Upozornenie: Prezeranie týchto stránok je určené len pre návštevníkov nad 18 rokov! Zásady ochrany osobných údajov. Používaním tohto webu súhlasíte s uchovávaním cookies, ktoré slúžia na poskytovanie služieb, nastavenie reklám a analýzu návštevnosti. OK, súhlasím
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.
900 ships are stranded in south China's Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region amid falling water level caused by severe drought. The waterway traffic jam started on Wuzhou City section of Xijiang River. (China Daily)
At least 50 fatalities in Western Europe. One of the worst since 1999. JollyΩJanner 14:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Bad indeed. Ready to post when the article is a bit longer. --Tone 15:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Support. Already news in Australia, India, China. 1 million + homes without power and all of Spain is on "under red alert". It is heading for Denmark. --candle•wicke 15:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I see. The China Daily link above said "Spain has placed all of the country's five regions under red alert". --candle•wicke 16:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Support. --bender235 (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Support, by number of deaths, I make it the worst European windstorm for 20 years, since the Burns' Day storm of 1990. JollyΩJanner 17:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Support in principle, but I'd like to see the article improved first. Modest Geniustalk 18:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Support, and how about this fun moving GIF? That'd be fun on the front page. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Make sure it's the low resolution one, Because the high res is over 3MB!
This image is not really the best idea because on a thumb size, it is not really informative - too small. Otherwise, the article looks more or less stable now, shall we post? Blurb? --Tone 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Support. Significant windstorm, still ongoing, but the image is attribution-copyrighted which is OK but not as good as GFDL or public domain, although the size is good, as it is animated (not sure if we've had that before), and it's suitable as a main page thumnail, but I'm not familiar with the fancy false colour. The article, however needs to be expanded. As for the blurb, how about "Xynthia, a North AtlanticwinterEuropean windstorm, kills at least 55 people in Western Europe and brings winds of 228 km/h (142 mph) to Orduña, Spain" (update as needed)? ~AH1(TCU) 23:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I prefer "A storm(path animated) brings strong winds and flooding across Europe, leaving at least 50 dead."
Would advise not to use the image for the moment. Copyright problems. Not sure if EUMETSAT imagery can be used on Wikipedia following a request on my Commons talk page. JollyΩJanner 00:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Posted without image for now. -- tariqabjotu 11:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Moved to 28 Feb - Dumelow (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support when result is known. --candle•wicke 21:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Wikipedia needs to stop posting election results from insignificant countries, especially when these elections are more or less a formality. No one cares that some "People's Democratic Party" formed a majority in the Tajikstan lower house. And the article is terrible. Colipon+(Talk) 05:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Obvious Support when updated - For 'insignificant countries' should we read countries Colipon doesn't like. There are 7m people in Tajikistan, so maybe you don't care but many others will. Plus what entirely objective method do you use to decide what is a notable country. Let me guess, its the standard, 'I haven't heard of it and have no interest in it so it's not important' --Daviessimo (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support By the rules, this is going up since it's a major national legislative election. HonouraryMix (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I'm all for including Tajikistan when it's appropriate, but the article is only two sentences long! This is why hard-and-fast "rules" for ITN are a bad idea, in my opinion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Except the number one 'hard and fast rule' for all items is a... a fully referenced update. All others rules follow and have no position to override the update rule. Thus, even though a political election should be listed per ITNR, without an update, it will not. Not having hard and fast rules makes it more likely that articles lacking an update or with POV or cite tags are more likely to end up on the main page --Daviessimo (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Even if it is a 'hard and fast rule' I think it can be spared in this situation. If this was a game-changing election in the Marshall Islands where they decided to establish constitutional reforms or something, I would be more than supportive of posting it. But this is just a regular parliamentary election, not to mention merely one for show to consolidate that power of its current leader. It is just not notable. Colipon+(Talk) 18:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm praying for either or both North American teams to lose in the semifinals so this will have a better chance. LOL –HowardtheDuck 13:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
There's no reason both can't be featured together (hockey gold medal and closing ceremony) no matter which country wins. Grsz11 14:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
There's a trend that North American teams win in Winter Games that are hosted by North American cities except Calgary. However, no team has dominated this tournament in recent years so this can have a fair chance unlike say, basketball in 2008. –HowardtheDuck 14:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Let's start this conversation now before it inevitably comes up tomorrow.
Canada and the U.S. play tomorrow for the gold medal in the men's ice hockey tournament in Vancouver.
We have not included any individual Olympic event on ITN yet. We did not include the women's ice hockey gold medal game.
However, the men's ice hockey gold medal game is something uniquely huge. It is hard to exaggerate just how big this game is in Canada. Hockey is like a religion there -- kids are put in ice skates before they can walk and Wayne Gretzky's dad is an instantly recognizable national celebrity based solely on being Wayne Gretzky's dad. The preliminary round game with the U.S. got TV ratings 50% higher than those of the Super Bowl (usually the biggest TV event of the year in Canada) and comparable with those of the Super Bowl in the U.S. This is not only the biggest sporting event of the year to Canadians, it's probably the biggest event, period, for Canada in 2010 -- even if they have an election this year. If we are to have any item of Canadian interest, or any hockey item, on ITN this year, this should be it. The game will also be quite a big deal in the U.S. and to hockey fans all over the world.
ITN strives to include entries from the entire world and does an admirable job of doing so, including many items that are absent from most English-language media. However, we should take into account that this is the English-language Wikipedia and that sometimes, we can and do include things that are of greater interest to our readership than to the general world population. It's not a zero-sum thing, and there's plent of room for both "world" events and "English-speaking country" events.
I hope Canada wins so it'll be "international" but the Olympics was held in Canada so the U.S. winning may be more international... but it is the U.S. so it's not international so what the hell...
P.S. I bet the discussion for this blurb will reach Haig (but not Kennedy) proportions. If I win I should have a barnstar of betting or something. –HowardtheDuck 03:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't give a shit about ice hockey but I'll be watching this match. I think the rarity and the acrimony of this merits posting on ITN and if ever there were an individual event to post, this would be it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
If Canada regards this as important (and I believed it did even before reading that) I think it should be posted when they win. --candle•wicke 05:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
What if the team from the big bad country whose name must not be named wins? If that team won, if would be considered as an upset. –HowardtheDuck 05:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
this should be posted doesnt matter who wins (although fingers crossed for Canada!). and as a separate blurb since it has nothing to do with the closing ceremony -- Ashish-g55 06:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree with posting no matter who wins the match, but also agree with combining the blurb so the Olympics don't dominate the template. (And despite the fact that I've not watched an entire hockey match in years, don't expect to see me online during this one. This is a big one.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support posting the closing ceremony and ice hockey in one blurb. Also note the hockey is on WP:ITNR, and there's no need to try to explain this as being 'English-language speaking' news - it's bone fide world news. Modest Geniustalk 12:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I oppose posting only the men's hockey gold medal winner out of the 86 total that have been awarded during the Games, especially if it based on an unverified claim that it is "the single most popular or important sport in the Olympics". It may be the "most popular or important" Olympic sport in your country, but not necessarily in every country that has participants. IMO, it also looks extremely bias when only one of the 86 gold medalist are featured directly on ITN when we also have, for example, figure skater Kim Yu-Na breaking world records or speed skater Wang Meng winning three in a row. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support including the hockey final. We can't include all 86 medal winners and the fact that we can't shouldn't prevent us from including one of them. The hockey event is international in scope and very high profile. And just as importantly, the articles are in good shape. There's no bias here, men's hockey in the Olympics is significantly more notible than speed skating or a single record breaking event in figure skating. Not every country has speed skating and figure skating participants, that standard doesn't work either. RxS (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Again, you're repeating the unverified claim that "men's hockey in the Olympics is significantly more notable" than the other Olympic sports. And also, not every country competing in the Olympics has ice hockey participants either. Prime example: Kim Yu-Na's home country South Korea. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. It is not necessarily true that not every country is competing in the Olympic Ice Hockey tourney. All countries are eligible to take part in qualifying. Many countries have teams but are eliminated in pre-Olympic qualifying. The 12 teams that make the Olympics are the 'finalists'. (just like the FIFA World Cup, for which nearly all countries in the world participate at the qualifying stage and 32 make the finals). I'm sure that many countries don't have an ice hockey program, but all are eligible.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
No they don't, you're right. And that just shows what a poor standard it is to use for inclusion. So your objection seems to revolve around the fact that Olympic Hockey might not be more notable than speed skating or a single world record in figure skating. I'll let others make a judgement about that but to me it's pretty thin soup. One thing is undisputable, and that is Olympic hockey is international in scope and a very high profile event. That by itself is enough for inclusion. RxS (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure i understand what is so unverifiable about it... There is a reason Men's hockey final is held on the last day of olympics separated from all events. We post basketball during summer olympics and there is no "verification" of it being one of the most notable sport. It is just known by common sense... -- Ashish-g55 17:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
After looking at the page history of ITN when the 2008 Beijing Olympics were going on, Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt's records were posted1 as well as the closing ceremonies.2 But I don't currently see a diff that shows that basketball was in fact posted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, Olympic basketball, the highest level of the sport, was laughingly not posted because the U.S. won, which is not... news. –HowardtheDuck 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'd just like to point out that the ice hockey is on WP:ITNRnot because it is the biggest sport in the Winter Olympics (which it is, but that's irrelevant) but because it's the biggest international competition in ice hockey, and the only one with full involvement from all NHL players. This is an ITN-worthy ice hockey tournament, which just happens to be held as part of the Winter Olympics. Modest Geniustalk 18:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Ok. I'll concede, as per the current footnote on WP:ITNR#Ice Hockey, if the primary reason is that it will replace the posting of 2010 IIHF World Championship in May, not because of the claim that "it is the most significant or important Winter Olympic sport". Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I believe that if Canada wins gold today that they break the all time record for gold medals by one country at the winter Olympics. Would this not be more newsworthy than a single event? Even if they lose, they have also won the most gold medals by a hosting country at the winter games and tie the record for number of golds. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 20:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Yep, Canada. I suggest we post this only when the closing ceremony is over so that there's no need to modify the blurb. It's going to be in a couple of hours anyway. --Tone 22:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
As a basis, might I suggest "The 2010 Winter Olympics host country, Canada, is awarded the highest number of gold medals in the history of the winter events"?
