events happening across the globe. From my past memory, ITN never sported subnational elections in 2008 or 2009. Is this a new trend in 2010? --GPPande 14:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    Good grief, people aren't even paying attention! It's not the supermajority in ONE STATE, it's the supermajority in the Senate of the WHOLE COUNTRY! Did you even bother to read any of the actual news stories about it? Did you bother to read the linked articles? This is about the loss of the necessary supermajority in the Senate for the largest English-speaking country in the world. UnitAnode 14:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry my bad in typing. Yes, I did read. My point is, has Obama or any party collapsed? As it did during Indian general election, 1998? The 16 day old central government collapsed due to 1 vote or Member of Parliament. That is a significant event. For this by-election, what is the over all impact in terms of entire state or US? --GPPande 14:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Read the articles in any of the major international newspapers. It will explain the significance to you. I'm under no obligation to do so, when the international coverage is so extensive, and the significance so easy to understand simply from reading said coverage. UnitAnode 14:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I've read all the coverage. It told me nothing of how this affects the life of anybody who is not a US citizen. US health policy is not a matter of international significance. The Republicans can pretend all they want that this derails Obama's presidency and therefore has international significance, but they are living in cloud-cuckoo land tbh. It at best causes a delay due to not having a 'super majority'. But a country not having a super majority is hardly unusual either in the rest of the world. Don't confuse 'newsworthy' with 'significant', and don't pretend that internationally 'newsworthy' has ever been the sole bar for inclusion for ITN, US item or not. MickMacNee (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Very few ITN items would conform to your "affects the life of anybody who is not a [X] citizen." How exactly did the bus crash affect any lives outside that country? You set up convenient bars, when it suits your purposes, that aren't required of ITN items. It's of international interest whether you like it or not, and that is all that matters. UnitAnode 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I could give less of a toss about the bus crash currently being on ITN. I didn't support it, Tone is the admin that posted it with just two supports and no opposes, and he has in the past pulled items with even more support than this US story has when they are, like this one, utterly disputed. Like I said, ITN is insane, but that is irrelevant to this item. Like it or not, it is utter crap to simply say that ITN always posts items of 'international interest', anybody who spends any time here knows this to be totally false, and is only something that handily crops up when people come along to railroad a US news item (and again, this is funnily enough the only time that people also start insisting ITN is about posting what is 'in the news'). Unless or until that wish for a clear US slant is acted on in the criteria, rather than just happening in situations where an admin who knows nothing of ITN turns up, then I will continue to ask you how this item is internationally significant instead of just international interest, something I and many others often ask for any item of only local significance, whether 'local' means the US or not. Alternativley, you can stop regular ITN admins like like Tone from listing barely supported items giving a bad impression that ITN is consistent, or worse, stop him from delisting items which have already been shown to have 'international interest', but are otherwise disputed, giving the impression that ITN is not just for stuff which is in the international news. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The international implication is very large, as is the national implication. With a supermajority the Democrats can pass all the legislation they spell out in their agenda, including domestic and foreign policy. Without that supermajority, the Obama Administration is much less powerful. (As you suggest, yes, this is partial collapse.) This is a very significant national and international event. Why else do you think it is making headlines around the world? Check the three links I posted above. To address another argument above, many US states are comparable to nations. The gross state product of Massachussets is USD 351 billion; Uzbekistan has a GNP of about USD 72 billion. Per our article, "As of 2006, California's GDP is larger than all but eight countries in the world." Jehochman Brrr 14:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    Its internationaly 'interesting', claiming anything else is just highly dubious. You need to stick around ITN longer then just dipping in for this debate to see how often these 'international interest but only national significance' type items succeed when they are not US stories. If its not a national election, its almost never. If you want to stick around for the meta discussion for how to fix that issue, you will be waiting a long time. But suffice to say, arguments such as 'the US is a really big place' is nothing new to ITN, and there is still no consensus either way as whether that means anything for ITN or not. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been lurking here for a long time. This interesting debate drew me out of my cave. As I said above, if wrong has been done before, let's stop it now and for good. Jehochman Brrr 15:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of the statistics and they make a compelling argument, but state governors do not sit on bodies like the UN Security Council or represent the USA on an international stage, though thank you for bothering to justify your position in such an articulate manner. I have followed this argument and the news coverage of this election, so I'm probably at least as well informed as anybody here and I still fail to see how this is of significance outside the USA. As an aside (this is not directed at Mr Hochman), I do wish people would shut up about some supposed bias- any pro-US or anti-US bias is entirely imagined and the majority of participants here are capable of making a neutral, detached analysis. HJMitchell You rang? 14:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Do the drivers of the two buses that collided, killing 40 people, sit on any international councils? We have a lot of relatively unimportant news listed, yet people are arguing to exclude an event that will surely be noted in future history books. (Ten years from now who will remember the bus collision?) Does the USD 11.5 billion merger of two candy companies somehow eclipse a change in power at the US Senate? (The Senate has the ability to restrict trillions of dollars of budget.) The criteria being advocated by the opposers seems completely arbitrary and illogical. I for one am going to stand up and apply common sense to decide which opinions are clueful, and which are not, when judging the consensus. To your question, the US Congress has several possible statuses. In addition to one party or the other being in the majority, there is also a divided Congress where the House goes to one party and the Senate to the other, and there is a supermajority status where one party has enough votes to prevent a Senate fillibuster. That status has just changed. All political strategies on a national level in the United States are now different. This will impact US foreign policy for sure. A change in the status does not happen very often, and when it does, it is big news. So big that it is reported on the front page of every major news site worldwide. Why should Wikipedia be any different? I am not convinced by the oppose arguments. We should be concerned that various political interests have occasionally tried to sway the content in Wikipedia to support their political goals. We should allow none of that. Jehochman Brrr 15:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, just humour me a little more. When was the last time this happened? Also, as I mentioned above, the bus crash was the worst in the history of Papau New Guinea , which I'd say makes it pretty significant and the Kraft buyout of Cadbury created the largest confectionery company on the planet, I believe. HJMitchell You rang? 15:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
About 30 years ago. The last supermajority was the 95th United States Congress. Jehochman Brrr 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I echo the sentiment that accusations of bias should not been thrown around. Such accusations are unfounded (I'm a Brit, and I supported this nom, for example), and do nothing to promote working together in a productive manner. HonouraryMix (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose rather than getting into personal opinions, I'll go by news organisations. No mention of it on BBC News America, not even in the "other top stories" list. No mention on CNN World News. Now I haven't checked all international news sources, only these two. The fact that there is no mention of this asserts to me that this is just a US politics "shock" that the newspapers love to write about. Nothing of significane here what so ever. Please remove it. Jolly Ω Janner 16:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Eh... it's (the aftermath of the story anyway) is the top story in the Americas section of BBC News. Heck, the picture of Brown is the first thing you'll see in the BBC News homepage (except for the header). –Howard the Duck 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Likewise, entering cnn + CTRL + ENTER brings me up to this webpage the Brown story is the top story. –Howard the Duck 16:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Six hours ago, it was a top story on the BBC, and as Howard pointed out, the aftermath is still on the front page. UnitAnode 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose or support aside, what prose update was there? I see two sentences under "Review" and two under "Results". Is this substantial enough? Grsz11 16:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • This is what I've been saying half-a-day ago. There was not enough prose updates. –Howard the Duck 17:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose. Technicalities of domestic politics have no place on ITN. This has ZERO interest for anyone outside the US, and runs completely counter to the ITN guidelines. Incidentally there's no such thing as a 'closing admin' on ITN/C, discussion can continue after it goes up. Modest Genius talk 18:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
ZERO (ALL CAPS) interest? Why is it the top story on non-U.S. websites? So the U.S. invaded those? –Howard the Duck 18:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pathetic This whole conversation is reminiscent of what happened after Ted Kennedy's death when people jostled for hours about how the item shouldn't have gone up because, despite the fact it was well-covered in the news, it happened in the U.S. and so there must have been some kind of U.S. bias involved. Get over it. Please. -- tariqabjotu 18:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Who needs to ge over what exactly? It's pretty clear that both Ted Kennedy and this by-election was only posted because it is an American interest story. That is a simple fact. The only reason the conversation is reminiscent of Ted Kennedy, is that ITN likes to rehash the same argument time and again, and people look at you all confused when you suggest there might be a better way to regularise this obvious tendency to US bias. Either that, or we will all meet back here when similar type stories emerge in the UK and everybody decides to forget what definitions of ITN worthyness they used last time. MickMacNee (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Here here hear hearHoward the Duck 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This argument that this story is of ZERO interest to people outside the US is simply false given the extensive media coverage outside the US. If it's zero interest why was it a top headline on a French newspaper? And this is the only argument I can really see from the opposers on this one. It may be objectionable that US politics receives a disproportionate amount of coverage in the global media, but that's something Wikipedia cannot change.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
US politics does not get disproportionate coverage in international media, not compared to similar English speaking countries anyway. Americans might think it does, but it really doesn't. But on the 'its a French headline' argument, just take a look at what appears on the French site quoted for the other 364.5 days of the year, and see how many times it is is also an international story, and then whether it corresponds to something that makes it onto ITN. Then maybe you might understand why people are saying that this on its own is not evidence of international interest that carries any weight in ITN normally, and why it looks such an obviously biased and weak argument now, for a US local significance event. Not necessarily a bad thing, but the sad fact is nobody is ever likely to accept that this test of international interest could just apply normally, because then we are back to the old chestnut that 'ITN is not for news, unless or until it is for news'. MickMacNee (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you give an example of an event that was a top headline on Le Monde, BBC News, and Al Jazeera that didn't make ITN?--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Very likely, 'balloon boy' and the death of Anna Nicole Smith being two. Possibly also Madeline McCann at some stage. IIRC we didn't mention any of the notable captive & raped former kid cases either. Also regular stories like the beginning of the new year. Note that I supported the inclusion of this, I don't however believe the argument 'it's a top headline' so has to be included has any merit, since there are almost definitely items that are top headlines we don't want to mention Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment OK I'm not coming here to give a view on the notability of the item, but instead want to point something out. When the Ted Kennedy item was listed there was a degree of opposition from many (including myself), because at the time it completely went against the death criteria, which had stated that in political cases only former heads of state got a main page listing. The repecussion of the decision to list Kennedy's death are still be felt now and rather ironically are often criticised by many of the same people who had no problem with TK's listing. As you will be aware since that day there has been a marked increase in the number of deaths being listed on ITN and as far as I am concerned the reason for this is because after Kennedy's death was put up, the threshold for inclusion was dropped remarkably. At the time many of the pro-inclusion users became agressive and insulting and notably a load of admins who never participated before popped to blast and criticise the runnings of ITN. Funnily for most if not all (and I do apologise if any have stayed) they were gone again within days. Now with regards to this item, there are similar parallels. Listing what is effectively an internal by-election that will have no effect outside the US and as of yet no effect within (interestingly the principles of WP:CRYSTAL have been overlooked) the threshold for political inclusion is being dropped, which could mean that in future we are going to see a huge increase in the number of less notable political items going up. I mean how would it be fair to list this sought of incident for the US, but not for say China, India, Germany, Japan, the UK, France, Brazil, Mexico etc etc. I think my point is, I have no problem with this item being listed, but when, in future a similar case occurs in any major country across the globe, anyone who supported this does not have a leg to stand on terms of opposing. Its all well and good saying this is top story on X or Y, but Wikipedia shouldn't fall in the trap of media sensationalism that so many news organisations seem to follow --Daviessimo (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should we consider everything equally? Are we commies or something? For example, in the IPL player auction nomination below, let's say there is a cricket league in Samoa that has a similar player auction, are we even going to consider that? –Howard the Duck 12:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I Agree with Daviessimo with one thing for sure that there are a lot more Deaths that get listed on ITN now. I prefer not to comment on death nominations (after TK) anymore as a result my oppose that used to come for a lot of deaths turned into neutral. Similar thing i can see has happened with many other editors. And a lot more get supported too. Every now and then now we get complaints of how ITN posts too many deaths. i dont know how this will effect later nominations but i hope people are ready for it. -- Ashish-g55 21:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've already expressed my support for this item. I just wanted to comment the argument that we wouldn't list a by-election for other countries is IMHO groundless. I would very likely support mentioning a by-election which results in a party losing it's majority (or gaining one) in a parliament or other legislative body for most other countries even if that didn't result in the collapse or change of the government (which it sometimes would) if it were considered resonably significant i.e. made a substanial change to the way the parties to work togethe. In some cases, if there are two parties in a close coalition and one of them formerly had a majority but choose to rule in coalition anyway and then later lost the majority this may not be significant enough. Of course this isn't quite the same thing, the problem is the US has the unusual system of the supermajority being in some ways nearly as important as the majority for the Senate (although I acknowledge because of the oddities of their system, neither are necessarily as big as they are in many other countries since party loyalty is rather less common). Super majorities when they exist in other countries are often less significant. Having said that, I would probably support it if the government of Malaysia gained the 2/3 majority allowing them to amend the constitution since it's often seen as a significant milestone even if even when they had the supermajority for a long time, they didn't really use it that much Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose because you guys put up a stink when Al Franken won his recount, which made a supermajority in the first place. Mr. Franken was taken down (ask BorgQueen). -SusanLesch (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Jos riots

Support, once the article is longer - Dumelow (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, and I've done some work on expanding the article. I can cite 192 dead, though other sources are still saying ~150. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Support once the article is expanded. --Johnsemlak (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about the "hook"

May include too many numbers that need to be updated, so
Eh, that's not much better. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Arch to be moved

An interesting story: This 75m tall arch was built by eccentric dictator Saparmyrat Niyazov in 1988 and is topped by a rotating gold plated statue of Niyazov. His successor has ordered it to be moved out of Ashgabat's city centre. (BBC) The article needs some work (it is quite short) - Dumelow (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it! 75m tall arches topped with gold-plated statues of dictators that rotate to face the Sun – they just do it for me! Especially when they are being dismantled and moved, rather than simply being violently demolished as is their usual fate. On a par with the traditional arson of (14m-high) straw goats. Strongest support. Physchim62 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose the Neutrality Arch article is a stub. --PlasmaTwa2 21:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think we need more content before we should feature this. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I have updated and expanded the article, any opinions on it's suitability for the main page? - Dumelow (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Also note that this move was announced on 18 Jan so that is the correct date for it - Dumelow (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The article now more than fits our criteria, thanks to Dumelow (and to anyone who helped out whom I've forgotten). But one last question: do we post now or do we wait for April Fool's Day? I propose two blurbs:
Oppose. This just isn't that big of a deal and will seem awefully obscure to some people.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Opposed Concur with Johnsemlak that this isn't that big of a deal, and will be especially obscure if held until 1 April. 75.183.179.28 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Whoops. This was me logged out for some reason. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Oppose I doubt many readers know what the neutrality arch is. ~DC Talk To Me 01:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The story obviously isn't going up for now, but I'll take the chance to advertise our April Fools' Day nomination list at WP:ITN/APRIL: if you really don't like stories about rotating Sun Gods, please find something funnier! Physchim62 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Japan Airlines bankruptcy