I dont think this should be mixed with closing ceremony. Hockey blurb should have highest number of gold comment and later on post another for closing ceremony. This will be long and awkward blurb just to avoid posting 2. Both things have nothing to do with each other. -- Ashish-g55 23:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't believe the hockey item is newsworthy. What makes it any more important than the other 70 odd events? The closing ceremony, and the new gold medal record (both overall and as a hosting country) are more universal. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 01:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Proposal: Winning gold in Men's Ice Hockey, bring their total to 14, Canada earns the record number of gold medals at an Olympic winter games by any country.
Much better, thanks. RxS (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
You need the word "tournament" after "hockey," and it would be good to say "Winter Olympics" before "record." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Both are good ideas. RxS (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support, though as I mentioned, I don't feel the hockey needs to be mentioned. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 01:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't the US winning the most medals ever at a Winter Olympics be added too? Free As A Byrd (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Do you mean the most for the US or the most for the Olympics because the altter is impossible since Canada topped the medal table. If it's just a one-country record, i'd say no, because there were several other similar feats, including those by Canada, China et al. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The latter. Canada broke the record for Gold medals, the US broke the record for total medals. Free As A Byrd (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Just post "The 2010 Winter Olympics closes in Vancouver, with Canada winning the final in Ice Hockey against the United States." No need really to post the records. It's not really news as much as it is stats. This is why I also oppose that cricket record breaking. Colipon+(Talk) 05:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Posted Both the closing ceremony and the hockey result. -- tariqabjotu 11:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Libya's leader calls for Jihad (holy war) against Switzerland
Support. Not every day war is declared. Not every century Switzerland goes to war. --candle•wicke 01:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Let's decide whether or not to post it on the basis of a weakening of relations between Switzerland and Libya (probably not a very active diplomatic link anyway) and not get drawn into hyperbole about what would happen if Switzerland were not where Switzerland is. Kevin McE (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose unless something actually happens. At the moment this is just a vitriolic speech by a dictator. Modest Geniustalk 18:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, like I said, not every day a war is declared and declarations of war are not handed out for fun either. --candle•wicke 21:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
More discussion and specific article required. ~AH1(TCU) 23:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Only a bunch of fiddle-faddle and malarky from the leader of the country about how there needs to be a holy war against Switzerland and that if Switzerland bordered Libya, he would invade. But, like Candlewicke said, not every day that a holy war is called for against Switzerland, of all countries. Ks0stm(T•C•G) 05:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Technically a war hasn't been officially declared although I'm not even sure you can have a true declaration with a holy war. Given that jihad is the only form of war allowed under Islamic law, I'd say this is as close to a true declaration as I think you can get. However on the flip-side, its not like this is that big in the broader scheme of things. I'm fairly certain most extremist Muslims are more pissed off about Iraq and Afghanistan than Switzerland. And anyway, history tells us its not likely that Switzerland are going to start preparing the troops --Daviessimo (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Nauru holds a referendum on changes to its national constitution. The most significant are the introduction of directly elected presidents (instead of being appointed by parliament) and the strengthening of human rights legislation - Dumelow (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support if it succeeds; along the lines of Angola in January. Grsz11 14:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The Hindu in particular seems to indicate this is not a routine visit. Manmohan Singh is only the third PM to visit following Nehru (1955) and Gandhi (1982). He is to get a formal reception tomorrow. The entire Cabinet — including Riyadh Governor Prince Abdul Aziz bin Mohammad bin Ayaf and Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz — greeted him at the airport, "a rare gesture" and "in a departure from normal protocol norms" they "rolled out the red carpet". "Dr. Singh’s three-day visit puts an end to the lull in India-Saudi Arabia ties". (The Times of India)(The Hindu) --candle•wicke 22:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Two good, well rounded articles, support. Not a super engaging topic but should draw readers. RxS (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I find it quite engaging. I must be unusual. :-) --candle•wicke 01:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong Support I know I'm not a registered Wikipedia user, but I would still like to express my opinion on this. This the first visit by an Indian PM to Saudi Arabia in 28 years 3. This is a very major event in South Asia and Middle East especially because of the fact that 1.2 million Indians live in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia supplies 20% of crude oil to India. Manmohan Singh will be one of the only few to have addressed the Saudi Shura Council 4. There are also major strategic implications - An extradition treaty is to be signed and there can be some effects on the talks between India and Pakistan.
This is indeed a very important event, especially in South Asian and Middle Eastern context. Thanks --128.210.90.30 (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Wang (centre) at the medal presentation for the 500 metres
Here is an event from the Olympics and an achievement by women in sport too: Wang Meng has become China's first winter Olympian to win three gold medals at one single Games and meant China had had a clean sweep of the women's events in Vancouver. (Shanghai Daily)(China Daily) --candle•wicke 22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose, or we'd end up with a flood of gold medal stories every time there was an olympics. Modest Geniustalk 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I second that. Actually, Marit Bjørgen won 3 gold as well and one silver and one bronze, making it 5 altogether. --Tone 22:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Thirded; someone wins three golds at every Olympics, that this is the PRC's first time in a Winter Games doesn't merit posting this. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Fourthed?? I very slightly prefer this to the ice hockey/figure skating story in that there is a story but there are much better stories coming out of Vancouver atm. For example, the impressiveness of Norway's medal record despite the country having (as one of the American papers put it) the population of Detroit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
This is despite Norway already having the mostmedals ever? They consider that news in America? :- Which paper? --candle•wicke 04:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Norway does have plenty of snow so... –HowardtheDuck 04:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Indeed. What should be compared is not the total population of each country, but the population which engages in winter sports. I'd be way more surprised to see a Brazilian gold than a Norwegian one, despite Brazil having a far higher population. Modest Geniustalk 18:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Another big snow storm in North America, strength of a category two hurricane, up to 135 cm of snow reported in the storm. How about "A major winter storm strikes the eastern United States and Canada, bringing up to 53 inches (135 cm) of snow to central New York"? Here's an image to the right if we want to use it. ~AH1(TCU) 16:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support only if are deaths. - TouLouse (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. A third one this year and it's only February? The last time I opposed this (it must have been the first one) because it was happening just every year. Since a perfectly good earthquake was rejected due to lack of destruction yesterday and a perfectly good earthquake was posted due to lots of destruction today I am not sure it makes sense to post a blizzard which has caused such little damage. --candle•wicke 18:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
8.3 earthquake in Chile. - TouLouse (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Big Support. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it in the last five years. Two large earthquakes in less than 12 hours, I'm scared. — Cargoking talk 08:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong Support - 8+ magnitude earthquakes are pretty rare --Daviessimo (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong Support so hurry up. --Sakitalk 09:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Now, this one is an earthquake story; tentatively the seventh strongest ever'. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Adding my support here as well, especially as the article is taking shape nicely. A good mix of geological history and we can rely on people to add more information as it becomes available. Carcharoth (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't know if you want this image. — Cargoking talk 14:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The end could be soon, before December 21, 2012 :(. - 2 catastrophic earthquakes in just 2 months, horrible... - TouLouse (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
We should mention that the quake is the strongest worldwide since 2004, and the strongest in Chile since the 1960 Valdivia earthquake. ~AH1(TCU) 16:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Kim Yuna, Korean figure skater,won the gold medal with new world record in both short programme and free skate with the total of 228.56, which is another world record in the total score, becoming the first South Korean skater to medal in any discipline of figure skating at the Olympic Games. Kim's gold medal was South Korea's first medal at the Winter Olympics.(BBC)
A girls' boarding school dormitory in KwaZulu-Natal is shut down due to widespread lesbian activity. (BBC)
Wang Meng wins her third gold medal in the 1,000 meters short track at Vancouver to become China's first winter Olympian to win three gold medals at one Games and give China all the women's titles. (Shanghai Daily)(China Daily)
Brazilian police investigate after a newborn baby dies while two doctors argue during the mother's labour in an Ivinhema hospital. (The Irish Times)
Politiken apologises for its reprint of a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban in 2008 but is criticised by other Danish newspapers. (BBC)
wait for more info. if there is no damage then i oppose since then its some random earthquake off coast. japan gets many of these (maybe not a 7.3 but still...) -- Ashish-g55 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
No damage means I oppose; these aren't that uncommon in the Pacific. If there's damage, I'd support it, but an earthwuake that doesn't cause damage is a non-story, IMO. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose looks like no casualties. tsunami warning has been lifted.Wikireader41 (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose little or no damage, and not all that big for the Pacific rim. -- Avenue (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose if there is nothing significant about it (tsunami, casualties, build destruction) Metallurgist (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Looks like a bigger one has struck in Chile. 8.5 magnitude. I agree that the ones which go on ITN have to be the ones that get most coverage. So you have to wait and see what reports emerge, both for this one and the Japan one. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose If there are no destructive effects. I don't think 7 is that big in the broader scheme of things (i.e. on average there are a dozen or so 7+ earthquakes per year), especially when there has been an 8+ earthquake in Chile --Daviessimo (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
— notable for being one of the few attacks in central Kabul and also for the high number of foreign casualties. --Nosedown (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Neutral. Events like this are sadly not uncommon in Afghanistan and the death toll for this doesn't seem particularly high, though attacks in the centre of Kabul are less common, so I'm on the fence on this one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Neutral, leaning oppose as HJ Mitchell says, these are entirely too common in Afghanistan, this one only distinguished by location. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
But how else do you distinguish events like this if not by location? Surely being in an unusual location adds to the notability? I am confused as there is an admission that people do not die this way in these numbers in central Kabul very often but at the same time it is said to be very common. This appears to me to be somewhat contradictory. --candle•wicke 01:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
It is amazing to see how misinformed, ignorant people come here and shower their opinions. Sorry to be rude, but what do you mean by attacks in Kabul are "not uncommon" and this attack is "only distinguished by location"? How many attacks in Kabul result in the killings of 11 foreign nationals? How many attacks in Kabul have the potential of derailing peace talks between two nuclear-armed rivals? I would like to know and please list them and then bring up the issue of attacks being "not uncommon". Please, if you are unaware of the issue, then do not comment rather than displaying your ignorance. --Nosedown (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
P.S. I apologize for my outburst. But people should at least read though the article before commenting here. --Nosedown (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I would be far more inclined to support and fight for this if there were any of that in the article. The article currently has about half a dozen lines of prose (excluding background and lead). What's there is a good start, but I'd like to see at least a little substance before this is properly considered for ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose, agree with HJMitchell, the article is a little thin. RxS (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. Major attack, significant death toll. ~AH1(TCU) 16:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Glacier struck
An iceberg about the size of Luxembourg that struck a glacier off Antarctica and dislodged another massive block of ice could lower the levels of oxygen in the world's oceans, Australian and French scientists said Friday. 5 - TouLouse (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
That's a "could" so unless there is something unusual about the iceberg/block of ice right now... --candle•wicke 22:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong support. Even without the possible disruptive effects on ocean currents and oxygen content and salinity, this iceberg has been floating off coast of East Antarctica for several years before striking the glacier tongue6, and the dislocation of the tongue could mean faster glacier melt into the ocean, and this occurd in an area where above-normal temperatures have seeped into the area. We also have an article on it, and since we featured the Wilkins Sound ice sheet partial collapse then we should include this as well. How about "An iceberg the size of Luxembourg strikes the 78 km long Mertz Glacier Tongue in East Antarctica, calving it away from the glacier, causing both chunks of ice to float into the Indian Ocean with possible effects on ocean oxygen content." ~AH1(TCU) 04:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. A "once in a century" event according to glaciologists. --bender235 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
We have a blurb, we have support. Are there any objections? By the way, the iceberg has been migrating out of the Ross Ice Shelf since 1987, so it's not a very common event. ~AH1(TCU) 02:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Belated support, article Mertz Glacier is in decent shape and it's a topic not often covered in ITN so it's a good gatway to a different set of articles. RxS (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)reply
NASA chief Charles Bolden says Mars is too difficult
comment this is just fallout of the budget proposal by obama. ofcourse if there is no money to spend it becomes a lot more difficult. when constellation program is officially canceled thats when we should post it. -- Ashish-g55 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Interesting, but the article is tagged for neutrality and rewrite. It can't go on ITN while those issues remain and I'd be surprised if they could be resolved in time for this to still be "news" unfortunately. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nope, that's not going to happen any time soon :) I wasn't aware that ITN articles had to be "clean", and there are no clean Venezuelan articles for that text, so them's the breaks I guess! (I had cleaned up at least that one section, hoping that would do it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
A court has ruled that over half of the former Thai PM's assets are to be seized, a figure amounting to greater than $1bn. Relevant section of article is Thaksin_Sinawatra#Frozen_asset_seizure --Daviessimo (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. Very well updated! --BorgQueen (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Actually, it wasn't me who updated the page. I came across the BBC article and went to make an update and saw that it had already been done. If there is enough support for this to go up, I think the credit for the update belongs to User:Patiwat --Daviessimo (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Nice update, and hopefully this will finally end the Sinawatra affair. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
A well-worded blurb please? --BorgQueen (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I removed two neutrality tags that were added by an IP w/o any talk page discussion. RxS (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
EU: Goods made at Jewish settlements are not Israeli
The European Court of Justice has ruled that Israeli goods made in Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank cannot be considered Israeli. This means goods made by Israelis or Jews in the West Bank cannot benefit from a trade deal giving Israel preferential access to EU markets. EU import duties on Israeli goods from the settlements may now be imposed, making them less competitive. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8538251.stm—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.9.137 (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now; of all the regular events around Israel/West Bank/Lebanon/Syria, this verdict by the ECJ doesn't seem to have the necessary importance to post. Some small part of what Israel was now getting covered by this deal will no longer be. The problem is that if this marks a shift in the EU's attitude towards the State of Israel, it'll be revealed too late to post this item on ITN. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Come on Ashishg, let's be welcoming! For a film, we normally only post it if there is something highly unusual or notable about it. For example, we posted Avatar when that broke the box office record, though that was also the most expensive film ever made I believe. We also post the winners of certain highly notable award ceremonies/ film festivals. Thank you for nominating, anyway and feel free to renominate or nominate another if it wins awards or breaks records. Otherwise, you could nominate it for the Did You Know section if it's been heavily expanded recently. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
This nom makes me want to cut my arm off. --PlasmaTwa2 19:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Sorry, no can do. Things like this aren't really of any notability. If we were to list every single film première we would run out of space for anything else. Thanks for the nom anyway. — Cargoking talk 19:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
lol i thought i was welcoming :) pointed Rock drum to right direction -- Ashish-g55 19:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Defeated Sri Lanka presidential candidate General Sarath Fonseka is charged with additional counts in addition to treason in the aftermath of his failed election bid. (The Hindu)
Algeria's police chief shot dead by colleague in police HQ
The article is Ali Tounsi, though it is a little short at the moment but it might be possible to expand if anyone finds it interesting enough. According to Press TV, Tounsi headed the National police for 15 years and the commander-in-chief of the airborne police force is said to have killed him. It seems he shot himself after his "attack of madness". --candle•wicke 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm not quite sure about this one. I'm don't believe its quite notable enough for the Main Page. SpencerT♦Nominate! 03:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
But how often is a country's police chief shot dead by the commander-in-chief of its airborne police force? --candle•wicke 02:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I am not so much into art. After reading the news it surely seems significant considering the history of the painting and its owners/claimers. Also, the stuff is "official" now and on the main pages of many news website. I Support. --GPPande 17:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Any supports? It is a unique discovery because: "Complete skulls have been recovered for only eight of more than 120 known varieties of sauropod. 7", and according to our article, it is "the first described complete skull for a Cretaceous sauropod from the Americas." --BorgQueen (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I'll go with that! Support. The article is in reasonable shape, although it only has a single reference for the moment. I won't let that stop me supporting, as the reference is to the original research paper, i.e. it is the best Reliable Source available, but some more background would be nice. Physchim62(talk) 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Count my Support. Unique discovery. --GPPande 15:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support as well; this doesn't happen every day. As much as I don't buy the death/Afghanistan criticism of ITN, this is a nice change of pace. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Posting. --Tone 16:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Giant Shark
What about this. The fossils of a giant 10m long prehistoric shark have been discovered. The relevant article is Ptychodus mortoni. --Daviessimo (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I thought about this one but reading the article the main advance here is that the learned fair a bit more about a species they already knew existed. If a new type was discovered, I'd support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Is this an WP:ITNR event? If so then discussion is perhaps best held there but it seems to me the women's event is far from justifiable on its own merits in ITN. I'm all for striving for more coverage of women's events, but I suggest featuring figure skating rather than women's hockey. That's a much bigger sport as a women's event.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)reply
It will be big if (gasp!) USA and Canada brawl at each other during the gold medal game. –HowardtheDuck 05:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
You have some insider's knowledge on who's in the final? Let me call my bookie ;). Anyway, I don't think we normally havie a consisitant pattern of posting both men's and women's events of parallel events unless both are notable on their own. (e.g. grand slam tennis). We don't feature both the NBA champ and the WBA champion. We don't post the European Foothall Championship for both men and women. Why should we do so with Olympic hockey?--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
USA and Canadian teams had always contested the top two spots since they had women's ice hockey since 1998 except in 2006 when Sweden was 2nd and USA was 3rd. The USA and Canada have the fierecest rivalry in women's ice hockey I'd only support if the GMG goes into OT and the girls have a brawl.