The Japanese national carrier and largest airline in Asia has filed for bankruptcy and will fire 15,700 employees. The Japanese state is to inject £2 billion into the company. (BBC). The article has a two paragraph update at the moment. Seems like a good candidate to me - Dumelow (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me- especially since this is a national carrier, not just some budget airline. I'll support. HJMitchell You rang? 15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral. I can't find a good reason to oppose, except that there are an awful lot of airlines in trouble at the moment. If we want to run a business story (which I think we should from time to time), I prefer the Cadbury takeover below. Physchim62 (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
A well-worded blurb please? The update is overdue. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
See below ;-) Physchim62 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a national carrier, Physchim, and national airlines don;t file for bankruptcy every day- Imagine in if it was British Airways, Air France or American Airlines. As for a blurb:
Short and sweet. HJMitchell You rang? 17:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The national airline of Switzerland (of all those poor impoverished countries) went bust not so long ago: many of the other are merging (as in Air FranceKLM, or the much postponed British AirwaysIberia). Oppose posting: if BorgQueen is just going to act like how she feels like, let's have another playground scrap! Physchim62 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you are confusing me. You said neutral, not oppose. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to confuse you, Your Borg Majesty! There is some sort of a story here, but not one which is a "no-brainer" for ITN. Many flag-carring airlines are in trouble, why should we chose the one that is Japanese? It is a business story for ITN, yes, but I don't see it's international significance. Certainly, as we have had many stories pulled recently, I would have wanted the posting admin to make sure of consensus. Physchim62 (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I will revert the posting for now so the discussion can continue, but do you really have to use such phrases like if BorgQueen is just going to act like how she feels like, let's have another playground scrap!? All you had to say was that it was too early to post this. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it was a little early, but I think it probably should go up- even if we do end up woth two business stories on at the same time. This may not appear to be of international significance, but the BBC, thousands of miles away (distance from London to Tokyo anyone?) have been blabbing on about it all day and the Wall Street Journal) and [http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jImktW1_NeyY3oPEh30x7pJFWSlw AFP are all covering it. Although lots of airlines are going bust, we are dealing with the national carrier of the world's second largest economy. As I say above, this would be a no-brainer if it was BA, American Airlines, air France etc. HJMitchell You rang? 19:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

support since its one of the major asian airlines. We have only posted GM going down till now. This isnt as big but its of interest to a lot of people. -- Ashish-g55 18:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Support Flag carriers/major companies don't file bankruptcy everyday; in Japan that is next to never. For the record, London Heathrow to Tokyo-Narita is 9,615 km, not that it matters for ITN purposes. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, now we have enough supports. Posting again. Btw, I know it is a matter of principle, Physchim62, but you just made it more time-consuming. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
For the record, Your Borg Majesty, the less than three hours between nomination at 15:43 and posting at 18:03 are fairly rare, and only occur on those occasions when Your Borg Majesty personally likes the story. We can compare them, for the sake of an example, to the time it took to change the image at ITN, despite discussion here and despite the fact that the image had been up for way over 24 hours. Physchim62 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Those occur when I have free time and notice the item, and yes, it will be faster if I find it interesting. You see, I am not some kind of an "official ITN admin" who must post every single item nominated and supported here. Other admins can post those supported items when they have their own free time and notice the items, and it will certainly help if they find them interesting. This is a voluntary project and no one is obliged to do anything. What does it matter if some item is delayed a bit? If you are in hurry, you could always ask any admin. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Death of Bill McLaren

Retired rugby union commentator Bill McLaren, awarded an OBE, CBE and an MBE, dies at the age of 89. HJMitchell You rang? 15:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Opposed for now. His death is only a single line in the article; he was old, and he died. It's sad, but I don't think he was of truly great international importance (Nor did he hold high office). Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose an old sports identity dying isn't important enough. Political moves, giant scientists etc can be YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Very highly respected and a real loss, but I'm afraid he simply isn't important enough. Modest Genius talk 18:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cadbury buyout

  • American corporation Kraft Foods is to purchase British chocolate manufacturer Cadbury for £11.5 billion after months of negotiations between the two companies. HJMitchell You rang? 07:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that Cadbury is the article to link to. It appears to have a decent update. Cadbury is certainly a very notable company on both sides of the pond.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the article I'm working on at any rate. The article is in pretty decent shape, though there's not a huge amount to add beside the facts and figures just yet- this only broke just over an hour ago. The BBC News Channel tells me that a formal announcement is expected at "lunchtime" GMT. HJMitchell You rang? 09:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Corporate news. Very big. __meco (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to give a few facts and figures- this will surpass Mars, Inc as the world's largest confectionery company and Cadbury currently employs 45,000 people worldwide, this is currently leading Google News' business section and is attracting attention from sources both sides of the Atlantic, Australia[17], India, Ireland, Canada, Germany etc etc. HJMitchell You rang? 13:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Support as a better business story than Japan airlines above, article is updated and ready to post. Physchim62 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Support its an important story. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I dont think the nationalities of either company is needed since they are both really famous -- Ashish-g55 18:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


January 18

ITN candidates for January 18

Islamic Solidarity Games canceled

Support This is a sporting event that involves a number of (Islamic) countries, and it's an interesting piece involving a longstanding international dispute. The article might need a bigger update though. -- tariqabjotu 03:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Article needs to be updated and expanded significantly.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Mehmet Ali Ağca

Update is currently too short; Not sure about notability. SpencerT♦Nominate! 03:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Kabul attacks

I don't have a blurb yet as we should wait for estimates of casualties, and possibly also for a separate article. This should however clearly find its way to the ITN box. __meco (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

CNN puts the count at 5 to include two Taliban

I'd be inclined to support, but we have had similar incidents with higher casualties that have not been featured. HJMitchell You rang? 11:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The BBC quotes US envoy Richard Holbrooke: "We can expect this sort of thing on a regular basis". A few people killed in a notorious war zone is not really my idea of significant news, but we can wait and see how things develop. Apart from anything else, we would need an article (or an update) before we could post. Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Meh, I'll start an article. We'll see what comes of it. HJMitchell You rang? 12:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The two "features" of this attack which makes this stand out from the future as projected by Richard Holbrooke is that the presidential palace was the central target and it was timed to coincide with the inaugurations of the new cabinet. __meco (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
So I see upon further research. Anyway, for anyone who's interested, January 18 2010 Kabul attack is the target article. I invite suggestions for a more concise but unambiguous title, but that'll do for now. HJMitchell You rang? 13:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
We could combine this with the nomination a bit further down for the controversy surrounding the proposed Afghan Cabinet of Ministers. That one got some support, as it it is unusual anywhere for a Cabinet to be (effectively, though only partially) refused two times: still the story never got posted. Physchim62 (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If you could think of a decent blurb. The 2 events are clearly related... HJMitchell You rang? 13:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I too think this is a good idea. __meco (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll formally support a combined story. As for the blurb, I'll see what I can do later. I think we should still wait a little bit for more comments, and also to have more information, before posting. The news reports I read a couple of hours ago were still quite sketchy. Also we have not had a very good 2010 so far in terms of having to pull ITN stories – at least five since the New Year, when we only had to pull thirteen in the first five months of 2009 – so it is probably better to be cautious, especially when we are currently having a good day for updates! Physchim62 (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I oppose combining because one didn't cause the other. I do support both of them individually though. ~DC Talk To Me 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you're thing of the Malaysian church attacks, one of the stories that was pulled this month? I agree that we need to be careful about the blurb, more careful than we were for the church attacks, but we do (quite often) run joint blurbs for similar events which have no causal connection between them, such as men's and women's titles in high-ranking sports events or even the Monaco Grand Prix and the Indianapolis 500. Physchim62 (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Update Please update, the article is not more than a detailed headline currently.--yousaf465' 05:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Masters

Mark Selby

Just nominating this to see what everybody thinks, front page of BBC Sport. Apparently the guy who won (Mark Selby) came from being far behind to win at the very last possible moment. He beat the defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan, according to the BBC. O'Sullivan was equalling the record for appearances in the final as well so he can't be a bad player. Sky Sports says O'Sullivan was the world number one. Selby described it as "the best final I've ever been in". The BBC says it was "one of the most memorable finals in Masters history". It is also "the first major tournament since Barry Hearn's appointment as chairman" of the sport's governing body. Probably not a case of ITNR but maybe just right for this year? There hasn't been much sport recently, just the Togo football attack if that even counts as sport. --candlewicke 00:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh! there's a picture of him as well. --candlewicke 01:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't bother me to run this as a one-off, if the blurb made it clear that the final was unusually tight. However, the article is in no state to be posted yet, so I shaln't support for the moment. We have the Australian Open and the African football coming up, not to mention the Winter Olympics next month, so we will be getting some sport on the Main Page whatever happens. If anyone had nominated the Dakar rally (ITNR event), we would have some on there right now. Physchim62 (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget this... –Howard the Duck 03:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you mean this... Don't worry, I've added it at WP:ITN/FE, just in case we all get too excited by the Costa Rican general election, 2010, and forget to post it! Physchim62 (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oooops. Why can't they just name it Super Bowl 2010 or something like that. Tee hee. –Howard the Duck 03:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a good thing we have snooker then which does go by year. :) --candlewicke 03:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
So... what? –Howard the Duck 03:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing. No harm intended. :) --candlewicke 04:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Snooker already has one event on ITNR, and I frankly see that as one too many for a fringe sport. I know it gets coverage in the UK but looking at the BBC Sport and the Guardian sport pages, this event is featured very unprominantly and below many other events.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It just has tennis and cricket above it on The Guardian and is on the main page of BBC Sport alongside the tennis actually. It seemed the most prominent final (the other events appear to be ongoing so aren't really ITNable). --candlewicke 03:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah but if it were the final of a more prominent event (and more ITNable) like the FA Cup or the Champions League it would be splashed across the main page, with numerous articles. And it gets NO coverage across the channel. --Johnsemlak (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Neither does the cricket from The Guardian though. Each country has different interests. And I think football beats all sports for main page coverage like that yet sport on ITN is not all about football. :) --candlewicke 03:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The 'ITN isn't all about football' argument doesn't seem to help US college sports. Anyway, as I said, this is getting minimal or no coverage outside the UK as far as I can see. Certainly very little coverage in Russia. 1 2.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't read that but I can see pictures of yet more football and some winter sports. --candlewicke 04:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. For a sports item to get my support, it has to be of real significance- for example, a World Cup or possibly the Formula 1 world championship. HJMitchell You rang? 08:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Non-ranking tournament. ... (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but snooker just isn't big enough to post more than the world championship. The events at the masters were hardly earth-shattering either, so I see no reason to run this as a one-off. Modest Genius talk 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


January 17

ITN candidates for January 17

Scientists discover that sea level will rise irreversibly 0.52m within a century from one of the ice sheets alone

Their non-complete model which predicts this is already underestimating reality after only 14 years.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The story – both the scientific paper and the secondary source – is dated 13 January: too old? Physchim62 (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