Also, I do think the guys here added the women's UEFA championship final. I'm not sure on that, though. –HowardtheDuck 06:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The only woman's football event on ITNR is FIFA Women's World Cup, though the most recent women's European championship may well have been posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Lemme repost me conditional support for this entry. I'd only support if both events happen:
The two teams brawl, and
The game goes into overtime or even better, shootout. –HowardtheDuck 11:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
support as we will post mens. wba is a totally different league than nba so its not really the same thing. we have mens and womens ice hockey in same olympics. it would look odd to have just mens. for figure skating below i oppose since we did not post mens... and in figure skating ice dancing is considered one of the biggest event too and we did not post that either. -- Ashish-g55 19:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose I see no need to post both. There is a drastic difference in notability. As I've tried to explain below there are far more notable women's events in the Olympics. --Johnsemlak (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. We already have a link on the bottom to the Olympic summary. I'm opposed to the idea that we should post, directly on ITN, only a few selective gold medalists based on the flawed presumption that they competed in one of the "most popular or important" events during the Games. It may be the "most popular or important" Olympic sport in your country, but not necessarily in every country that has participants. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Figure Skating--Ladies singles
The medal will be decided tonight. Currently, we are due today, per ITNR, to post the winner of the Women's Olympic Ice Hockey tournament. I strongly support that we replace this with the Ladies' singles figure skating event, which is a much more widely followed women's sporting event. The women's hockey is on ITNR simply because the men's is, but they are drastically different events in terms of notability. I think it makes much more sense to post women's figure skating in terms of trying to promote some women's sports. Figure skating has produced many famous household names such as Peggy Fleming and Katarina Witt who are well known outside their home countries. The current leader and likely winner, Kim Yu-Na has set a new world record in the opening round so that's also quite notable. It can be argued that its inappropriate to post only the Ladies' single and leave out the mens' and the pairs but I think we can link to the main figure skating in Vancouver article where all the results are listed; plus the ladies' singles is the premier event, as seen by the fact that it is the final event. Several articles will need to be improved but I think they all have decent starts.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I oppose both women's hockey and figure skating. The tournament this year has done nothing but show all the problems with women's hockey in the Olympics; I used to support it, but now I think it should be taken off. However, I don't see how women's figure skating is any more popular than women's skiing or speed skating any other women's sport in the Olympics, especially this year, given all the hype about Vonn in skiing. In fact, I think if there was an event to put up on ITN, it would have been the controvery yesterday when the coach cost the speed skater the gold medal. The women's figure skating can be found in the Olympic highlights link; if you are going to argue that ladies' figure skating is the premier event, I'm going to counter by saying that the men's hockey is the premier event of the entire Olympics and the only event that is worthy of ITN on its own, given all the professional players and the huge status it has in Canada, Russia, etc. --PlasmaTwa2 06:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I don't even want to imagine the complaints we'd get if we were to post women's figure skating and men's ice hockey!! We'd be better off posting nothing at all – ie, not even the men's ice hockey – than such blatant gender stereotyping! Physchim62(talk) 09:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Gender stereotyping? Well, our current policy is to more or less never post women's sports events at all--does that contribute to stereotyping any less? It's a real-world fact that many popular women's spectator sports like gymnastics or figure skating involve aesthetics. That doesn't make them less notable. I'll let consensus decide whether women's figure skating is notable enough for ITN, but there is absolutely no comparison between that of women's figure skating and women's ice hockey, stereotypes aside.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
oppose figure skating but support ice hockey. -- Ashish-g55 19:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose to both. There are far better stories from the olympics than these two. I'd like to see something from there on ITN but why figure skating and ice hockey and not Ski Cross/bobsleigh/curling/slalom? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - tend to agree with HJMitchell. I was always under the impression that the men's and women's downhill were the showpiece events in the same way that the 100m is the showpiece for the summer Olympics. The only reason we are listing the hockey is because it is apparently the highest level of international ice hockey, but you could argue that this is the case for many events in the winter olympics --Daviessimo (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
olympics hockey is the biggest event. for comparison 10.6 mil canadians (thats 1/3rd of entire country) saw the US vs Canada game which made it the most watched television event in canadian history. i suspect Canada vs Russia already broke that record and it will be broken again if Canada is in finals. so posting mens hockey is essential. womens should be posted only to make it fair. (and i dont mean post it if canada is there... it should be posted either way.) -- Ashish-g55 20:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
That may be the case for North America, but I'm talking about for the world as a whole. Viewing figures in Canada or the US aren't representative of the whole world. I mean, certainly here in the UK, skiing has always been the 'big' winter sport, so much so that the BBC's winter sports coverage is called Ski Sunday, even though it covers other sports.
I'm not arguing against the inclusion of the men's hockey, because, as people have previously pointed out, it is the top level of international ice hockey. However, I am saying that I don't think we should start adding other events just for the sake of it, unless there is a rationale behind it. The vast majority of individual sporting pursuits do not have a listing on ITN (e.g diving, athletics, skiing, swimming) unless there is a world record. Why change that now? I say, leave it at mens hockey and then just post the closing ceremony --Daviessimo (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
well i dont disagree with you about that. but women's we may wanna add for neutrality purposes. and edit the blurb on sunday to add men's. -- Ashish-g55 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The Men's Ice Hockey is certainly the biggest event not only in North America. Hockey is a national sport in much of northern Europe, and obviously Russia. It's not popular in the UK but globally it's at least as popular as a sport like Rugby Union.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Heh. Like seriously, any of these Winter Olympics blurbs are certainly more international and has bigger coverage than some of the current ITN items... –HowardtheDuck 12:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. We already have a link on the bottom to the Olympic summary. I'm opposed to the idea that we should post, directly on ITN, only a few selective gold medalists based on the flawed presumption that they competed in one of the "most popular or important" events during the Games. It may be the "most popular or important" Olympic sport in your country, but not necessarily in every country that has participants. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
It is not flawed in any respect to think men's ice hockey is the single most popular sport in the Olympics. The men's tournment surpasses the World Championship and Stanley Cup in both popularity and importance worldwide; it is the only event where there is true best-on-best competition between the top hockey nations, as in the World Championship the best players are usually competing in the Stanley Cup playoffs instead. Above I said I oppose both women's hockey and figure skating, but I strongly support a blurb on the final of the men's hockey tournament. --PlasmaTwa2 06:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
IMO, it will be extremely bias to single out only one gold medal winner out of the 86 total that will be awarded during the Games, especially if it based on an unverified claim that it is "the single most popular sport in the Olympics". Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
OK, I'm gonna make one more attempt at arguing this, though it this story isn't getting much traction here. Now that we know the winner, Kim Yu-na, and the other medalists, particularly Canada's Joanie Rochette, there are some notable facts about this event: It is the first ever medal in figure skating by a South Korean skater, it is the highest score ever in the event, and it also features the drama of bronze medalist Rochette medaling despite her mother dying. In terms of global news coverage, this event is on the front page, photo and all, of nearly every Canadian and American news site, with Canada having greater emphasis on the Canadian medalist. In other parts of the world, it is not covered so prominently but it is certainly reported very widely: Sydney Morning Herald, L'Equipe, Le Parisien, The Hindu, RAI Novisti (figure skating is certainly a big sport in Russia), Eurosport, etc. I think this is pretty extensive coverage from countries that the medalists did not come from--one clear trend in global reporting on the Olympics is that the media focus on their own country's participants. And finally, let's not forget the obvious, that this is huge in Korea and Japan, which along with the above make this a pretty large global story.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I'd have to agree with you. We certainly can't report on every Winter Games event, nor can we report on every film festival, hence we pick those which have been traditionally been big. The traditional biggest draws in the Winter Olympics have been men's ice hockey and women's figure skating. And probably the sport where they slide rocks and sweep the ice and I dunno how it became an Olympic sport... –HowardtheDuck 12:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. I looked in the commons for Kim Yu-Na and there are all kinds of photos. -SusanLesch (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
This 1836 painting, a masterpiece by French artist Delaroche of Charles I of England just before his execution in 1649, was damaged in 1941 during The Blitz. After being rolled up and forgotten about, believed destroyed or damaged beyond repair, nealy 70 years later it was rediscovered, in a much better condition than previously thought. After a basic patch up, it is to go on display for the first time, on February 24, in the National Gallery of London. According to the gallery director, art historiain Nicholas Penny, this is "huge", with Delaroche being one of "the greatest painters of the 19th century". MickMacNee (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Before accident it was the sixth largest hydroplant in the world and even restarting the one unit of ten is significant event. Beagel (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Good article, big power plant. Made me click on it. RxS (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Accident news was posted on ITN, I guess. Moreover, not the entire plant has come up. Not significant. --GPPande 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Maybe not the top news but still significant event. The Train 7 is also the world biggest train by production capacity (together with three more trains with the same capacity), but I don't think that this is suitable to add to the hook. Beagel (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not sure how engaging the subject is and the article is a little thin. RxS (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rather late for an official apology, isn't it? In any case, I don't see what makes it inherently notable.--WaltCip (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
It was an apology for mass child abuse in orphanages more or less. The Australian side already did so a few weeks or months ago, and it was teh second story on BBC World Service last evening, after the Nigerian president coming back YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support how often do governments apologize for this kind of a thing ? Wikireader41 (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Two occurrences which may help decide this: A nomination from February 22 "German child abuse archbishop's formal apology" may be similar but received no comments. On the other hand, the apology by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown for the "inhumane" treatment of World War IIcode-breakerAlan Turing, who was sentenced to chemical castration, was posted last September. --candle•wicke 19:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
He has become the first cricketer in history to hit double century in one day international match and broken the previous record of 194 runs. I think world records are welcome nominations on ITN. --GPPande 12:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I'm not a fan of records of this type because its significance is subjective. I mean, why is it more notable than a run record in test cricket or 20/20? Why is a run record more notable than a wicket record? etc etc. --Daviessimo (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
You are comparing apples to oranges. Test match, 20/20 and ODI are three different recognized forms of the game. Cannot compare Test match 200 with ODI 200. If it was to be so simple - then lot many people would have scored 200 in ODI earlier. This is first time in HISTORY. --GPPande 13:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong Support: First time a double century has been scored in the entire 39 years of ODI cricket, and not likely to happen again any time soon either. A record of this kind (regarding wickets/batting/fielding and in whatever form of the sport) is quite significant IMO ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 13:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
It sounds like a significant record, though I and not intimately familiar with the sport. I think there would also be support for a significant record being set in US sports (was it posted, when, say, Barry Bonds broke Hank Aaron's lifetime home run record?) However, I do fear that if we posted this, we would get some complaints--since cricket is not followed in many parts of the world.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Bonds' record was posted. I dunno if it had an WP:FAC's worth of discussion as typical to U.S.-related items. –HowardtheDuck 13:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
What was Bond's record? My concern is that there are numerous records higher than this in cricket (many of which Tendulkar also possesses). I don't mind records when they are outright for their sport, but this record only applies to one form of cricket. --Daviessimo (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Probably irrelevant after the news item has gone up, but I felt I should clear this up - no official records apply to all three forms of cricket together. It's like comparing records in the marathon and the 100m dash because they're both running events. Records for Tests, ODIs and T20 games are maintained separately and there are even players who play only one or two of the three forms. Same basic game but different strategies and different skill-sets, even many different rules. You wouldn't deny a marathoner a sub-2 hour record because Usain Bolt's finished a race in nine point something seconds, would you?(talk)raghuvansh(contribs) 00:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Bonds' record is the record of records of baseball (at least in batting, pitchers today won't reach the current career pitching records): the career home run record at the MLB. Yeah, one league, and a Taiwanese player in the NPB had more on that league, but the MLB's level of competition is the highest in baseball. –HowardtheDuck 13:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
It is simpler to score 200 in test because it is played for 5 days with unlimited overs. ODI is one day game of limited 50 overs and totally different strategy. You cannot compare scores in between different forms of games. Can you compare marathon with a 100 meter run? Will oppose 100 meter running world record of just 9 seconds to a marathon world record? Just because it is in one form of game? How do you compare man? --GPPande 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
i never go for strong but this ill give strong support. there maybe many records in cricket but this particular one is quite possibly the most prestigious and Anwar has had it for a very long time. and first double century in ODI is a very big thing. -- Ashish-g55 14:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The page is fast getting multiple updates. Lets post this news before it gets late & stale. I think this a clean pass nomination based on set ITN rules followed numerous times earlier for other articles/news. --GPPande 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
we posted a perfect game thrown for baseball which isnt even a record (imo not even remotely significant compared to this)... this is the first time in history someone made a double century in cricket ODI. there is a reason why this doesnt happen everyday and that anwar held his 194 record for almost 13 years. -- Ashish-g55 14:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I love how US bias comes up like its a big bad bug waiting to splatted across the floor. :p –HowardtheDuck 15:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
i only mentioned baseball since above barry bond was being compared for whatever reason. -- Ashish-g55 15:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The first 24hr strike in Greece wasn't listed on ITN, but how often do 100,000's people go on strike in a developed economy - twice. An update could be made at Economy of Greece#The 2010 Debt Crisis. --Daviessimo (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
He has been arrested, so why not put his photo on ITN ? :) --yousaf465 08:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Because it's not a free photo? ;) Physchim62(talk) 12:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, why not post the story only :P --yousaf465 17:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Turkey arrests 50, including former military officers
(The Times) Turkey has arrested 50 people including the former air force and navy chiefs, five fromer generals and seven serving officers over a 2002-3 coup plan against the Islamist leaning government. The plan was known as the Sledgehammer plot. I couldn't find an article relating to it - Dumelow (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I believe this is linked to Ergenekon (organization), though the article doesn't seem to be updated. If someone built a new subsection I'd support. It's not everyday a major country arrests its top brass. Joshdboz (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support after update. agree with above. Wikireader41 (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
How about a science story to calm everyone down a bit?? From the BBC: "Scientists are breeding a genetically altered strain of mosquito in an effort to curb the spread of dengue fever." The original paper was published online yesterday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and it's full-text open access, which is nice. The article to update might be Aedes aegypti (which needs work doing on it anyway) or dengue fever (which is in a much better state): I'll start with dengue fever (not done yet). What do people think? Physchim62(talk) 11:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support when updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Neutral Great story but should be wait till experiments are successful? Lot of mosquitoes here in India and it would be easy to squash them on table instead of having them humming around. :-) --GPPande 13:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose I am not excited by this news. I don't think we need to "freshen up" ITN with any "on a lighter note..." items that aren't intrinsically notable. __meco (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support After appropriate updates. Interesting topic that will highlight and draw readers to a couple well-formed articles. RxS (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
In trials, the precedent is normally to post an item when a verdict is given, but in this case the defendant has pleaded guilty so the verdict is known now. He was charged with "conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction", in a plan to blow up bombs on the New York subway, which is pretty notable, no? --Daviessimo (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose There isn't even an article on this plot, and his biography is hardly informative. 'he planned to blow up a truck but got caught beforehand' is, in this era, unremarkable news, certainly not worthy of the front page. MickMacNee (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
There may not be an article on the plot itself, but there is an article on the Al Qaeda cell (2009 U.S. Al Qaeda group), that was behind it. I nominated this on the basis that convictions linked to previous terror plots have been listed on ITN --Daviessimo (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Doesn't do it for me. There have been several other such thwarted attempts at terrorist attacks in large cities in various countries – one, for example, in Barcelona, just down the road from where I live – we'd have to ask ourselves why we're posting this one, and I can't see any good reasons. Physchim62(talk) 11:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
An American pediatrician from Delaware state is indicted by video evidence on 471 felony counts in the alleged rape and sexual abuse of 103 children. (CNN)(ABC)
China throws a surprise 86th birthday party for President Robert Mugabe in its Zimbabwe embassy in Harare, the first time Mugabe visited a foreign embassy in the country since Zimbabwe won independence in 1980. (Reuters)
Afghanistan's government condemns a NATO air strike on a convoy of vehicles in Uruzgan province, in the south of the country, which killed at least 27 civilians. (BBC)
The European Union and Germany deny a report of a 20-25 billion euro (£22 billion) aid plan for Greece, and Athens pledge again to take new steps if needed to keep tough deficit-cutting plans on target. (Reuters)
A strike by thousands of pilots at Lufthansa, one of the world's largest airlines, is suspended with negotiations expected to resume. (BBC)
BBC. Yet another transport accident. 38 dead, 50 wounded so far. It's the 3rd bus accident in Peru in the past year, but this one has the highest death toll for some time. Article will need work.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. Expanded. ... (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. Article is reasonable and the death toll seems unusually high for such events. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose - another random bus accident? These are not notable enough IMHO. —Ed(talk • majestic titan) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support as I can't think of any reason why a bus accident with a high death toll in Peru is any less important than one in the United States, Europe or Papua New Guinea. --candle•wicke 21:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I know that they have been posted before, but I don't think that any of them, whether they are in the U.S., Europe or New Guinea, are notable enough to be featured on the main page. A major diplomatic row isn't on the main page, but a bus accident will be? I'm confused. —Ed(talk • majestic titan) 02:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Candlewicke took the words out of my mouth; plenty notable enough. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
support. same reason as above. -- Ashish-g55 02:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose, These things happen with regularity and the article isn't much to speak of (which is why ITN exists). These transportation accidents happen too often to really draw much interest. RxS (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