67th Golden Globe Awards

...will take place tonight. Last year, we posted The 66th Golden Globe Awards takes place in Beverly Hills, California, with Slumdog Millionaire winning four awards including best picture. A preliminary question is, do we follow the same pattern this year? --Tone 14:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think we should post the story. It's not as big as the Oscars, but we still got a peak of 85k hits last year, which puts it securely in the top 10% of ITN stories. I would prefer it if we can avoid the verb problem ("Awards takes place" is correct U.S. English, but sounds strange to a Brit), but we won't really know what we have to do until the awards are announced. Physchim62 (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This is also the first ever Golden Globes to be screened live. Support what ever presentation the community think is right. —  Cargoking  talk  17:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - rather vehemently... This is by no standards that I can condone news worthy of an ITN spot. __meco (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose It was agreed upon months ago that the Golden Globes were to be taken of ITN:R. --PlasmaTwa2 19:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Then it certainly shouldn't be listed as there is a consensus-developed list at WP:ITN/R of recurring items that should be listed and the Golden Globes isn't among them. __meco (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't find any discussion of the issue either way. Could someone link to a place where this has been discussed before if we are supposed to take the ITN/R argument? Physchim62 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This was discussed back during either TIFF or the Berlin Film Festival. The discussion is not located at ITN:R. A group of editors, including BorgQueen, if I remember correctly, decided to take it off. --PlasmaTwa2 22:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion took place on September 21. It was decided that having the Golden Globes on ITN:R made no sense when we had the Academy Awards, which are more prestigious and cover the exact same thing as the Globes. --PlasmaTwa2 22:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Especially if we posted it last year. Not until the winners are all known though, obviously. HJMitchell You rang? 19:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The American media doesn't seem to care for this event as much as the Academy or Grammy Awards... is the third most important entertainment awards ceremony in the United States worthy of inclusion? On the other hand, Haiti mania is to be found here too... --candlewicke 20:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It's getting a fair amount of global media coverage (and the awards haven't even been announced yet), so I'd say that it is significant enough. We ran the (cancelled) awards in 2008, but not (it appears) in 2007 or 2006. The list at WP:ITN/R shouldn't be seen as restrictive when it can be changed at any time. Physchim62 (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
oppose as this has been talked about before. since we post oscars there is no need for golden globes. they are considered less prestigious and more domestic. we discussed this during TIFF convos and few other times since it was posted last year without consensus. -- Ashish-g55 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion last year had a fair consensus for posting: out of eight editors who commented, only one opposed the posting (with a comment of "it's just people getting awards. Not really news.") Physchim62 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
In the discussion on September 21, 2009, to my count there were five editors commenting at the time when we decided to remove the Golden Globes. Not one of the five objected to the removal, myself included. --PlasmaTwa2 23:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support gets attention, just not as much as the Oscars. Also, I don't see how it's more domestic, since it's voted on by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. ~DC Talk To Me 22:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm unsure about posting two American awards for film. Particularly in the link I've provided above one of their own newspapers rates it third in a list of (entertainment only) awards at the same time it is actually happening (don't know how low it ranks when non-entertainment awards are included as well or far it would drop in those ratings in the same week as the Academy Awards). One ITN for the Academy Awards is understandable as film is an area where America has been successful but what about other countries with a successful film industry being included as well? --candlewicke 23:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, the New York Times' ranking of Oscars > Grammys > Golden Globes is borne out in the viewing figures for the ITN stories last year! I'm not sure the fact that the awards are handed out in Beverly Hills is too relevant, so long as they have wide international media coverage (which the Golden Globes definitely do). And we do publish film awards from other countries as well.
I think ITN/R is getting to be a farce when it is preventing us from publishing news stories which have significant international impact (and, in this case, significant Wikipedia readership: 85k hits last year, roughly four times the figure for the Cannes or Toronto film festivals). If we're not careful, ITN will end up like DYK, with a perfectly logical and consistent system for selecting stories that nobody wants to read! Physchim62 (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
To me, it is not the fact that the Golden Globes is not on ITN:R that makes me oppose, it is the fact that it was taken off of it because consensus was that the Golden Globes do not represent the highest achievement in the film industry. I always thought that ITN was here not to merely report what is popular (Cause, you know, then we would have to put up the Tonight Show on the 22nd), but to put links to other things in the news that wouldn't necessarily get a whole lot of views, like the recent item about diamonds. What Candlewicke says below this comment is true. --PlasmaTwa2 01:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
But then if people are so interested in this topic they'll just search for the Golden Globes anyway? As they have to do now before it happens. Maybe there are readers who prefer obscure stories that they don't see anywhere else, don't they matter? --candlewicke 00:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If they want something obscure, they can scroll down to (dare I say it!) DYK. We distinguish ourselves from them by posting information that is genuinely interesting to a lot of people and of timely relevance and this is both. HJMitchell You rang? 00:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course the "more obscure" stories matter as well, particularly because a lot of the "more obscure" stories we run on ITN are actually very popular. I just checked diamond, for example, it got 60.6k hits yesterday. For comparison, the average DYK hook doesn't even generate a thousand hits, while TFAs are usually 20–40k hits (yesterday's was 37.0k). We should be very careful of the argument that "if people are interested, they'll find the article anyway." If that is the argument, why are we running the Haiti earthquake? Well, we're running the Haiti earthquake because it is "in the news", not because it's popular! Depending on which popularity statistic you choose, the Haiti earthquake is not even our most popular ITN story of January 2010. But the Golden Globe Awards are also "in the news", we know that a lot of our readers will be looking for the article: we should give them a simple link to it from the Main Page because that is what In the news is there for, it is our raison d'être! Physchim62 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone going to comment on the other nominations? I'm surprised this has more interest than Jyoti Basu and Senegal's offer to Haiti. --candlewicke 01:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Support -- also aired live in countries outside its mother country or near the mother country. –Howard the Duck 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to oppose per my above reasons plus the supports not yet convincing me. We posted it last year doesn't work for me with this one. The attention it receives is less than the Oscars as demonstrated and we don't post everything which gets a tiny amount of attention. The 2008 cancellation may have been notable but this year it appears to be going ahead. Physchim62 says media ranking = Wikipedia views so interest is clearly not there on the same level. That leaves the live screening and we don't post everything which is screened live for the first time. Oh, last one, being aired live outside its mother country or near the mother country did not get this example posted so being aired live in countries outside its mother country or near the mother country is not a fully convincing argument either (in my opinion). I think I've beaten all supports that gave a reason there. Try harder. :-) --candlewicke 03:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Candlewicke, I wasn't aware that to get an item posted we had to 'beat' your oppose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
You don't. I was talking about my support. :) --candlewicke 03:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
OK fair enough.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd hardly consider this event as "a tiny amount of attention," as demonstrated by prominent mention at the BBC Website. Both arguments "Wikipedia views/media ranking same level" don't hold much water, and live screening outside the mother country is frequent for sporting events (even for non-championship games, heck, even no-bearing games), but not on entertainment events such as this (only the Oscars might be broadcast internationally live elsewhere, I don't think even the Grammy Awards is broadcast live outside North America). –Howard the Duck 03:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've changed my mind. Support. --candlewicke 04:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok one note i will add. if this is posted then there should be no problem in posting Indian Filmfare awards for bollywood movies... Because as far as i remember and have read over that was the main point made against Golden Globes before taking them off ITNR. Otherwise there is a clear systemic bias that we have introduced into ITN (not that it wasnt there before :) ). Also Golden globes are for both TV and Movies. So both should be mentioned in the blurb. -- Ashish-g55 04:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I do support posting Filmfare Awards (and the golden globes). That said, in order to post the Filmfare awards, they would need to be much better covered on Wikipedia to meet our requirements. Currently there are know year by year articles for the awards. Unfortunately systemic bias is hard to beat. --Johnsemlak (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd post this item right now, but the article isn't very good. I don't really consider bolding winners updating the article. -- tariqabjotu 05:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I am somehow towards oppose now. Simply, what's a nice blurb? Avatar won two globes? Yes, but so did Dexter and 3 others. And just putting a blurb saying that the ceremony took place does not seem good enough. (it's different with the Oscars because there's only one winner of the best picture) --Tone 08:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Or alternatively with the Golden Globe Awards bolded. I agree that we should be able to do a better job of updating before posting, though. Physchim62 (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. If sports only get top level events, why should entertainment gets more. ... (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, sports events get a lot more luv here on ITN compared to entertainment, at least if you look at ITNR. A little more on the popular entertainment front wouldn't hurt IMO. However, in any case, the article is not yet suitable for posting.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I came to support, but after reading the discussion find I oppose. Although the point must be made that the GG are not an "American awards for film" as the Academy Awards are; they are selected by film critics from an international organization, none of whom (if I understand correctly) are American. This should add weight to the support side of this debate. However, IMHO, I must think that more weight is added to the oppose side by the fact that the GG are a "second level" award. They maybe a presigious award, however they do not have the gravitas that the Oscars do. This can be seen by how people discus that winning a GG is a stepping stone, or precursor, to winning the Oscar. So, I would Oppose.Rhodesisland (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti update

The President of Senegal has issued an open invitation to all Haitians to come back to Africa. An entire fertile region is waiting for them. Surely this is not an everyday event? --candlewicke 12:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Support--Avala (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose so far, it looks like it's just an invitation. If Haitians take him up on it, then I'll support on that day. --PlasmaTwa2 02:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, this sounds like the sort of offer you make while knowing it won't be accepted. There are, what, three million Haitians affected by the earthquake – how are they all supposed to cross the Atlantic? And fertile regions around the world, especially in Africa, tend to have people already living in them… Physchim62 (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, per Plasma Twa, but only if a significant number do (i.e., not 15 people). SpencerT♦Nominate! 03:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Death of Jyoti Basu

  • Article says he was "India's longest-serving Chief Minister as of 2010 of any Indian state". BBC correspondent says he "was credited with restoring stability to the state, and bringing in land reforms", "leaves behind a controversial and mixed legacy", was "easily India's most respected communist leader". There is also the "historic blunder". "Jyoti Basu, the last Bhadralok Communist". Reuters describes him as "Jyoti Basu, the patriarch of Indian communism whose pragmatic politics twice brought him close to becoming prime minister". The Indian Ted Kennedy if there ever was one... or was he only once close to being President, I can't remember. Lots of coverage in India anyway. --candlewicke 11:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The additional obituary which the BBC now supplies says he "ran the world's longest serving elected Communist government". --candlewicke 12:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, that's more like my idea of a notable politician, someone who did a bit more than "just" get elected. The biography looks in reasonable shape as well, and has been updated. Physchim62 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else? --candlewicke 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Now front page under "FEATURES, VIEWS, ANALYSIS" with headline "The man who was nearly India's first Communist leader" at http://news.bbc.co.uk/ (between articles on Hillary Clinton and the Africa Cup of Nations in Angola). --candlewicke 00:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I looked at several American news sites, and couldn't find a single story on him. ~DC Talk To Me 02:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
They're all too busy with the Golden Globes, obviously ;-) But Business Week is American, isn't it? Physchim62 (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
So is CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the NY Times, Boston Globe, LA Times. Couldn't find on those sites. ~DC Talk To Me 02:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
New York Times. Physchim62 (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Dc, the world doesn't end with US... If you study the world history specially about Cold War, you will see that the US were against the Communists, (Truman Doctrine) they cannot believe that the Communist can rule a state for long which has been democratically ruled. 220.227.133.250 (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Support elected leader of West Bengal for 23 years, a state with 100 million people, and frankly, it's rare for communists to get power without banning all opponents. It's also on ABC, the lack of US coverage, well perhaps not surprising when winners of US sports compettions call themselves "world champions" YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Weak Support. Was going to oppose but the article is good and he was in power at the regional (was he the equivalent of a governor?) level for a long time.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he was the head of government there. A British-style system where the member of parliament who is the head of the biggest party/alliance is the leader of the jurisdiction. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Why should he have coverage on an American site? Would an American be opposed for not having coverage on an Indian site? This person ruled over for more than two decades over an area with a population more than three times the size of California, which is apparently the most populous US state. --candlewicke 03:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
There is coverage on an American site though I agree that shouldn't be a requirement.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggest: Communist patriarch Jyoti Basu, the longest serving Chief Minister of West Bengal, dies of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome at the age of 95. --candlewicke 03:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Support -- He was an important indian leader. Any INDIAN newspaper or newschannel would be highlighting him all day today. Why would you look for him on an American news channel an oppose this decision. Sounds very ameri-centric to me. Also, I'm sure if an article about two buses colliding (an incident that probably occurs on a daily basis in all countries in the world) can be highlighted in the news, than this news is far more important. Pleasantfartsa (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Maybe I'm being unfair but, in my experience the American media (the New York Times excepted) don;t report anything much that's not of pressing concern to Americans and what is often big news everywhere is in the worlds might not rate a mention in such news sources, thus someone who is relatively obscure outside of southern Asia is not likely to receive significant coverage. I think this guy satisfies our death criteria and he was obviously a prominent figure in India which, if memeory serves, accounts for something like one sixth of the world's population. HJMitchell You rang? 05:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Strongest Support: He was the old man of Indian politics. He holds the record of being the longest serving chief minister democratically elected. Can this be matched with anyone else? Don't forget every Indian mourns his death (even if he/she is affiliated to any other political party). WP is as much read in India as in US or UK. Need admins to put up this story. --GPPande 08:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Posting. And omitting reason of death from the blurb, this is not that relevant in this case. We could add the picture but the new president of Chile is a more recent blurb. --Tone 08:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Tone. You rock as usual !!!! --GPPande 12:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Assuming we don't get a new story with a good picture before then, we can (and possibly should) swap the pictures after Piñera has been there for 24 hours (which is about midnight UTC). That way we get a rotation of images as well. Physchim62 (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a good idea, my support. --Tone 15:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Question--is it normal to put his political affiliation in the blurb? It seems to me he's notable whether he's a communist or a nationalist. We don't usually say 'former Republican president Ronald Reagan died yesterday.'--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
True, but there are several people above who have commented on the fact that he was an elected communist in supporting the story. I think we need a little leeway in how we write the blurbs for obituaries: to take an example from this very story, Tone didn't mentioned the cause of death, although we usually do mention it when it is known, simply because it is rather banal for a 95-year old man to die of multi-organ failure (aka "old age"). Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Somewhere above it says he was a democratically elected communist politician with the longest stay in the office. I think this is the reason his party is there, though it is not fully explained in the blurb. As far as I am concerned, this can be omitted as well. --Tone 15:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Chilean presidential election

The Chilean presidential election, 2009 and Chilean parliamentary election, 2009 take place. If no candidate gains 50% of the vote a run-off will be held on 17 January 2010. The president-elect will not succeed current president Michelle Bachelet until 11 March 2010 - Dumelow (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(BBC) It has gone to the run-off between Sebastián Piñera and Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle. I'll move it to January - Dumelow (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Support, sure. --Tone 10:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support when we have the result. HJMitchell You rang? 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support result per ITNR Modest Genius talk 15:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Chemical Ali

Alternatively, I suppose we could update and feature Halabja poison gas attack instead. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Does "sentenced to death for the fourth time" not indicate this is a regular occurrence? --candlewicke 08:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it seems to be an annual event... :P --candlewicke 08:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I thought the fact that he received four death sentences would be notable. Is it common for a war criminal? --BorgQueen (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
If I remember correctly he was on ITN when there was the first sentence. I think this is enough. --Tone 10:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Good memory! June 2007 he was sentenced to death. —  Cargoking  talk  14:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support quite notable person and trial.--Avala (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wait. I might support if they actually carry out the sentence or if it's repealed but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that this will happen again. HJMitchell You rang? 14:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with HJ. This is the fourth time he's received the sentence, so let's just wait til they hang him. It doesn't take too long in Iraq. ~DC Talk To Me 19:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Not too long? This person must hold the national record. :) --candlewicke 01:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • OpposeI think this was the fourth such sentence against him ?--yousaf465' 05:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


January 16

ITN candidates for January 16

Florence Green

After waiting for ages for a World War One story that might be of remote international interest, this one comes along and I nearly miss it. I didn't create the article, or even update it, and the article is unlikely to expand further, but if you want larger articles to link to (which I'd be happy to update), we have Women's Royal Air Force (I just updated that one here) and List of surviving veterans of World War I (updated by others). Carcharoth (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. This is an amazing discovery for women. --candlewicke 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
No, this one doesn't really do it for me. One problem is that I can't really see the news story; the other is that the possible articles to link to are very short on info. I don't mind posting stubs if I think we are going to get more information quickly, but that doesn't seem to be the case with Florence Green. Women's Royal Air Force would be another possible target, but again, it leaves me underwhelmed by the information it teaches me about the WRAF in this era. The idea that Mrs Green was "previously unknown", strikes me as a strange wording as well: after all, she was married and had three children, she wasn't "unknown" to her family! Oppose. Physchim62 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
She may have always existed but she was, however, an ordinary woman who was probably thought not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. --candlewicke 04:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Support I thought the last WW1 veteran was now dead, so there really can't be many left at all. This probably is worth covering. 13:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
There still are some veterans alive, see List of surviving veterans of World War I. To be precise, 5 plus one unverified. According to that list, Green was first mentioned on January 5, what makes this old news, considering the oldest item presently on ITN, January 12. Oppose for that reason. --Tone 16:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Uh, the Daily Telegraph article I first read about this in was on 16th January. It may have been mentioned before then, but it sometimes takes time for major papers to pick up a story. Really, you should go by the last date it appears in newspapers, not the first. Can anyone tell me if the deaths of Henry Allingham and Harry Patch appeared on ITN? Allingham appeared on ITN on April 1, 2009 has an April Fools joke, but his death or his becoming briefly the oldest man in the world, didn't make it (don't know if it was nominated) and I don't think Patch appeared on ITN either. It seems that the only news about World War I (I have a collection of recent news stories in my userspace) that would get the coverage to justify an ITN-worthy article update is the death of a veteran, so I thought this would be a less morbid angle on things. Carcharoth (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FBI admits using bearded Spanish politician for photo of Osama bin Laden

I find this very strange. The US has admitted it, according to this headline, and now Gaspar Llamazares fears for his life, according to this. I would be very worried for American security if their idea of "cutting edge security" is using "cut and pastes" of old campaign photos. Or is this normal behaviour? --candlewicke 22:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, he's going to sue them now as well. --candlewicke 22:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. At least they didn't use his name. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral, leaning towards oppose I thought about nominating this myself, but desisted. This seems more like a case of incompetence than anything else. Gaspar Llamazares is on the extreme left-wing of Spanish politics, but he is certainly not a terrorist by any stretch of the imagination. The worrying part of this story seems to be that the U.S. kept the images of his 2004 election campaign – one can hardly believe that they just found them by accident – but even then it is a bilateral issue between Spain and the USA, without wider consequence or interest. Physchim62 (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
SupportJake Wartenberg 02:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose. I'm sorry, it's quite unlike me to strong oppose, but this is not that big a deal and it seems more like trivia than news. Maybe I'd support if he actually sued them and got a hefty settlement, but not now. HJMitchell You rang? 03:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose This is only newsworthy because it's embarrassing. -- tariqabjotu 03:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support per Tariqabjotu. This is a very embarassing mess up by the FBI. --PlasmaTwa2 03:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose not newsworthy enough for main page IMO. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 03:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The Reuters link above said Spain's US embassy had to apologise after being asked to explain. If it is phrased as an apology would that be good enough? I'm sure it must affect international relations... --candlewicke 03:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I doubt it will affect Spain–U.S. relations much! I mean, it's not as if they dropped four H-bombs on us or anything like that… Seriously, it's not even this week's most serious diplomatic incident (that would probably be the public humiliation of Turkey's ambassador to Israel, no article update as yet). Physchim62 (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Wait for now. If and when he sues the US federal government, and gets a verdict, I will be happy to support. Certainly an interesting story! --BorgQueen (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I presume anyone successfully suing the US government would automatically be certain of an ITN. :) --candlewicke 10:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Americans regularly sue their own government, right? That's what happened in Gitmo and Bush a few years back. –Howard the Duck 11:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I suppose people would argue it's not international enough if they're doing it to themselves. --candlewicke 11:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I do remember foreigners suing the American government. I remember those same Gitmo prisoners who were let go said they're playing to sue the American government for not upholding their rights. –Howard the Duck 12:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose To be blunt, a dude's face got partly used for a photo, and he's understandably annoyed. This is not a big story. HonouraryMix (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but it's a very worrying development. And I'm not convinced about their response which reads like: "Oops, we didn't mean to use such a high-profile person, next time we'll make sure they're not famous". --candlewicke 11:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see how it's a big story. Although involving a prominent organization, this is in effect some guy at a computer taking a short-cut in his work that's caused a public figure to lash out. In the grand scheme of things, this story is in no-way worldly significant. HonouraryMix (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose This is one of those stories that makes me think 'so what?' Modest Genius talk 13:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Grsz11 03:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Official government statement

  • Support. Good sense but too bad the government had to step in. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Whole can of worms, and sets a bad precedent. Besides, this is just aftermath from the Google/China story, and we didn't post that. Modest Genius talk 02:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Death of Asim Butt

  • A prominent artist has committed suicide at the age of 31. He was a founder member of the Stuckist art movement and was profiled by the BBC in 2007 and in 2008 the Chicago Tribune noted in an article on the spread of "youth rebellion" "challenging a repressive military regime" how he "started a “protest art” movement in [Karachi], spray-painting “eject” symbols near the headquarters of the paramilitary rangers". So he has international significance, was top of his field as a founder and his work is known in the UK and US. He seems to have been important in his field of expertise and to have had a significant contribution/impact on the country. --candlewicke 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
And, on Stuckism, the article Go West (exhibition) says: "The Stuckists had previously been seen as art world outsiders, but with the backing of a West End gallery in a "major exhibition"[1] became "major players" in the art world.[2]". --candlewicke 21:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Support the arts on principle. Don't know anything about him or if he is well known. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, I'm not seeing major notability here. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Diamond's melting point

Is it important enough to give the ITN a change of pace? Nergaal (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In future, please do not presume we have all read the P:CE template above. Provide at least a source and an article if possible. —  Cargoking  talk  20:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The article says it's preliminary and there are some speculations, I'd say wait. --Tone 20:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't look that preliminary. Nergaal (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I take that back ;-) Do we have an article update? --Tone 21:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. It's interesting and different. Blurb? Update? What's the target article? Diamond would seem the logical choice. HJMitchell You rang? 21:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Diamond is an FA so an expert in diamond studies might be needed. --candlewicke 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Support for chemistry and physics appeal. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Support as the on-call scientist around here. This is actually pretty big news, as well as being a science story that we can try to explain. The article to be updated is surely diamond; it has been updated, but more could be done. Physchim62 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Support as the not-really-paying-attention scientist around here ;). Interesting stuff, though I found the statement 'Diamond is a relatively common material on Earth' rather amusing. Suggested blurb below (tried to avoid repeating 'diamond' many times). Article needs a prose update. Modest Genius talk 02:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The first experimental measurement of the melting point of diamond indicates that the solid floats on the liquid
So who's going to update the article? (Scratches head) --candlewicke 02:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I have! Posting... ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
So far there's only one article about this in Google News, from Discovery news. Unless someone would like to spend USD18 for the Nature article. Maybe there's enough in the abstract. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Material properties of diamond could be a good link also. Nergaal (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Did anyone supporting this even notice the lack of a proper update? The only relevant update in the bolded article (diamond) has been the addition of exactly one sentence, and there's nothing at all in material properties of diamond. Even though I'm a non-scientist, I generally like reading about findings of this sort, but with the info in the article, it seems more like primary research trivia than relevant news. Something like this should not be placed on the mainpage without a proper explanatory update. Peter Isotalo 19:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Haiti earthquake

I know many people are interesting in keeping this as far up as possible. Would a 4.5 magnitude aftershock be important enough to add to the Main Page? --candlewicke 20:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's worth sticking on the end, but a blurb of its own? I'd be inclined to say not. However, if we're looking for a frwhser angle, the UN is calling this the biggest disaster they've ever had to deal with (I'll see if I cna dig up the news article I was reading earlier). HJMitchell You rang? 20:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree, not a separate blurb, maybe rather update the present one and eventually move it to the top of the ITN. --Tone 20:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose keeping a story up on ITN artificially is rarely a good option in terms of page clicks. We are not here to determine which news stories are most notable, thank God, just to give links to articles which people might want to read. Physchim62 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I heard the UN statement too. Here is verification from The Daily Telegraph: "Haiti earthquake: UN says worst disaster ever dealt with". --candlewicke 21:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't be artificial to keep this up longer than other items- it'll be news for weeks to come in all probability. However, we could take a different tack on it and use Response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake as the target article- I came across it patrolling the recent changes earlier and it looks in good shape. Not that we desperately need it. Yet. HJMitchell You rang? 21:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I support reposting this (perhaps after it finally falls off the page) with a story linking to the Haiti Earthquake Response article linked above. I can't believe that articles related to the earthquake won't get a lot of traffic now. This is still the top headline in nearly all the international media.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan

The Afghan national Assembly rejects (for the second time in a row) the majority of candidates for Cabinet ministers put forward by President. HJMitchell You rang? 13:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work on an update, but I'm not sure where it would be best placed. HJMitchell You rang? 13:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Politics of Afghanistan? Physchim62 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually Afghan Cabinet of Ministers seems to have the details (not yet updated with the latest events). Physchim62 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Support if this is unlikely to be repeated. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


January 17

ITN candidates for January 17

Scientists discover that sea level will rise irreversibly 0.52m within a century from one of the ice sheets alone

Their non-complete model which predicts this is already underestimating reality after only 14 years.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The story – both the scientific paper and the secondary source – is dated 13 January: too old? Physchim62 (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

67th Golden Globe Awards

...will take place tonight. Last year, we posted The 66th Golden Globe Awards takes place in Beverly Hills, California, with Slumdog Millionaire winning four awards including best picture. A preliminary question is, do we follow the same pattern this year? --Tone 14:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think we should post the story. It's not as big as the Oscars, but we still got a peak of 85k hits last year, which puts it securely in the top 10% of ITN stories. I would prefer it if we can avoid the verb problem ("Awards takes place" is correct U.S. English, but sounds strange to a Brit), but we won't really know what we have to do until the awards are announced. Physchim62 (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This is also the first ever Golden Globes to be screened live. Support what ever presentation the community think is right. —  Cargoking  talk  17:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - rather vehemently... This is by no standards that I can condone news worthy of an ITN spot. __meco (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose It was agreed upon months ago that the Golden Globes were to be taken of ITN:R. --PlasmaTwa2 19:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Then it certainly shouldn't be listed as there is a consensus-developed list at WP:ITN/R of recurring items that should be listed and the Golden Globes isn't among them. __meco (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't find any discussion of the issue either way. Could someone link to a place where this has been discussed before if we are supposed to take the ITN/R argument? Physchim62 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This was discussed back during either TIFF or the Berlin Film Festival. The discussion is not located at ITN:R. A group of editors, including BorgQueen, if I remember correctly, decided to take it off. --PlasmaTwa2 22:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion took place on September 21. It was decided that having the Golden Globes on ITN:R made no sense when we had the Academy Awards, which are more prestigious and cover the exact same thing as the Globes. --PlasmaTwa2 22:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Especially if we posted it last year. Not until the winners are all known though, obviously. HJMitchell You rang? 19:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The American media doesn't seem to care for this event as much as the Academy or Grammy Awards... is the third most important entertainment awards ceremony in the United States worthy of inclusion? On the other hand, Haiti mania is to be found here too... --candlewicke 20:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It's getting a fair amount of global media coverage (and the awards haven't even been announced yet), so I'd say that it is significant enough. We ran the (cancelled) awards in 2008, but not (it appears) in 2007 or 2006. The list at WP:ITN/R shouldn't be seen as restrictive when it can be changed at any time. Physchim62 (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
oppose as this has been talked about before. since we post oscars there is no need for golden globes. they are considered less prestigious and more domestic. we discussed this during TIFF convos and few other times since it was posted last year without consensus. -- Ashish-g55 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion last year had a fair consensus for posting: out of eight editors who commented, only one opposed the posting (with a comment of "it's just people getting awards. Not really news.") Physchim62 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
In the discussion on September 21, 2009, to my count there were five editors commenting at the time when we decided to remove the Golden Globes. Not one of the five objected to the removal, myself included. --PlasmaTwa2 23:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support gets attention, just not as much as the Oscars. Also, I don't see how it's more domestic, since it's voted on by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. ~DC Talk To Me 22:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm unsure about posting two American awards for film. Particularly in the link I've provided above one of their own newspapers rates it third in a list of (entertainment only) awards at the same time it is actually happening (don't know how low it ranks when non-entertainment awards are included as well or far it would drop in those ratings in the same week as the Academy Awards). One ITN for the Academy Awards is understandable as film is an area where America has been successful but what about other countries with a successful film industry being included as well? --candlewicke 23:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, the New York Times' ranking of Oscars > Grammys > Golden Globes is borne out in the viewing figures for the ITN stories last year! I'm not sure the fact that the awards are handed out in Beverly Hills is too relevant, so long as they have wide international media coverage (which the Golden Globes definitely do). And we do publish film awards from other countries as well.
I think ITN/R is getting to be a farce when it is preventing us from publishing news stories which have significant international impact (and, in this case, significant Wikipedia readership: 85k hits last year, roughly four times the figure for the Cannes or Toronto film festivals). If we're not careful, ITN will end up like DYK, with a perfectly logical and consistent system for selecting stories that nobody wants to read! Physchim62 (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
To me, it is not the fact that the Golden Globes is not on ITN:R that makes me oppose, it is the fact that it was taken off of it because consensus was that the Golden Globes do not represent the highest achievement in the film industry. I always thought that ITN was here not to merely report what is popular (Cause, you know, then we would have to put up the Tonight Show on the 22nd), but to put links to other things in the news that wouldn't necessarily get a whole lot of views, like the recent item about diamonds. What Candlewicke says below this comment is true. --PlasmaTwa2 01:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
But then if people are so interested in this topic they'll just search for the Golden Globes anyway? As they have to do now before it happens. Maybe there are readers who prefer obscure stories that they don't see anywhere else, don't they matter? --candlewicke 00:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If they want something obscure, they can scroll down to (dare I say it!) DYK. We distinguish ourselves from them by posting information that is genuinely interesting to a lot of people and of timely relevance and this is both. HJMitchell You rang? 00:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course the "more obscure" stories matter as well, particularly because a lot of the "more obscure" stories we run on ITN are actually very popular. I just checked diamond, for example, it got 60.6k hits yesterday. For comparison, the average DYK hook doesn't even generate a thousand hits, while TFAs are usually 20–40k hits (yesterday's was 37.0k). We should be very careful of the argument that "if people are interested, they'll find the article anyway." If that is the argument, why are we running the Haiti earthquake? Well, we're running the Haiti earthquake because it is "in the news", not because it's popular! Depending on which popularity statistic you choose, the Haiti earthquake is not even our most popular ITN story of January 2010. But the Golden Globe Awards are also "in the news", we know that a lot of our readers will be looking for the article: we should give them a simple link to it from the Main Page because that is what In the news is there for, it is our raison d'être! Physchim62 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone going to comment on the other nominations? I'm surprised this has more interest than Jyoti Basu and Senegal's offer to Haiti. --candlewicke 01:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Support -- also aired live in countries outside its mother country or near the mother country. –Howard the Duck 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to oppose per my above reasons plus the supports not yet convincing me. We posted it last year doesn't work for me with this one. The attention it receives is less than the Oscars as demonstrated and we don't post everything which gets a tiny amount of attention. The 2008 cancellation may have been notable but this year it appears to be going ahead. Physchim62 says media ranking = Wikipedia views so interest is clearly not there on the same level. That leaves the live screening and we don't post everything which is screened live for the first time. Oh, last one, being aired live outside its mother country or near the mother country did not get this example posted so being aired live in countries outside its mother country or near the mother country is not a fully convincing argument either (in my opinion). I think I've beaten all supports that gave a reason there. Try harder. :-) --candlewicke 03:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Candlewicke, I wasn't aware that to get an item posted we had to 'beat' your oppose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
You don't. I was talking about my support. :) --candlewicke 03:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
OK fair enough.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd hardly consider this event as "a tiny amount of attention," as demonstrated by prominent mention at the BBC Website. Both arguments "Wikipedia views/media ranking same level" don't hold much water, and live screening outside the mother country is frequent for sporting events (even for non-championship games, heck, even no-bearing games), but not on entertainment events such as this (only the Oscars might be broadcast internationally live elsewhere, I don't think even the Grammy Awards is broadcast live outside North America). –Howard the Duck 03:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've changed my mind. Support. --candlewicke 04:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok one note i will add. if this is posted then there should be no problem in posting Indian Filmfare awards for bollywood movies... Because as far as i remember and have read over that was the main point made against Golden Globes before taking them off ITNR. Otherwise there is a clear systemic bias that we have introduced into ITN (not that it wasnt there before :) ). Also Golden globes are for both TV and Movies. So both should be mentioned in the blurb. -- Ashish-g55 04:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I do support posting Filmfare Awards (and the golden globes). That said, in order to post the Filmfare awards, they would need to be much better covered on Wikipedia to meet our requirements. Currently there are know year by year articles for the awards. Unfortunately systemic bias is hard to beat. --Johnsemlak (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd post this item right now, but the article isn't very good. I don't really consider bolding winners updating the article. -- tariqabjotu 05:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I am somehow towards oppose now. Simply, what's a nice blurb? Avatar won two globes? Yes, but so did Dexter and 3 others. And just putting a blurb saying that the ceremony took place does not seem good enough. (it's different with the Oscars because there's only one winner of the best picture) --Tone 08:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Or alternatively with the Golden Globe Awards bolded. I agree that we should be able to do a better job of updating before posting, though. Physchim62 (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. If sports only get top level events, why should entertainment gets more. ... (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, sports events get a lot more luv here on ITN compared to entertainment, at least if you look at ITNR. A little more on the popular entertainment front wouldn't hurt IMO. However, in any case, the article is not yet suitable for posting.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I came to support, but after reading the discussion find I oppose. Although the point must be made that the GG are not an "American awards for film" as the Academy Awards are; they are selected by film critics from an international organization, none of whom (if I understand correctly) are American. This should add weight to the support side of this debate. However, IMHO, I must think that more weight is added to the oppose side by the fact that the GG are a "second level" award. They maybe a presigious award, however they do not have the gravitas that the Oscars do. This can be seen by how people discus that winning a GG is a stepping stone, or precursor, to winning the Oscar. So, I would Oppose.Rhodesisland (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti update