According to this it's the world's worst road accident since August 2008 in terms of number of deaths. I doubt the article can be expanded much more--I agree the article is very short. I suppose this one comes down to a subjective issue of whether 38 people dying is in of itself notable enough even if it happens in a relatively unremarkable way.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The list is inaccurate: this not even Peru's worst road accident in the last three months (41 dead last Christmas Eve)! Note that I'm not opposing for that reason, as I think two buses colliding head-on in Peru is just as noteworthy as two train colliding head-on in Belgium, but I thought I'd point it out all the same. Physchim62(talk) 13:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The point though is to draw attention to our articles, this article isn't ever going to be worth much attention, so why bother? I know everyone knows this but it bears repeating, ITN isn't a news service. Shouldn't we try and guide users to the better articles that are in the news and not stubby articles like this one? RxS (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose because the article simply isn't up to scratch. I agree that we need to treat traffic accidents fairly, and the three road accidents we put up in 2009 were all from Europe... but all three had decent articles, as did the recent Papua New Guinea story. We are not trying to make ITN perfectly free of all possible systematic bias at the expense of all other considerations: that would be pretending that the Process is more important than the result! I'm perfectly willing to reconsider my opposition if the article is expanded, but I doubt that it will be in time. Physchim62(talk) 13:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The British to begin oil drilling today in the Falkland Islands while Argentina sabre-rattles about their sovereignty claims over the islands. channel 4 news86.158.125.189 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose there is no article covering the news. If there were an article I would support it. Not just for the oil drilling, but more so because of the political actions. Certainly goes beyond Argentine-British relations as Argentina are seeking support from Latin countries (Venezuela already supporting), thus giving a wider international perspective. Shame there isn't an article though. JollyΩJanner 16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Now support as article is updated. JollyΩJanner 01:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support I think this is a clear candidate to go up. It's an unusual type of conflict that could lead to another war between the two countries. The rhetoric is harsh and military escalation is being effected. __meco (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't read too much into the Chavez comments, as this is a man who has throughout his political career done nothing but criticise the 'imperial, capitalist west'. Maybe something like "British firm Desire Petroleum, begins drilling for oil off the coast of the Falkland Islands, days after Argentina imposes new restrictions on vessels travelling to the islands, through their territorial waters" --Daviessimo (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose unless something (other than drilling) actually happens. Minor shipping restrictions and sensationalist stories in the tabloids are not ITN-worthy. And again, why do we have multiple nominations for the same item on different days? Modest Geniustalk 22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
There are mutliple nominations because it is an obvious candidate. Quite where you got the idea that this is just a tabloid story is beyond me. MickMacNee (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
:Oppose Let's get a clear perspective on this. Argentina likes to do some sabre-rattling, especially now that the unpopular incumbent president faces re-election. Talk of a new war is like the talk last August of a new Russo-Georgian war. It didn't happen. With that in mind, this incident really isn't that worldly significant. More than likely everyone will forget about this in two weeks' time. HonouraryMix (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak support Just read up on the 'Latin American front' that's been formed in support of Argentina. Looks like this incident is now out of the ordinary, though any talk of a new war is still on hollow ground. Support a blurb about how Britain has started drilling whilst Argentina has gained regional support in its resistance. Oh, and Chavez does indeed like to talk like this all the time. Think he threatened war with Columbia a few weeks ago over US bases there. HonouraryMix (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I think we can drop the whole idea that 'there has to be a war' for it to get on ITN. We are talking about two supposed modern powers here, not some everyday event like an African coup. The Chavez comment is as you say, total irrelevant chuff, but as ever, what some would think would be irrelevant is oddly somehow considered 'relevant' to tip it into ITN territory, yet the long and the short of this event is still no different from the one that got bombed a few days ago. MickMacNee (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose I don't think this is any bigger than eg, PRC not letting a US aircraft carrier refuel, or maybe a Middle East country not letting them have a military base anymore, which would be weak support I guess YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose, as per YellowMonkey--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Well I wouldn't say it was quite the same as your suggestion YellowMonkey, because the China does not claim sovereignty over, say, Guam and China and the US most certainly haven't not been to war over the issue. I suppose the question is, for those who oppose, would Argentina have to invade the islands again for you to support --Daviessimo (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Agreed with Davie. It isn't every day that an entire group of Latin American countries get together to condemn a nation, and I highly doubt that we "will forget about this in two weeks' time"; Argentina seems to really want that oil. 08:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: This is just like China protesting any small work done by India in Arunachal Pradesh. Such protests and counter measures by claimant country is usual in today's era. --GPPande 11:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose, this has been blown up out of all proportion by the British media. There are plenty of steps that Argentina or other Latin American countries could take to go further than the current measures but still falling far short of actual military hostilities. As I said before, this is actually far more restrained than most Spanish comments and actions over Gibraltar! Argentina has reasserted its claim to sovereignty over the islands, as it does periodically, and used the occasion of a Latin American summit meeting to drum up support for its position. And, erm, that's it! Move along please, there's nothing to see here. Physchim62(talk) 11:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose essentially per Physchim. This happens every few years- one side or the other decides to give the shit a good stir and the other immediately reacts with another threat of a new Falklands War but nothing ever comes of it. This is an age-old political (and football) rivalry. It's notable, but it's nothing new (so far at least). HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 11:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
So when did Argentina threaten a war over this drilling activity? MickMacNee (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. This nomination pretty much sums up what's wrong with ITN, and why nobody bothers with it. This is a no-brainer of an item, it is a major international incident in a long running conflict, but why would anybody bother to take the time to update an article and bring it here, only to have it trashed with irrelevant comparisons, pure POV opinions, and rather oddly, dismissal of the media's ability to tell what is and isn't significant (yet, this is the standard for anything else usually, that and the death toll). The item was a no-brainer three days ago, and other countries supporting Argentina is hardly a new development either. Anybody who seriously thinks this could ever end in a war in today's climate are dreaming, but that is besides the point for judging whether this is an internationally significant event. MickMacNee (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The only disfunction here is that we've had to waste time discussing this story for a second time when there was obviously no census to post on the first nomination nor any significant development in the story. However, the second nomination was made in good faith, unlike Mick's repeated rabid drivellings. Physchim62(talk) 11:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Whatever. It is as usual quite telling that even though something comes up twice in good faith, which any normal person would see is a sign, you are loathe to have to keep opposing it. Of course there are no new developments, because unlike bus crashes and bus electrocutions and other bus emergencies, some important events take place over weeks, not hours. It's all so tiresome for you I guess, dolling out the POV. You must be the only person who wants nobody to participate in ITN. Still, it's all good, 35 hours and counting, the only recent posting being an 'important american' who, at 80+, shock horror, died. MickMacNee (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Question. What's Argentina's response to the drilling? ... (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support "this has been blown up out of all proportion by the British media" - the horror, the news makes the news. But seriously, this is a major bilateral dispute, recently made international when Argentina brought the rest of South America into the mix b/c of the drilling (see Chavez comments above). Joshdboz (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Why focus on the reaction of the British media alone? I think the reaction of South America says a lot more. --candle•wicke 22:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Well we usually ask for international media coverage before considering this type of story, so lets look at how the Spanish press treated the Rio Group summit in today's editions.
El País: A short (less than one full column) piece on the summit, but the Falklands issue? nada. A little bit more in the online edition 8 – about one-third of a sentence, albeit it quite a long sentence!
El Periódico de Catalunya: a good length piece on the summit 9 (about 500 words), but precisely two sentences 10 on the unanimous declaration in support of Argentina.
La Vanguardia: Ah, here we go, an entire page devoted to the summit, and about a quarter of that as a separate article on the Argentine declaration concerning the Falklands! But hold on, this isn't the declaration that ships going to Argentina to the Falklands will need a permit... this is the declaration by Cristina Fernández de Kirchner that Argentina "will not impose any kind of naval blockade to impede the oil exploration," nor "any means which are not within international law". 11 (only the first half of the article is available for free, but I've read the entire article in the print version)
El Mundo: I haven't seen the print version of this extremely right-wing little rag (I refuse to dirty my hands with it), but I noticed that their online edition 12 has picked up the stories from The Times about a British submarine being sent to the South Atlantic 13 and the interview with Falklands legislator Jan Cheek 14 It's worth quoting a paragraph from that interview (in the original English) that El Mundo picked up on:
"She Cheek did not believe that the Rio Group’s support for Argentina would have much impact and said that Latin American forums had made similar declarations in the past. 'We’ve seen this happen so many times before.' "
So, in short, the Spanish press consider this (at most) a minor spat. Nothing like the row between the presidents of Colombia and Venezuela on the last day of the summit!
Uribe to Chávez: "Be a man! You're a coward when you speak face to face!"