The President of Senegal has issued an open invitation to all Haitians to come back to Africa. An entire fertile region is waiting for them. Surely this is not an everyday event? --candlewicke 12:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Support--Avala (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose so far, it looks like it's just an invitation. If Haitians take him up on it, then I'll support on that day. --PlasmaTwa2 02:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, this sounds like the sort of offer you make while knowing it won't be accepted. There are, what, three million Haitians affected by the earthquake – how are they all supposed to cross the Atlantic? And fertile regions around the world, especially in Africa, tend to have people already living in them… Physchim62 (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, per Plasma Twa, but only if a significant number do (i.e., not 15 people). SpencerT♦Nominate! 03:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Death of Jyoti Basu

  • Article says he was "India's longest-serving Chief Minister as of 2010 of any Indian state". BBC correspondent says he "was credited with restoring stability to the state, and bringing in land reforms", "leaves behind a controversial and mixed legacy", was "easily India's most respected communist leader". There is also the "historic blunder". "Jyoti Basu, the last Bhadralok Communist". Reuters describes him as "Jyoti Basu, the patriarch of Indian communism whose pragmatic politics twice brought him close to becoming prime minister". The Indian Ted Kennedy if there ever was one... or was he only once close to being President, I can't remember. Lots of coverage in India anyway. --candlewicke 11:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The additional obituary which the BBC now supplies says he "ran the world's longest serving elected Communist government". --candlewicke 12:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, that's more like my idea of a notable politician, someone who did a bit more than "just" get elected. The biography looks in reasonable shape as well, and has been updated. Physchim62 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else? --candlewicke 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Now front page under "FEATURES, VIEWS, ANALYSIS" with headline "The man who was nearly India's first Communist leader" at http://news.bbc.co.uk/ (between articles on Hillary Clinton and the Africa Cup of Nations in Angola). --candlewicke 00:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I looked at several American news sites, and couldn't find a single story on him. ~DC Talk To Me 02:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
They're all too busy with the Golden Globes, obviously ;-) But Business Week is American, isn't it? Physchim62 (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
So is CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the NY Times, Boston Globe, LA Times. Couldn't find on those sites. ~DC Talk To Me 02:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
New York Times. Physchim62 (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Dc, the world doesn't end with US... If you study the world history specially about Cold War, you will see that the US were against the Communists, (Truman Doctrine) they cannot believe that the Communist can rule a state for long which has been democratically ruled. 220.227.133.250 (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Support elected leader of West Bengal for 23 years, a state with 100 million people, and frankly, it's rare for communists to get power without banning all opponents. It's also on ABC, the lack of US coverage, well perhaps not surprising when winners of US sports compettions call themselves "world champions" YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Weak Support. Was going to oppose but the article is good and he was in power at the regional (was he the equivalent of a governor?) level for a long time.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he was the head of government there. A British-style system where the member of parliament who is the head of the biggest party/alliance is the leader of the jurisdiction. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Why should he have coverage on an American site? Would an American be opposed for not having coverage on an Indian site? This person ruled over for more than two decades over an area with a population more than three times the size of California, which is apparently the most populous US state. --candlewicke 03:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
There is coverage on an American site though I agree that shouldn't be a requirement.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggest: Communist patriarch Jyoti Basu, the longest serving Chief Minister of West Bengal, dies of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome at the age of 95. --candlewicke 03:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Support -- He was an important indian leader. Any INDIAN newspaper or newschannel would be highlighting him all day today. Why would you look for him on an American news channel an oppose this decision. Sounds very ameri-centric to me. Also, I'm sure if an article about two buses colliding (an incident that probably occurs on a daily basis in all countries in the world) can be highlighted in the news, than this news is far more important. Pleasantfartsa (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Maybe I'm being unfair but, in my experience the American media (the New York Times excepted) don;t report anything much that's not of pressing concern to Americans and what is often big news everywhere is in the worlds might not rate a mention in such news sources, thus someone who is relatively obscure outside of southern Asia is not likely to receive significant coverage. I think this guy satisfies our death criteria and he was obviously a prominent figure in India which, if memeory serves, accounts for something like one sixth of the world's population. HJMitchell You rang? 05:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Strongest Support: He was the old man of Indian politics. He holds the record of being the longest serving chief minister democratically elected. Can this be matched with anyone else? Don't forget every Indian mourns his death (even if he/she is affiliated to any other political party). WP is as much read in India as in US or UK. Need admins to put up this story. --GPPande 08:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Posting. And omitting reason of death from the blurb, this is not that relevant in this case. We could add the picture but the new president of Chile is a more recent blurb. --Tone 08:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Tone. You rock as usual !!!! --GPPande 12:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Assuming we don't get a new story with a good picture before then, we can (and possibly should) swap the pictures after Piñera has been there for 24 hours (which is about midnight UTC). That way we get a rotation of images as well. Physchim62 (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a good idea, my support. --Tone 15:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Question--is it normal to put his political affiliation in the blurb? It seems to me he's notable whether he's a communist or a nationalist. We don't usually say 'former Republican president Ronald Reagan died yesterday.'--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
True, but there are several people above who have commented on the fact that he was an elected communist in supporting the story. I think we need a little leeway in how we write the blurbs for obituaries: to take an example from this very story, Tone didn't mentioned the cause of death, although we usually do mention it when it is known, simply because it is rather banal for a 95-year old man to die of multi-organ failure (aka "old age"). Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Somewhere above it says he was a democratically elected communist politician with the longest stay in the office. I think this is the reason his party is there, though it is not fully explained in the blurb. As far as I am concerned, this can be omitted as well. --Tone 15:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Chilean presidential election

The Chilean presidential election, 2009 and Chilean parliamentary election, 2009 take place. If no candidate gains 50% of the vote a run-off will be held on 17 January 2010. The president-elect will not succeed current president Michelle Bachelet until 11 March 2010 - Dumelow (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(BBC) It has gone to the run-off between Sebastián Piñera and Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle. I'll move it to January - Dumelow (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Support, sure. --Tone 10:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support when we have the result. HJMitchell You rang? 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support result per ITNR Modest Genius talk 15:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Chemical Ali

Alternatively, I suppose we could update and feature Halabja poison gas attack instead. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Does "sentenced to death for the fourth time" not indicate this is a regular occurrence? --candlewicke 08:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it seems to be an annual event... :P --candlewicke 08:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I thought the fact that he received four death sentences would be notable. Is it common for a war criminal? --BorgQueen (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
If I remember correctly he was on ITN when there was the first sentence. I think this is enough. --Tone 10:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Good memory! June 2007 he was sentenced to death. —  Cargoking  talk  14:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support quite notable person and trial.--Avala (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wait. I might support if they actually carry out the sentence or if it's repealed but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that this will happen again. HJMitchell You rang? 14:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with HJ. This is the fourth time he's received the sentence, so let's just wait til they hang him. It doesn't take too long in Iraq. ~DC Talk To Me 19:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Not too long? This person must hold the national record. :) --candlewicke 01:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • OpposeI think this was the fourth such sentence against him ?--yousaf465' 05:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

January 15

ITN candidates for January 15

Russia ratifies European Court of Human Rights reform

Support We have been publishing these type of agreements before, so I don't find any objection this.--yousaf465' 07:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Reading the article shows that these reforms are technical and procedural, not the sort of stuff that's likely to interest a lot of people. Physchim62 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't find any coverage of this in Russia.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Support the Court is the model of upholding the human rights of the people versus their states. Making this more efficient could easily see an stream of high-profile rulings against Russia in particular but also in the Balkans and Belarus and the United Kingdom and France's new, strict laws. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per Physcim. If this were more than a few technical changes I'd support. I haven't seen much coverage of it here in the US. ~DC Talk To Me 18:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Accession would be a news story, changes to the way the court operates are not. Modest Genius talk 14:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Monet

Beach in Pourville

Is this story unusual? I am aware that famous paintings and "priceless masterpiece"s are stolen very often but how many are recovered ten years later? --candlewicke 16:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll support, as the story's received a fair amount of attention. But there isn't an article for the panting (I believe the painting is Beach in Pourville) so I'm not sure which article needs updating. ~DC Talk To Me 20:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Not earth-shattering news but it's unusual enough to interest people and it has had a lot of international coverage. The article has been created. Physchim62 (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
That seems ready. And there's a picture in the article which I've just inserted here. Suggest: Impressionist painter Claude Monet's Beach in Pourville is recovered after a ten-year search. --candlewicke 20:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually this is a nice story with a picture as well. Support. --Tone 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad the story has found support. May I propose another blurb? ('cos I don't really like candlewicke's blurb, nothing personal)
We should really try to keep the featured article as near to the front as English grammar would allow us ;-) Physchim62 (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, just stops anyone delaying it further by asking for one. ;) --candlewicke 00:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Good story and photo. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Posted, with image and Physchim62's blurb. The article is a little short but sufficient enough, I believe, to convey all the important info - Dumelow (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I have moved it from the top spot as I found a source (and added it to the article) giving the date of recovery as 12 Jan (when it was also reported by the PA) - Dumelow (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Valid point, but it's also valid to take the date of the confirmation, which was (I believe) 15 Jan. Without a confirmation of autheticity, we would have had no ITN piece. Physchim62 (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr Gay China

China's first gay pageant has been shut down by police an hour before opening. This is news in the UK and Philippines so has international relevance and is not another gay marriage story either. There are also articles here, here and here describing in detail the underwear show which it now seems will now not happen. Shouldn't gay pageant redirect to somewhere? --candlewicke 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose there is no article. --PlasmaTwa2 19:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I found one and another one very easily. --candlewicke 19:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose it doesn't seem to important. ~DC Talk To Me 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Not important also, I have already seen too much china bashing since last week.--yousaf465' 07:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonaire referendum

Bonaire, part of the Netherlands Antilles, will hold the Bonaire constitutional referendum, 2010 to determine what the country should do when the Netherlands Antilles ceases to exist on 10 October. The two choices will be full integration with the Netherlands or else the formation of a Free Association - Dumelow (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Question are there any more of these referenda in Netherlands Antilles? I'll support, except I'm worried that we may end up having a string of identical stories for each island. Modest Genius talk 00:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
There are no other referenda that are not in the past on the somewhat detailed and somewhat frequently edited dissolution of the NA article, so maybe not. I might be wrong, though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that this will be the only one, but I haven't found anything that says that explicitly - Dumelow (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Support when the results are known. This is going to be a major decision for Bonaire, knowing that the Netherlands Antilles will be dissolved. And regarding the other islands, each can be evaluated separately. --Tone 12:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Weak support. I'd rather wait until we know the result f the referendum, but the story is interesting and newsworthy. HJMitchell You rang? 12:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Depends on the result. We have always taken referendums on a case-by-case basis, so no exception involved here. As I understand it, this is one of the last steps in dissolving the Netherlands Antilles, but just next week we have the Netherlands Antilles general election, 2010. If Bonaire votes to integrate with the Netherlands, I would oppose as it is simply the status quo result. If Bonaire votes for "free association", I would support, as it would open a can of worms in the whole process: the (European) Dutch have said that only integration or independence are on offer. Physchim62 (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Doomsday clock

A bit of good news for a change. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Doomsday Clock has moved back one minute to 6 minutes to midnight. It's first move away from midnight since 1991. BBC - Dumelow (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting, but it is just the opinion of a magazine. We don't put Time Person of the Year on here. ~DC Talk To Me 01:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree we shouldn't feature this atomic clock. --yousaf465' 05:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


January 14

ITN candidates for January 14

Solar eclipse of January 15, 2010

China, too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. Although only an annular eclipse, this is visible from many heavily-populated areas. Modest Genius talk 16:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
oppose since its not total. so nothing really special about it. last one we posted was because it was like longest in many years to come. -- Ashish-g55 17:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this is the longest eclipse of the millennium. The only central eclipse over 11 minutes between 1992 and 3043. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
In this case, I believe this is interesting enough to make it to ITN. Eclipses as long as this one are indeed rare. The article is well-written. If this goes up, I suggest it some time at the beginning of the eclipse tomorrow. --Tone 21:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
change to support as per Sagittarian Milky Way. And we can actually post it early as it is confirmed that it will happen. Its not like there is a chance it may not =). Also the fact about it being longest should be in the blurb -- Ashish-g55 21:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Support as well, per above. But wait 'til it starts. It should say it's the longest of the millennium. ~DC Talk To Me 21:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The longest central solar eclipse until the year 3043 occurs over parts of Africa, the Indian Ocean and Asia.
Support. The eclipse starts at 04:05 UTC. Physchim62 (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The 'longest of the millennium' fact does not currently appear in the article Modest Genius talk 00:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Is timeanddate.com a reliable source? It summarizes there won't be an equal or longer one 'til Dec. 23, 3043 very well. Or the two sources above? Which would you prefer? I'll add it or them to the article. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you should try some newspaper.--yousaf465' 05:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the newspaper does the very complex calculations involving among other things the day getting 1 millisecond longer/century and which mountains of the Moon are where (in 3 dimensions) 30,000,000,000.0km from now to the accuracy approaching 100 meters (0.1 sec). They probably get it from the ones that do (Fred Espenak@NASA) anyway. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Could I suggest we put the picture from the Haiti earthquake story back up for another day or two? It clearly is the main news story and will be for some time.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Death of 40 people in Papua New Guinea

Support - I start a stub - 2010 Papua New Guinea bus crash - TouLouse (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
If the article is expanded (depends how many sources there are available), I'll support. Though, we have the Haiti earthquake on the top of ITN at the moment and this is a totally different scale of a disaster. --Tone 21:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I support when expanded but like Tone I see this as having tough competition with the Haiti story.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral. We got rapid complaints last year about the 2009 Yambol bus crash: apparently, 16 dead in Bulgaria was not enough death for the Main Page… Physchim62 (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I think 40 is enough. The timing might be wrong here though. In any case it's a moot point until the article is expanded.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Expanded. Some of the coverage is horrific and the pictures are quite disturbing. I can't see how anyone would complain about this being unimportant. Papua New Guinea's worst road accident kills at least 40 people after two buses collide near Lae. --candlewicke 11:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This is ready to post now. I would like to have at least one more opinion before, though. --Tone 11:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. I think the unusually high number of deaths qualifies this item for a spot on ITN. __meco (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Go for it! Physchim62 (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Well? --candlewicke 16:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 16:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd be interested in whether or not "Bus crash outside of Lubbock, Texas kills 40" would have made ITN. UnitAnode 04:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Death of Masoud Alimohammadi

Can we send the article to DYK? They'd love those sort of viewing figures! 5.5k hits is not all that many for a reported death that's not even featured on the Main Page – Éric Rohmer peaked at 16.1k, for example, and Miep Gies got (an exceptional) 54.1k, just to quote two very recent examples. On the other hand, do we think the death is significant (as opposed to the person)? I'm leaning towards oppose, as Iran says he wasn't involved in their nuclear program and Irael and the US say they had nothing to do with his death. Running this story would be to give weight to all sorts of speculation. Physchim62 (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Death of Ken Colbung

  • An important world leader has died. "In his heyday, Ken was a force to be reckoned with - and he worked around the world, using that influence for the benefit of Aboriginal people". He did a lot of things: "Mr Colbung lobbied for Aboriginal land rights, conservation, education and the preservation of indigenous culture and spirituality. He was instrumental in the development of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 for the protection and preservation of material of cultural significance. Mr Colbung was successful in his search for the remains of Aboriginal warrior Yagan whose head was taken to England." Yagan is an FA who seems important and interesting. Ken is indigenous but hopefully this won't be his downfall. --candlewick 10:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, the article is too short. --Tone 10:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
But if it could be expanded? --candlewicke 10:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I would support if the article can be expanded to at least three times its current length. I think his position as an aboriginal politician (if that is this week's politically correct term) makes his life more significant rather than less. Physchim62 (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I confess I know nothing of the man, but he sounds like an interesting figure. However, beyond expanding the article, I think we need some more evidence of his notability in the media (which may exist). Also the article is very short, and I think it may be difficult to get it to an suitable state in time for posting.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Death of Teddy Pendergrass

Support, also performed at Live Aid which I suppose is as big an audience as it gets. --candlewicke 08:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, the article is too short. At least the biography section. --Tone 10:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think the article is too short, although I suspect posting the death of an American singer will draw massive complaints on Talk:Main Page regardless of the article's condition. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Les Paul was American but the article was very elaborate back then. So it was easy to answer to the complaints. No need to worry about the complaints if there are good arguments to put something on ITN. --Tone 21:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Weak support, I'd be happier if there were more career details in the article. My argument would be that we run comparatively few arts & entertainment stories, so this is an opportunity to redress the balance a bit. Physchim62 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer if the article were better developed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just not country enough, but to me the kind of country star whose death would merit an ITN item would be someone like Garth Brooks, Faith Hill or Shania Twain. Willie Nelson, Dolly Parton or Tim McGraw would be a maybe. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral I think a quadriplegic man who was the first black singer to record five consecutive multi-platinum albums is noteworthy, but the article said he had colon cancer, so I'm not sure if this was unexpected. --PlasmaTwa2 00:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


January 13

ITN candidates for January 13

Rodrigo Rosenberg Manzano

A truly bizarre story if ever there was one. Rosenberg was the Guatemalan lawyer who was shot dead in May 2009. He had secretly made a video in which he states that, if he were killed, it would be the fault of the Guatemalan President Álvaro Colom Caballeros (as well as Colom's wife and one of his senior advisers). Now, after an international investigation led by a Spanish prosecutor, it seems that Rosenberg arranged his own murder. He persuaded his business associates to hire a gunman to knock off a person who was supposedly threatening him, but that person was really Rosenberg himself. The story is on BBC News, and there are references in the article to Christian Science Monitor and CNN. Physchim62 (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On my, I think I've seen something like this in a film... A man hiring an assassin to kill himself. Leaning towards support. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Was Rosenberg previously on ITN? This seems more like an oddity than actual news, but if it involves the Guatemalan government, then support. Until then, neutral. --PlasmaTwa2 18:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The controversy surrounding the death was nominated on 15 May 2009 (a bit late, given that the death occurred on 10 May), but it didn't make it to the Main Page. Physchim62 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry this doesn't sound terribly important. Maybe if the government had actually killed him. Oppose ~DC Talk To Me 20:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure about that one, DC? An eight-month international investigation concerning a head of state "doesn't sound terribly important"? We're each entitled to our own opinions, of course, but that one surprises me! Physchim62 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
But the result was that this was a really elaborated suicide, not some kind of government conspiracy. Oppose from me in this case. --Tone 21:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Weak Support. It's perhaps not amazingly important in itself, but it IS a unique and interesting story, and did involve a head of state and the UN. I imagine we'd get a lot of clickthroughs on it, though that's not really a reason to post. Modest Genius talk 23:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral leaning towards a "why the hell not?" support. DC and Tone make good arguments- it was, after all, an elaborate suicide, but, as Modest Genius says, it's different, interesting and involved a head of state. HJMitchell You rang? 00:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Fascinating. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Support I updated when I came across this from CNN yesterday, so it should be ready to go. It's interesting (to say the least), and at least somewhat significant, involving a head of state. The UN felt it significant enough to launch an inquiry. Grsz11 02:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
A well-worded blurb please? --BorgQueen (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
"A United Nations investigation into the death of Guatemalan lawyer Rodrigo Rosenberg Marzano, who had left a pre-recorded message saying President Álvaro Colom Caballeros was responsible, determines Rosenberg staged his own murder." or something along those lines. Grsz11 17:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment : Are we reading Harry Potter in real ? I would only offer a weak support in this case.--yousaf465' 07:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

But the UN enquiry would have been because a head of state was accused of murder. In which case is this so unusual that the UN was involved? Yet he didn't commit the murder at all. So how is this important? He seems to actually have been reading Harry Potter in real. This is certainly interesting but Main Page? Therefore I suppose I agree with Tone here. If this is posted I'm afraid everyone will start murdering themselves and blaming the government so they can be on the Main Page... --candlewicke 09:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Suicides dressed up as murders are already pretty rare occurrences – usually it's the other way round. A suicide dressed up as murder so as to accuse the local head of state must be fairly high up on anyone's WTF scale! If it had been the Guatemalan government, I don't think there'd be any reason for putting the story up: unfortunately, the Guatemalan authorities don't inspire much confidence for their respect for the rule of law, which is why there is a standing UN commission in the country to investigate such (alleged) crimes. After all, we don't usually post murders of political opposants. Still, we'd probably post the Alexander Litvinenko case if it happened today, simply because it is unusual in its nature. Physchim62 (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The notability of this item seems to depend on how bizarre it is, rather than how significant it is. It also seems to be an awfully complex story to summarize in an ITN blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
So, are we going to put this up? Roughly 2:1 in favour, depending how you count 'weak' and 'leaning towards' (and yes I know it's not a vote). Modest Genius talk 00:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Elections in Uzbekistan

"The elections to the Legislative Chamber of Oliy Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan held on December 27, 2009, became one of the central topics in the world’s leading media." according to the Central Election Commission of the Republic of Uzbekistan, so obviously they had to come down off whatever they'd been smoking before they could count the ballot papers! (NB. there was also a second round on 10 January) Still, the results have now been published, so...

Yep, support. Are the percentages also available, I see they are missing in the results table... --Tone 12:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
No voting figures available (apart from the total number of votes cast), not even for the first round, I've even brushed off my more-than-dusty Russian to look for some in the regional media. I assume that means that there were an embarrassing number of blank votes... It was, of course, a farce of an election, as the article tries to make clear in an NPOV sort of way, but hell, we ran the North Korean parliamentary election last year, and it got reasonable viewing figures! Physchim62 (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Google pulling out of China

I know they havent pulled out yet. But it may happen shortly. support for a major internet company intentionally pulling out after censoring its content for 3 years. Part of news is also gmail getting hacked by people in China. BBC Star CNN TimesOfIndia -- Ashish-g55 14:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Leaning towards oppose, as it's not entirely clear what the story is here. Google is obviously pissed off, but reading the news reports makes me think that this is just Google trying (possibly counter-productively) to bolster its negotiating position. A story to watch, but I don't think it's ripe for inclusion just yet, until we can actually give our readers some hard facts when they click on the article link. Physchim62 (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Support if it happens.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Support if it happens, but I personally found it difficult to believe Google would give up such a huge market without fighting to the last breath. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
it seems like google is the one thats keen on pulling out. story might turn into china trying to stop google by allowing uncensored content. even though i highly doubt that but lets see -- Ashish-g55 15:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This seems like a gradual process, instead of Google merely saying "We're done". Would the itn item be the announcment itself, or when Google actually completes the pull-out? --PlasmaTwa2 20:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to speculate too much, but shutting down the google.cn domain would seem like a fairly major step to me. Physchim62 (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we can wait till, it is actually carried out.--yousaf465' 07:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Kyiv Court of Appeal accused Josef Stalin and other leaders of the former Soviet Union and Soviet Ukraine of organizing mass famine in Ukraine in 1932-1933

It's interesting and important. I think. --TarzanASG (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a suggested article on Wikipedia that needs to be (is?) updated? Or a news link? SpencerT♦Nominate! 21:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The Kyiv Court of Appeal accused Josef Stalin and other leaders of the former Soviet Union and Soviet Ukraine of organizing mass famine in Ukraine in 1932-1933. (Kyiv Post) (RIA Novosti) --BorgQueen (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this any kind of surprise? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose because this isn't really news, plus there will be no punishments given due to the untimely death of (among others) Stalin a couple of years ago in '53. --PlasmaTwa2 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be a lot of substance to this right now--Oppose. Certainly a major push in Ukraine to blame the Famine on Stalin would be a major news item.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

January 12

ITN candidates for January 12

International court rules UK's Terrorism Act in breach of human rights

Leaning towards support, although the relevant articles still need some work. While at first sight it might seem a bit too local, I think there is international debate (not to say concern) about the sweeping powers given to the security forces through the excuse of the "War on Terra". Physchim62 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Stop and search is another possible lead article for this story. I think we need to be a little more specific in the blurb. (but there's no rush at the moment, thanks to the democratic fervor of the Uzbekistanis) Physchim62 (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer to wait if there's any development following. Neutral otherwise. --Tone 14:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
What sort of "development" are you thinking of? We need to wait a bit anyway, because the article(s) aren't up to scratch yet (and I'm too busy on other things to improve them myself). Physchim62 (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Developments such as overturning some decisions made on basis of this act, compensations for people affected etc. I am not too familiar with the topic but as you say, the article is far from ITN material at the moment. --Tone 14:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Those sort of developments will take months to come about, far longer than the ITN timescale of (roughly) 3–5 days. We should be able to get comments from the UK government, and maybe a bit of analysis, although most of my usual international news outlets are so focussed on the Haiti quake at the moment that nothing has come up. Physchim62 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a moderately big event for citizens of the UK, but utterly irrelevant to anyone else. The ECHR makes judgements which overturn national laws several times a year; also take a look at European Court of Human Rights to see how many of its 'notable cases' have involved overturning UK law. And yes, I'm British. Modest Genius talk 23:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Al-Muhajiroun banned in UK

Perhaps this is a bit too domestic/UK-centric? --BorgQueen (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Too local, especially given that the main reason for the banning was a planned march by this organization through Wootton Bassett, the village which receives the coffins of the British soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Physchim62 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, they have been banned before. How big was the group anyway? --Tone 14:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I withdraw the nomination. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti earthquake