Chávez to Uribe: "Go fuck yourself!" loose translation, but a very vulgar phrase that is usually the immediate precursor to a bar-room brawl
Now there's a real (un)diplomatic dispute for you all! Physchim62(talk) 14:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Apart from the rather loose link that they speak the same language with (half) the continent, exactly why would the Spanish press give that much of a toss about the Falklands dispute or the Rio summit at all? I would have thought South American countries all had their own newspapers you could have 'analysed' in this way to try and show the same phenomenon. Would the daily press in England give the same amount of a toss you seem to think the Spanish should have about a spat/conference between North American states, just because they share the Anglosphere? Who cares anyway, in a way its quite funny to see ITN slither along at its usual snails pace, with some willing to work harder to derail nominations into the tar pit than actually advance them onto the main page, which is as ever approaching another 30 hours without apparently nothing in the world happening worth putting on the front page. MickMacNee (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Mick, if you are really incapable of making a constructive argument, then maybe you should desist from posting on this page. If not, I shall ask that you be banned from here, as all you are currently doing is wasting people's time. Physchim62(talk) 17:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
You waste everybody's time every single day with your pure POV opposes. Are you still totally clueless as to why there is nobody here? Really? Or is it something more deliberate? You seemingly go to amazing lengths to assert your thumbprint all over this process, on every single candidate, no matter what the subject and no matter what your knowledge of it. Maybe there is some mileage in proposing that you be removed from it, to see if there is any change in the quality or frequency of suggestions and updates. MickMacNee (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Physchim62, how did you do your searching ? If you search for "Islas Malvinas" in Google News then you get thousands of results. 86.132.127.83 (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I just took a survey of the press I read this morning, plus one more for political balance. If this were a major international story (not directly involving Spain), I would expect it to appear in the newspapers I read in the morning, but no, it was considered completely insignificant. Don't forget that Spain has a similar territorial argument with the UK over Gibraltar, and that four Spanish policemen who landed on Gibraltar recently were promptly arrested by the Gibraltarian Police – along with the two suspected drugs smugglers they were pursuing – and only released after an apology from Spain. Not everything to do with international law is interesting, just like not everything to do with sex is interesting! Possibly a rather higher propotion in the case of international law, despite the cries from many editors on this page! Physchim62(talk) 17:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Another unintentional massacre of civilians by NATO forces in Afghanistan
Although I am personally beginning to feel a bit exhausted by this seemingly unending series of atrocious friendly-fire incidents, and I'm sure others also are, this air-attack is yet another major blunder by the allied forces costing the lives of some 27 Afghan civilians and the commentators agree that this drives the population into supporting the Taliban. __meco (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support - Borderline international crisis.--WaltCip (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support as I did the last time (though not many did and it wasn't posted) and there are more people dead as a result of this one. --candle•wicke 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I'd be inclined to support if a major change in policy was a result.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Civilians dying in a war zone is, unfortunately, not an uncommon occurrence. As Johnsemlak points out, there would have to be some other consequence of this mistake for it to become a suitable ITN piece. Physchim62(talk) 11:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
SupportA major incident, with a large number of deaths, we can't ignore them, just bcz it happened in a war zone.--yousaf465 08:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Concordia (ship) is the article, might require expansion. Nobody died but that's how unusual it is considering what the 64 went through, 16 hours on a rafts in rough seas, etc. It's a good news rescue which will please anyone who doesn't like death. It is also very international, the ship was Canadian, the incident happened off Brazil, it was supposed to land in Uruguay, on board was at least one Australian, Japan and the Philippines were involved in the rescue effort. (The Sydney Morning Herald)(The Vancouver Sun)(The Montreal Gazette)(The Times) --candle•wicke 18:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The story isn't getting all that much play in Canada, where the ship and most of the students (from what I understand) were from. It's only the No. 5 story on the Globe and Mail website (guess what's number one). I'm all for having more Canadian news on ITN but if it's an item included for its newsiness (rather than its scientificness) I think it probably should be the top story nationwide. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose, since in the end this is just a ship that capsized with no loss of life. Character-forming as 30 hours in a lifeboat must be, it's not all that notable either. Modest Geniustalk 22:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Unusual and interesting, but not quite ITN material. SpencerT♦Nominate! 00:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. Incident was caused by a microburst, which links it to El Nino. ~AH1(TCU) 16:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
(Latin American Herald Tribune) says he was "one of the chief exponents of Argentine folk music". (The Washington Post) says he was composer of "Misa Criolla" which it describes as "widely regarded as a stunning artistic achievement, combined Spanish text with indigenous instruments and rhythms. Its effect is that of a reverent carnival, and it has sold millions of albums and been performed countless times across the world by artists including opera star José Carreras and Latin American folklore singer Mercedes Sosa. ... Mr. Ramírez's career spanned seven decades and reportedly hundreds of compositions". Also: (Radio Netherlands Worldwide) notes that he composed one widely recognised piece of music in 1964 and another in 1981. (Momento24) calls him "the great world-renowned pianist and composer". (Buenos Aires Herald) says there will be a public viewing and singer Patricia Sosa said he was "the biggest folklore composer in History ... The whole world cries the death of such a beautiful gentleman". --candle•wicke 11:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose - He died at 88. This death isn't particularly untimely.--WaltCip (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Article only has 2 references. The article could use expansion as well--more of the info on his notability above needs to be in the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support The "he was very old" argument doesn't apply here. The Misa Criolla is extremely well known in Argentina and the rest of Latin America, it doesn't matter how old he was. --FixmanPraise me 20:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I've just improved him so hopefully no more objections due to poor state of article. Argentine composer and pianist Ariel Ramírez(pictured) dies in Monte Grande at the age of 88. --candle•wicke 21:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The article is looking better now, yes. Seems notable, and I've no serious objections to posting this, but it will look strange if we post this one while refusing Alexander Haig... "Misa Criolla" is referred to by several Wikipedia articles if anyone fancies a go at turning that redlink blue. Physchim62(talk) 21:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
(I think) this person seems more important than Hag. --candle•wicke 22:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose not many english-speakers are likely to care about him. ~DCTalk To Me 01:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
support. Clearly old argument does not apply here since we already have one old person on ITN. and "not many english-speakers are likely to care about him" is not an ITN criteria (nor should it be). as said above the person was very important in their field of expertise and compared to haig i find him more notable for ITN inclusion (in my opinion... politics isnt the only notable thing in the world). -- Ashish-g55 03:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support If importance to English speakers becomes a criterion at ITN, that would be the end of coverage of South America, Asia, and most of Africa. Despite being old, Ramirez was important enough to go up. (Though whether we want his death right next to Haig's for stylistic reasons, I am not sure.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Was just about to support, but doing some searching I noticed that he hasn't been covered at the Spanish Language Wikipedia page. He also gets only around 900 hits at Google News Spain and Google News Mexico. The same amount for Google News .com. I'd say leave this one to 'Recent Deaths.' I reject the argument that English speakers 'don't care about him' but I'd say the fact that the Spanish language media doesn't care about him (relatively speaking) is relevant.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Perhaps we could simply add to the existing blurb: In response, the African Union have expelled Niger or something like that.--Definitely not Ks0stm(T•C•G) 09:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't that be very long though, Ks0stm? --candle•wicke 09:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Sorry, that was my comment above, not KsOstm's (who appears to fixed my error).--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I see. I think one of my comments was hijacked too. But how do I know that you are Johnsemlak? :-O ;) --candle•wicke 10:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Come to think of it, how do you know that you are Johnsemlak? Does Johnsemlak have a nice car and a well-paying job? If so, I might become Johnsemlak... Physchim62(talk) 10:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I drive a 1984 (no, that's not a typing mistake) Peugeot 205 which isn't even mine. I used to be a schoolteacher, but I left the profession for a job that pays less! My standards are low, at least on such niceties! Physchim62(talk) 00:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I have altered my signature above as it should be *insert evil laughter here* Who knows, is this the real Ks0stm(T•C•G) 11:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Which above where now is this and who are you when you're yourself? --candes•cent 11:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support I think this should be posted, its good to know the African Union has some teeth. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support this over that Haig posting, which should be deleted. U.S. editors don't seem to get it that these figures just aren't that important. Colipon+(Talk) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. Military coups don't happen that often, so there's no harm in keeping this up for a little longer. In response to the above, I supported (and support) the posting of Haig and I'm an Englishman, not an American. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 00:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support important that any dictators who read WP see this ;-) Wikireader41 (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support including the wording; oppose bumping Niger back to the top based on this. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Tricky one this: the Golden Bear at the Berlin International Film Festival is an ITN/R event, so I have quickly updated the winner, which is Bal, a Turkish film whose title translates as "Honey", quite appropriate for a Golden Bear! The comment in the Spanish press (which ITN regulars will know that I take as gospel, for want of anything better) was that the films in competition this year were OK, but certainly not "masterpieces". Add to that the fact that the jury has decided to award the Best Director prize to Roman Polanski, a Silver Bear that will certainly eclipse the Golden Bear in press coverage, and you will understand why I can't back this nomination with as much gusto as I usually do. I leave it open to other comments, but I think we should run some story from Berlin on the grounds on NONBIAS etc etc. Physchim62(talk) 21:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support, I believe this was discussed before so something ought to feature. --candle•wicke 01:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I personally oppose the inclusion of this on ITNR though given that it is listed as an ITNR event currently then it should be posted if it meets the update requirement. (which article would that be--I could not find an adequately updated article?) I suggest that if we post it, we just list the award for top film as per standard policy despite the press generated by Polanski.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The article Bal has only five sentences.Oppose for now article is now adequate.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, it is too short at the moment. Support when the article is expanded. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support For this one. Same as Cannes and Venice for film festival winners. Lugnuts (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Expanded. There isn't much more information anyway. --candle•wicke 10:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Good work, Candles! If it is on the front page, hopefully it'll attract more expansion ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