  • Severe (7.0) earthquake in Haiti, will affect Cuba, Bahamas, and Dominican as well. CNN has reported a hospital collapse in Port-au-Prince. Grsz11 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've created a stub. Grsz11 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Obvious support once the article is sufficient. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. HJMitchell You rang? 23:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on this...there are no casualty figures at this time, though, just to mention. (Unfortunately, it will likely not remain that way). SpencerT♦Nominate! 23:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Support if the following line in the article is true. "The earthquake was called the "largest earthquake ever recorded in the area". --candlewicke 00:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Can we put this up now. its starting to look odd that its not there since its become a major international news -- Ashish-g55 01:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
(posted before above, but got lost somewhere) Posted, with a blurb mentioning the collapsed hospital (which seems to be the only damage reported so far). Will someone else update it when more info is available, I am about to go to bed - Dumelow (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering, shouldn't this go to the main page? --FixmanPraise me 00:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Support This is huge news with thousands presumed dead.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saw the evening newscast, which used images credited to Twitter. Would these be available under an appropriate license? -- llywrch (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we post this image? The Croat president is now pretty old. Grsz11 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Haiti-2010-quake.png
We generally don't like to use maps as at the 100x100px resolution (right), they become pretty meaningless - Dumelow (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
True. I guess we'll have more useful pictures soon. Grsz11 01:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Obvious Support. The BBC main page now calls this a 7.3 magnitude. Also, I assume we'll update the blurb once we get casualty estimates?--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Can we alter the blurb to mention that several government buildings including the National Palace have been destroyed? I believe that is the most significant fact in lieu of casualty numbers. Grsz11 03:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Support-- Moumouza (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Are there any photos available already? Now it would be really appropriate to put one on ITN if there is any. Even a cropped map may be ok. --Tone 22:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
There was a picture of the destroyed presidential palace a while back, but I can't seem to find it...was it deleted? Ks0stm (TCG) 22:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
If it was a copyvio, it was probably deleted. For the main page, it needs to have a free licence anyway... --Tone 22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I would guess that free licence images from Haiti are in pretty short supply at the moment. Can we beg for a clear and informative map? Physchim62 (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Palacio presidencial de Haiti.jpg
A couple of options moving forward that perhaps we can alter the hook. There are now numerous reports stating casualties to be in the hundreds of thousands, we could reflect these reports. Or, several (more like most) government buildings have been destroyed, including the National Palace (Haiti). We could use the pre-quake image for the time being. Grsz11 00:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
While the reports of collapsed schools and hospitals are moving, and the destruction of the city's historical landmarks will impact the city for centuries, I still feel it's best to concentrate the deaths of people. THere are fairly reliable reports that the deaths number in the 'thousands' and eventually we'll have a more precise count.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Haiti earthquake damage overhead.jpg
Here is a new image (left) that seems reasonable. Grsz11 02:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like an illustrative image. And yes, we could start thinking of updating the hook, something like Earthquake strikes Haiti, causing a widespread destruction with thousands dead and (more thousands?) missing. This part is pretty clear already. --Tone 10:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Any comments here, please? --Tone 23:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like an illustrative image. And yes, we could start thinking of updating the hook, something like Earthquake strikes Haiti, causing a widespread destruction with thousands dead and (more thousands?) missing. This part is pretty clear already. --Tone 10:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I strongly support adding the above left image, or any other appropriate picture connected to this story. This is clearly the biggest news story for some time. We really should have a picture posted, IMO. Having the picture from the China map story while this earthquake is the top headline doesn't look good.
The BBC now quotes red cross estimates of the death toll at 45000-50000. Can we add that to the blurb?--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggested updated blurb (with added text in italics): A 7.0 Mw earthquake strikes Haiti, causing widespread destruction in Port-au-Prince (pictured) with an estimated 50,000 deaths.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Can we pleeeeease get a new image? This one of the National Palace or the one from earlier seems appropriate. Grsz11 04:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This image is very good as well. Grsz11 04:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I have this (100x100px) already protected, if you guys are still interested. --PFHLai (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Deaths and injuries in Japan gun attack

It does now. --candlewicke 21:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well? Is it worth expanding? --candlewicke 05:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to oppose. Only two deaths and two injuries just isn't that notable (unless there are other circumstances that make it more unusual). I understand the rationale that gun violence is very rare in Japan, but it's still a quite minor incident on a global scale.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose This one isn't too significant internationally. I don't buy into the "gun violence is rare in country x, so when it happens in country x, we must put it up" argument. ~DC Talk To Me 10:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose this is hardly even what one would call a "shooting". The gunman was in the bar to discuss the terms of his divorce with his mother-in-law (in Japan, not as strange as it might sound to Westerners). He stormed out of the bar and returned with a firearm (reports have said shotgun, but hunting rifle seems more likely). He kills the mother-in-law and seriously injures the bar-owner and an employee (who later die). The gunman then kills himself outside the bar. Tragic, but too local by far for ITN! Physchim62 (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
If you won't expand it only because you won't be getting the ITN notice/award that's pretty sad. –Howard the Duck 10:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dagestan pipeline explosion

Nom - Links: [21] [22] - TouLouse (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The links seem to say there has not been much damage. Has there been further damage? --candlewicke 21:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It has left 200,000 people without a gas supply in Dagestan. There is an article at Mozdok – Makhachkala – Kazi Magomed pipeline. Support once updated - Dumelow (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see the article on Mozdok – Makhachkala – Kazi Magomed pipeline to be promoted on the main page, of course, but it is not the first time when that kind of incident happens with this pipeline in Dagestan. And the sources refers also to other current terrorist attacks in this region, so probably the explosion is not a very big news taking account the context. However, I will add a little bit more information to the article. Beagel (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Not the main export line, but the local branch line. The Azerbaijani export through the main pipeline continues. Beagel (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Matteo Ricci's map

The first map in Chinese to show the Americas, created by Matteo Ricci at the request of the Wanli Emperor, goes on public display. [23] --BorgQueen (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could update History of cartography. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, not earth-shattering but I think readers will be interested. A slight tweak on the blurb below. Physchim62 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Support An interesting item. --PlasmaTwa2 18:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to go offline soon, I will try to update within 24 hours if consensus continues to support. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Your Majesty, I'm sure there are others who can do the update as well! take care, see you soon. Physchim62 (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting story, do we have an update anywhere? --Tone 22:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Support: Quite fascinating. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a very interesting item, and perhaps deserves posting on that alone. Still, as I understand all that's happening here is it's on display in the US.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the supports. I see someone has created Impossible Black Tulip (map) already. Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I love maps and I love China, but I just dont see this as that noteworthy to put on ITN.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Chile joins OECD

Support. The wording seems a bit awkward to me, would not be easier to say Chile becomes a member of OECD, the first member of the organization from South America? Either way, the updates are there, post when you feel. --Tone 15:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, story has had coverage in the Spanish press today. The accession still has to be ratified by the Chilean parliament (probably in March), but one would assume that that is a formality, given that there aren't exactly many obligations to OECD membership. I would say that the story is now. Physchim62 (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Posting soon. I have only two supports but this is not a particularly controversial or borderline item and the update is overdue. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
How about this? Chile joins the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, becoming the group's first South American member. GreenGourd (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer Physchim62's wording because the accession still has to be ratified by the parliament, as he commented above. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. I was suggesting we not connect an independent clause with a dependent clause with a comma and an 'and.' GreenGourd (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
How is it now? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Nicely played. It's even better with Dumelow's suggestion. GreenGourd (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Chile signed the accession agreement, ut to become a member it should ratify the agreement first and to deposit the accession instrument (ratification letter). This topic was nominated here when Chile was invited and the agreement then was that it will be posted when becoming a member. Beagel (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The previous nomination and discussion is here.  
There is no need for diffs. According to the archive, your very own words: "Of course, alternatively it could be published in the main page on 11 January 2010 when Chile signs the accession agreement." And I said "Let's wait until Chile actually joins." I meant when Chile signs the agreement. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, but formally Chile is not a member yet. Beagel (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This year, also probably Israel, Slovenia and Estonia will become members. Do we will post news related to the accession of these countries when they sign the agreement instead of the real date of joining? Just to knew for the future. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
If the relevant articles are properly updated, I personally don't see any particular problem. Is there any possibility that it won't be ratified after signing? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. There is a very strong intention to ratify the agreement before the next elections. So, the possibility that the agreement will be not ratified is just theoretical. Beagel (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. But then, knowing that yourself, why would you want to wait for the formality? I am curious. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I misunderstood you and thought you meant to wait until Chile becomes formally a member. It is clear that it is not practical to published this issue on the main page several times. At the same time I believe that the signing accession agreement is enough important to be published. So, my opposition based on my misinterpretation of the previous discussion. Beagel (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, and I realize my wording in the previous discussion wasn't too precise. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious why Israel isn't a member yet? It's per capita GDP should've qualified it for sure. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That's kinda off-topic here, don't you think? :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Israel (like Estonia, Russia and Slovenia) holds an accession negotiations right now and most likely will join later this year. It will be a good opportunity to promote the OECD article again. Beagel (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose wait til its ratified. ~DC Talk To Me 16:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment we ran both the Irish referendum vote and the Czech President's signature concerning the Treaty of Lisbon, as they were both of international significance. Neither of them were "ratifications" in the sense of international law, and the vote of the Chilean parliament won't be either. There is a confusion in English between American usage of "ratification" (approval by the Senate, and never guaranteed these days) and the international legal usage (deposition of the instruments of ratification with the depositary, which is usually a simple bureaucratic act). If the Chilean parliament refuses the offer of OECD membership, that would be a separate story: if it accepts, we probably won't hear a dickie-bird about it in the international media. The section is entitled "In the news", so we should go with stories that are actually in the news, and not artificially delay them for our own internal criteria. Physchim62 (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent explanation. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. I was going to say wait 'til it's ratified, but Physchim makes a compelling argument. HJMitchell You rang? 17:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree 100% with Physchim.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


January 11

ITN candidates for January 11

Death of Miep Gies

  • The death has taken place of Miep Gies: "The last surviving member of the group who helped protect Anne Frank and her family from the Nazis, has died in the Netherlands". She also rescued from destruction the well-known account of World War II, The Diary of a Young Girl (The Diary of Anne Frank) which has sold "tens of millions of copies in dozens of languages" and, by preserving her life and providing meat and vegetables for that time, would have allowed her to write it. "Mrs Gies became a kind of ambassador for the diary, travelling to talk about Anne Frank and her experiences, campaigning against Holocaust denial and refuting allegations that the diary was a forgery. For her efforts to protect the Franks and to preserve their memory, Mrs Gies won many accolades". --candlewicke 01:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Support. Noteworthy by far. Ks0stm (TCG) 02:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
How far? :-) --candlewicke 02:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Far reaching scope...she even was a character (played by Pat Carroll) in the movie Freedom Writers (based on The Freedom Writers Diary)...see the second to last paragraph of the plot summary for details. This death is one of those that affects multiple areas of society. Ks0stm (TCG) 02:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
An interesting person certainly, but I don't see how she meets ITN's death criteria. Dragons flight (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I don't beleive her connection to another famous person makes her more notable than anyone else. --PlasmaTwa2 05:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment. The notability is obviously tied to Anne Frank, so whether this item is worthy depends largely on whether one considers Gies' connection to Anne Frank relevant. That said, Anne Frank's Diary is one of the most famous books of the 20th century, and Meip Gies enabled it to be published.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, but we need to address the citation problem with the entry. GreenGourd (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose. I'm almost convinced by Ks0stm's arguments, I want to be convinced by them, but this story just doesn't hit me as exceptional enough for a natural death. I agree that we need to be a little bit more relaxed with our draconian death criteria, but I still don't think this is the right story. By the time we've explained why she is notable in the blurb, there's very little left to discover in the article. Physchim62 (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Comparison does not make a compelling argument, but this woman acted in a way that contributed directly to one of the best known human interest stories of WWII, whereas the Japanese man whom we currently feature did no more than be unfortunate in where he was, but fornunate in surviving despite where he was, on two occasions. Kevin McE (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I accept your point that Yamaguchi did no more (himself) than Gies, and actually less (as he was just doing his job), to deserve Main Page coverage. However, we're not giving out awards here: ITN provides a small selection of the possible obituaries, fewer than some other language versions (German is running three at the moment, Dutch runs five, French is running Éric Rohmer within a shorter ITN section than we have). Of the many people who risked their lives to protect the oppressed during the Nazi régime, why should we feature this woman? Because of the Diary? But she didn't protect Anne Frank because she was protecting a literary superstar! Gies protected Anne Franck because she was a little girl who would otherwise have been killed (as she was in the end). Very noble, and fortunately not all that exceptional in such circumstances. The connection just doesn't hold for me. Physchim62 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I am somewhere in between support and oppose since I've supported Yamaguchi. Still, I think the opposing arguments prevail here - if we are to include an obituary, I'd prefer Rohmer. --Tone 20:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Simon Cowell quits Idol

Simon Cowell has quit American Idol, effective at the end of this season, after Fox announced that they had acquired the rights to an American version of his popular British show, X-Factor. I have already updated the Cowell article with a few sentences. (BBC)(THR) UnitAnode 22:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. We have a better entertainment story below. Cowell's career in the U.S. has always (seemed to me to have) been a series of contact problems anyway. Physchim62 (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
How is the death of a French film director a "better entertainment story" than the biggest reality star in two countries quitting the top reality show in America? That just seems utterly nonsensical. UnitAnode 22:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Yes, he's the most important element of the biggest show in America, but it's still a TV show. Besides, he hasn't actually left yet, but says he will at the end of the next season. If this is notable potentially, it can only be so once he's done his final episode. HonouraryMix (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is sheer madness. It isn't a "contract problem" at all. It's the most popular reality star in the world quitting. It's reported both stateside, and internationally. Why do people even try to get real news stories through the gauntlet of this process? UnitAnode 22:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
this doesnt seem any more notable than a character getting killed off on a tv show to me. next time someone important dies on Dexter_(TV_series) are we going to post it... (given that the character getting killed off was due to some contract issue)? just because this is reality tv doesnt make it any more special -- Ashish-g55 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Complete and utter nonsense. Comparing Cowell quitting to the death of a character on a TV series? Is that what this place is about? UnitAnode 22:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is more notable than a character in a fictional show being killed off, because Cowell is undoubtedly a huge star. But, we're still talking about a TV show, and Cowell hasn't left yet. He's still doing a whole season yet. If this is notable potentially, wait until his final episode. And please refrain from calling other editors' opinions "nonsense". HonouraryMix (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It's notable now because it's in the news now. It will also be notable after his last show on Idol, but that fact doesn't make it less notable now. And I'll call nonsense "nonsense", thanks. And it's patent nonsense to think that the death of a French film director is notable, but this is not. UnitAnode 22:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
so according to you death of a person in real life is less notable than someone quitting a tv show...? (this isnt support for the french director just observation). And i still think getting killed off in fictional tv show is same thing. even fictional shows can have huge stars. leaving or quitting the show in fiction or reality tv is not that different. -- Ashish-g55 22:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
How about we put both up, and see which gets more hits? Then we'll see which is more notable. As I said, this line of argument is utter nonsense. UnitAnode 22:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
well im out of this conversation. good luck getting both up :) -- Ashish-g55 22:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it won't happen now, and you helped with that. Thanks for the snark, though... <rolls eyes> UnitAnode 23:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I must ask again that you show your fellow editors some respect by not repeating the word "nonsense" all the time. It's not necessary. HonouraryMix (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
When they stop posting nonsense like Ashish has, I will. UnitAnode 23:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you withdraw that comment, and we might listen to you. I refuse to consider an editor who treats another editor's comments as "nonsense". Physchim62 (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
How else should a comment comparing the biggest reality star in American (a Brit, for that matter) quitting the biggest reality show in America to a character dying on a TV show? It is nonsense, and I won't say otherwise. I didn't call him an ignorant git or anything like that. I characterized his comments as nonsense, which they were. That's not a violation of WP:CIVIL, and I won't be withdrawing it. I highly doubt that you would have been giving this nomination any serious consideration, though, so I'm not too worried about your quid pro quo offer. UnitAnode 23:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose Changes in TV presenters are not significant news. Furthermore, this only affects ONE programme on ONE channel in ONE country - even the recent Jonathan Ross story is bigger than that. Modest Genius talk 23:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't know. I'm not sure what exactly Cowell has achieved, can this be demonstrated here (with sources)? I have outlined why I believe the death of Éric Rohmer is significant below rather than just nominating the event. When I compare the death of someone whose career spans from the 1950s until 2010 to someone who was apparently born as 1960 approached, whose career in television seems to date from about 2001 and who isn't even dead, not to mention that he has announced he is to quit rather than that he has factually quit right now, I am not compelled to support this with such little detail. --candlewicke 23:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This is the most asanine "debate" in which I've ever participated. I believe I'll just head for the door now. Miss me, okay? UnitAnode 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose The English wikipedia is not the American Wikipedia. I cannot imagine a non-american wikipedia reader being interested in this. Moumouza (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure ?Howard the Duck 07:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark McGwire admits using steroids

McGwire, who was a gigantic story in North America when he broke Lou Gehrig's single-season home-run record in 1998, has admitted juicing up that season. This is the number-one Associated Press story on Yahoo News right now, which is very rare for a sports story. It's also on the top section of the nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com homepages. Not a surprise, but an important story nonetheless. In '98, McGwire was a huge national hero on the scale of Charles Lindbergh after his trans-Atlantic flight. (You have to understand the meaning of baseball in America and the meaning of statistics in baseball.) Now he's admitting he cheated. ([25]) -- 199.172.169.17 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

  • It was Roger Maris's record. Anyway, I oppose this nomination, mainly because people have suspected/known this for years. He doesn't even hold the home run record anymore (it now belongs to another suspected juicer. ~DC Talk To Me 00:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose if this is the case. If it is already known it is not a new event. If he doesn't even hold the record well... --candlewicke 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, I don't think we would run this sort of story for a top footballer (soccer player) who had the record for the most goals in a season. We would probably have run the Ben Johnson story, but it would need that sort of a record (100m sprint world record) to do it. As for those years in U.S. baseball: "Looking back, I wish I had never played during the steroid era." is how McGwire put it, which really speaks for itself. Physchim62 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Anybody who didn't think he was doing them was kidding themselves, so this isn't news, nor is it internationally significant. Grsz11 02:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Temporary resignation

The First Minister of Northern Ireland, Peter Robinson temporarily steps down. (RTÉ), (Times Online), (BBC), (CNN), (Euronews). —  Cargoking  talk  21:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about this one. Leaning towards oppose since Northern Ireland is a part of UK, not a separate country (and we didn't post various US states with governors or senators resigning). --Tone 22:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Tone, this is on the same level as US State governors. And he's only stepping down temporarily anyway (quite how that's possible I'm not sure). Modest Genius talk 22:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The Northern Ireland article on Wikipedia describes it as a country. --candlewicke 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I know. Sovereign country? Anyway, it's not the same as France or Germany. --Tone 22:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Tone worded it best. Northern Ireland is a country, but it's not at the level of the two countries noted. To all intents and purposes, this is all on the level of US states, and so not notable enough. HonouraryMix (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Candlewicke, Northern Ireland is a 'constituent country' but not a sovereign state. It's the same status as England, Wales and Scotland have - all are countries which make up the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. Modest Genius talk 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Completely local news, the sort of mix of sex and petty abuse of power that happens in most places. I will just note that our article on Iris Robinson is getting more hits than either the college football or the darts, just to say that I don't just go on viewing figures! Physchim62 (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Northern Ireland isn't a sovereign country, so this would be the same as Eliot Spitzer or Sarah Palin resigning. Of course, one could make an argument that those resignations could've been added, given the media attention they received. ~DC Talk To Me 00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment we ran the Rod Blagojevich story this time last year, but only just and only after he refused to resign and was unanimously voted out of office: I'd also say that that was a rather more serious corruption scandal than the one going on in Northern Ireland at the moment. I still go with my assesment that the Robinson scandal (as alleged) would only be a petty and local abuse of power, and so not ITN material. Physchim62 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't around Wikipedia then, but he was impeached which is a lot rarer. Plus, this one's only temporary. ~DC Talk To Me 03:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose His wife's resignation was on the front page of my local US paper, but all he's really doing is taking a six-week holiday. Grsz11 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Random factoid (just to lighten things up a bit around here) The Simon & Garfunkel song "Mrs. Robinson" is also getting twice it's usual number of Wikipedia hits in recent days [26], and that's even before the Facebook campaign to try to get it to the UK number one single for next Sunday [27]. Physchim62 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Meh, Mark Sanford had 209,000 views in June. But he's American so... –Howard the Duck 15:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, the current hits for Iris Robinson and last June's hits for Mark Sanford are almost in proportion to the UK/US populations! I still say that neither story is really earth-shattering in its implications, and that the Rod Blagojevich story was objectively more important (and unusual). Let's just spare a thought for Peter Robinson (politician), whom our reders consider far less interesting than his wife. Physchim62 (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There's something wrong there. How about in countries where internet use isn't as prevalent as that in the US and UK? And that Sanford story, if we'd follow the darts championship argument, was an international story, since he "went out" with an Argentine woman. Even the Spanish Wikipedia article had a spike in views. –Howard the Duck 15:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Death of Éric Rohmer

  • Seems to be an important figure in film.

The New York Times says he was "one of the founding figures of the internationally influential movement that became known as the French New Wave, and the director of more than 50 films for theaters and television" and he "remained true to a restrained, rationalist aesthetic, close to the principles of the 18th-century thinkers whose words he frequently cited in his movies". He was known in America for his film My Night at Maud's (1969).

The BBC says: "He was the director of the critically acclaimed Tales of Four Seasons and one of the key figures of the post-war New Wave cinema movement" and "Rohmer was awarded the Golden Lion at Venice in 2001 for his career's work".

The Philippine Daily Inquirer says his films were "widely distributed abroad".

CBC News describes the New Wave: "The New Wave rejected Hollywood tropes and sought to bring a more edgy, improvised style to cinema. Rohmer avoided both closeups and background music and his slow-moving films show characters in mundane situations such as riding a bicycle or waiting for a train".

His death is also reported in The New Zealand Herald.

His obituary in The Daily Telegraph describes him as "the most durable film-maker of the French New Wave" who outlasted his peers and "in his seventies was still making movies the public wanted to see". --candlewicke 20:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - important person - TouLouse (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Support, while I have concerns about whether this death was expected or not, he was important in French Cinema. I suggest a blurb mention that he was influential in the development of French New Wave. ~DC Talk To Me 21:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Important figure in his field. Support when the article is updated a bit. --Tone 22:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, as this is the English Wikipedia, if I remember correctly. The death of a French film director hardly seems of all that great importance. If we were the French Wikipedia, perhaps, but we're not. UnitAnode 22:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is notable enough or not, but one quick point Unita, we don't discriminate on the basis of nationality. We examine nominations on the basis of the subject's worldwide importance. Now, I'm not saying this guy is important, I don't know. But we don't disqualify because he's French and we speak English. HonouraryMix (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so it's not "discriminating" when people knee-jerk oppose US-based noms, but it is "discriminating" when I point out that we're editing the English Wikipedia, and that perhaps we should focus on issues that are of more interest to people who are in some way English? I see. UnitAnode 22:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I specifically provided sources from prominent English-speaking countries and media, some with a large population (which appeals to some of those whose opinions are often found here). I did not mention the amount of coverage he has received in the French media. --candlewicke 22:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. He clearly was an important film director but he seems a bit unfamiliar to English-speaking audiences. He died at the age of 89 and not during an active stage of his career. He only gets about 1500 hits on google news, which isn't a huge number. Plus, there really isn't that much prose in the article. Also, there's been some talk that too many deaths are mentioned on ITN and this certainly seems to be one that doesn't have to go up.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It is discriminating when people "knee-jerk oppose US-based noms", but I see no evidence of that. Case in point, I opposed the nomination of Cowell, but I also opposed a UK-based nomination, and I'm British. HonouraryMix (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
support when more content about reaction over his death is added to the article -- Ashish-g55 22:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment. We did not report the death of Ingmar Bergmann, a director who is far more notable. Now, I don't really support the 'we report x so we must report y' argument, but it does get me thinking which film directors, or film personalities in general, are considered worthy for ITN mention. I think the deaths of many much more notable and certainly more familiar to English-speaking audiences would be hotly contested here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)a
Oh, and FWIW the article gets far less traffic than Iris Robinson.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) We didn't have the same criteria back in 2007. Anyway, one of the criteria is the quality and update of the article and this one is not ready yet. I think we can continue the debate when/if the article is expanded, otherwise we're just losing time here... --Tone 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ingmar Bergman died at the wrong time (like Luciano Pavarotti, etc, they would have a better chance if they had chosen to die today). The death criteria were tighter then. --candlewicke 23:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Weak support, I think this is harmless. The guy is notable, we have fulfilled all the criteria (including international reaction to his death). My hesitation is the state of the article, which doesn't give much to suggest his exceptional notability, but at least it give more than the blurb (which is not always the case for "general news" stories that are posted. Physchim62 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not notable enough for inclusion. There are many far more notable directors out there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Who are they? --candlewicke 02:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Besides the obvious (scorcese and others of that magnitude), even his contemporary Jean-Luc Godard is more well-known to film audiences, as are other French filmmakers such as Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Jenuet appears not to have an article. And Jean-Luc Godard, Scorsese and all his associates can go up when they die too. :-) --candlewicke 02:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Lol, typo on Jeunet. Godard I'd at least consider, which proves my point. Besides, we already have a page for deaths in 2010, we don't have to list every third one on the main page. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Can't see the wide significance. And he was 90. Grsz11 02:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Well anyway, this always happens after I update it. :P In case anyone changes their mind I suggest:

Film director Éric Rohmer, a key figure in the French New Wave movement, dies at the age of 89. --candlewicke 02:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It is also 24 hours since there has been an update... --candlewicke 02:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
True, but there's no consensus for this one. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose his death wasn't exactly unexpected. --PlasmaTwa2 05:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Chinese gender (im)balance report

I've come up with better nominations, but we seem to be short on stories at the moment. Physchim62 (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It's an interesting story, but I'm leaning towards oppose. First, there isn't much of an update (if any) that I saw to the article you bolded. Plus I don't think it's of much significance. ~DC Talk To Me 17:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the update can be sorted out, if there's interest in the story. In the international media, we have (The Times) (The Age) (Bangkok Post) (France24), just to do a quick check. The general subject is of great significance: the question for me is whether this is the story to go on ITN. Physchim62 (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. It is simply a possibility which may happen in future. It does not seem to be fact . --candlewicke 22:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose So....? Pretty meaningless announcement. Grsz11 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

January 10

ITN candidates for January 10

Issa bin Zayed Al Nahyan

  • Sheikh Issa 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. CNN Reuters "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."[28] Seems significant enough to me. Any comments? --BorgQueen (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The article needs a lot of work though. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
That's the way it's supposed to be. If Physchim62 is shocked that when a royal happens to set a man's genitals on fire, drive over him with an SUV and electrocute his anus he gets arrested then I feel sorry for the world.
If there was a "Prince Charles tortures someone video" (just an example, I have no reason to believe that, and 'no libel') when people found out I think that would be on ITN. If he was acquitted (!), that would be news too, don't you think?
It's very rare because there aren't many royals out there (and they're supposed to be brought up to be good citizens and grew up in basically the opposite a rough environment) so the only ones that'd do this would be the ones who are just born naturally sadistic (and possibly ones where some guy killed his mother or something and was later at his mercy, I dunno) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
Strong Support There was video evidence and he still wasn't convicted. This shows that the criminal justice system of the United Arab Emirates doesn't work, which being the justice not of some banana republic but a highly-regarded country is striking. I think that if you're not that person, this acquittal is even more important than the crime because it shows this is systematic of an entire society instead of an isolated individual (maybe that particular royal just happens to be evil, so what?, humans.. it happens) The contrast between the most technologically advanced building ever and the most liberal country in the Muslim world with near-slavery labor and a rotten system from police to courts is striking. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Anyone else? --BorgQueen (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

World's first sex robot

Oppose. Take this to DYK instead. Modest Genius talk 15:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose Not worldly-significant by any stretch of the imagination. HonouraryMix (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

China world's largest exporter

Flag of the People's Republic of China.svg
The article is not updated. When it is, tentative support. --Tone 16:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
Support, pretty notable event. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. However, I'd like to note that it won't be confirmed until Germany publishes its 2009 figures in February.[29]. Offliner (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong Theft

Is this one a prediction? --candlewicke 21:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
Oppose. Arrests are not enough, a conviction is required. Even then, I doubt this is important enough. Modest Genius talk 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Darts World Championship

Support, I don't see why darts shouldn't be on ITN when we have almost every other sport - Dumelow (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Support for the same reason. --candlewicke 21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Who won? --candlewicke 12:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
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 Genius talk 13:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.