(ec)Support also. @John Semlak, can I just ask what is the basis for you feeling that this should not be included on ITNR? It is after all, one of the most prestigious awards in film, so why should we not extend the same rules that we apply to the Oscars or Palme d'Or. Just because these two are more heavily covered by the media, doesn't mean that as an encyclopaedia we should fall in the same trap --Daviessimo (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Among other arguments, I would point to Physchim's point above, that according to certain portions of the press that the level of cinema at Berlin this year was disappointing. Coupled with relatively low profile coverage in the media, I suppose I ask, what evidence is there that this is one of the most notable events of the week?--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Well it is for Turkey... --candle•wicke 11:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
If the article is at Honey shouldn't we call it that on ITN (or should the article be at Bal)? I don't know much about the film naming guidelines - Dumelow (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
WP:NCF states that the article should be in the English title, but the press are likely to use either. Lugnuts (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
@Howard: I'm seeing it as the top Eğlence » event on that Google News link and it does appear to be getting a high amount of coverage compared to the others in that section. --candle•wicke 15:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
It's a big entertainment story, but I'd have to see at least a part of the main(stream) news stories at the top of the page before I'd consider to be it as a "big story" in Turkey. –HowardtheDuck 15:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Do the Oscars feature in the "main(stream) news" or just entertainment? My experience is that these events tend to be classified as "entertainment", even major national award ceremonies in the countrywhere they aretaking place. I have used three examples of events where awards were handed out from last Tuesday, Friday and Saturday (yesterday for some). --candle•wicke 16:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty sure last year's Oscars were reported along with the "mainstream" news along with the elections wars, accidents and disasters in most news websites, aside from being the top story in the entertainment section. –HowardtheDuck 16:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I had to scroll to the bottom of the Guardian'sfilm section to find a mention of the Berlin Film Festival. The film festival is not getting a great deal of prominent press coverage that I can see. Nothing remotely compared to Oscars, Golden Globes, Cannes or even the BAFTAs. I'm sure there's an English language bias here but I'm still struggling to see the notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I'd also have to question that fact. The 2009 Metro Manila Film Festival had a gross of 428.2 million Philippine pesos. Assuming the average ticket costs 120 pesos, the total attendance for the festival would have been ~3.5 million, 7 times Berlin's number. (Of course it helps that the MMFF includes the entire Philippines and no other films are allowed to be screened while the festival is ongoing.) –HowardtheDuck 04:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The update to the article seems a bit short. Is there really nothing else that can be said? -- tariqabjotu 17:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
There's a bit more available in German (see dewiki), but nothing really Earth-shattering. I will try to motivate myself to translate some of it. Physchim62(talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
It should be long enough now? I added a few more lines earlier too. --candle•wicke 19:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Posted, article looks good enough now - Dumelow (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Romania's fast food tax
(again)
- please see the discussion of Feb 19 - TouLouse (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
We still need an article with an update - is there any? --Tone 20:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Any purpose? A Romanian topic existing article? Or something like this... - TouLouse (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I would like to see an article update and a suggested blurb, then I can decide for my part.. --Tone 21:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I have no opinion on the merit of the story, but I'm going to oppose until such a time as we have an article or an update to an existing article. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 21:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose in the current circumstances. The story is reasonable as a "wackinews" piece, which we should have from time to time, but I don't think the background coverage is there, nor that it could be created in time for the story to be posted. Physchim62(talk) 21:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment: why did you list this twice? Nothing new has happened to the story, and it's just splitting discussion up in several places. Modest Geniustalk 16:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong support (same arguments as recently displayed "An avalanche buries a village in northwestern Pakistan, killing at least 40 people."): an unique event in the island and the worst single day tragedy in Europe in 2010, so far. Zdtrlik (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The article is still in a pretty poor state for the Main Page. Physchim62(talk) 20:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
With some more prose it will be ready, could you also propose a blurb? --Tone 20:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Flooding on the Portuguese island of Madeira, in the North Atlantic Ocean, kills at least 32 people and paralyzes many basic services in the regional capital Funchal. Physchim62(talk) 21:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Posting. --Tone 21:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't oppose posting, particularly as there is not a huge amount of info available even in Portuguese for the moment. But if any ITN regulars could help out with improving the article, that would be great, especially as regards to background information. Physchim62(talk) 21:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak support. More than just a simple army general, even for a four-star general. And the biography is in good shape. My hesitation is that he was not in the public arena for at least a decade before his death, so we will have complaints as to why we post this. Physchim62(talk) 15:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support - Even though the death criteria places the emphasis on holding a high ranking position at the time of death, I think in this case, as the deceased was both a former US Secretary of State and former White House Chief of Staff, he has held notable enough positions in that past to warrant inclusion now. --Daviessimo (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree with Daviessimo, but I would put the emphasis on the totality of his career. I dont't think we would automatically include every former US Secretary of State or every former White House Chief of Staff, but this one seems particularly notable to me. Physchim62(talk) 16:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support - looks good. I'd say he's pretty well-known enough to be on the main oage. Connormah (talk | contribs) 18:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support - Notable individual (Are there links to News sources?) 220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak support. Certainly a significant figure in US politics for several decades; I think the most important part was his role in Nixon's resignation (though the exact role is left somewhat to speculation), which concluded the biggest political scandal in US history.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Individual held several high-ranking positions over his life, which combined make Haig's death important enough to feature on ITN. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose as it fails at least one of the criteria listed at WP:ITN/DC - no impact by his death. Pavarotti's death wasn't featured on ITN; I have no idea why this would deserve it instead. Nergaal (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Haig's death currently has the number three spot on the BBC News front page (#s 1 and 2 are already on ITN), and it has had that spot for several hours. Also on the front page of France24 at the moment. The idea that we can't post this obituary because Pavarotti's obit wasn't posted is pathetic: it is equivalent to saying that ITN should never learn from its mistakes! Physchim62(talk) 23:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose because he was age 85. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak support. Most secs. of state I would oppose, but he was certainly a major figure for some time. I wasn't sure at first but the opposes are unconvincing at best. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 23:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Err, Wizardman, unconvincing? One of the death criteria is an "unexpected death". A man dying at age 85 is hardly unexpected. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I think "unconvincing" is a polite way of describing Susan's arguments. Either we don't do any obtuaries at all, which is obviously not the consensus position reached at WP:ITN/DC, or we run obituaries of old people as well of those rare deaths of relatively young people who had already made a global name for themselves in their field. Mr Haig's death was just as terminal for the person concerned as Mr Jackson's, the only question left is whether readers will be looking for information about the person concerned. Physchim62(talk) 00:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Ok, but how is this guy in any ways better than Pavarotti? Nergaal (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Isn't saying we shouldn't post Haig because Pavarotti wasn't posted three years ago kind of bureaucratic? Does one decision- even a poor one- bind decision making three years later? No; WP is not a bureaucracy, consensus can change, and stare decisis isn't a trump card to that. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Do current death criteria ( The deceased was in a high ranking office of power, and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region.) require the deceased to have had the position at the time of death? This rule would exclude many former heads of state. --Johnsemlak (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Which parts of this person's life are notable enough for ITN? Several of those in favour of this are quite vague, e.g. "I'd say he's pretty well-known enough to be on the main oage", "Notable individual (Are there links to News sources?)" and "agree with above". The rest suggest he was around for so long he must be important, he has a good biography and he held two non-Presidential/leaderly positions in his life? Is a four-star general a particularly great achievement (I'm seeing 5 star rank here)? What am I missing? --candle•wicke 05:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per his career as a whole's impact, as said by Daviessimo & Physchim62. Ks0stm(T•C•G) 06:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The Wall Street Journal says he was " a retired four-star Army general" and "a prominent figure in American politics for more than a decade". How many people are that? Xinhua: He once ran for President but did not succeed, he was in hospital since January and had been critical since then. Reading The Independent, "His tenure as secretary of state lasted only 18 months, and was notable for ferocious turf battles with colleagues, and for an unsuccessful effort to mediate a settlement of the Falklands crisis in 1982. After Haig's efforts at shuttle diplomacy between London and Buenos Aires broke down, Britain went to war to reclaim the islands. His replacement that June by steady, unflappable George Shultz brought general relief, inside and outside government." Doesn't sound like a leader there. The Times includes: "In 1979, in his final week in office, a remote-controlled bomb detonated under a bridge in Belgium as his car drove by. The blast threw the Mercedes into the air, but Haig escaped uninjured". Most mention the "I'm in control here" soundbite. It's all very interesting of course but I just don't see anything to convince me to support for ITN. --candle•wicke 10:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
(ec) For those still struggling with notability, my own and other's arguments place the emphasis on the totality of the career rather than one thing. If he had only been just a US Secretary of State or White House chief of staff or if he had only been a US army general, then likely he would not have been notable enough. However, over the course of his career he has held several very high positions and served as a senior aide to two US presidents. I had not personally heard of him, however reading his article certainly suggests a great deal of notability.
@John Semlak, yes the criteria does say to hold a position of power at the time of death, but for those who hold an official position this criteria is harsh because often there is a limited period they have this power. Its the same thing with sport. Most notable sportsmen and women die long after they've finished playing, but that shouldn't stop us listing the Pele's, Nicklaus's or Navratolova's of the sports world. Michael Jackson died long after the peak of his career, but it didn't stop us posting his death. I would also say it's important to remember that for whatever reason, we now list more deaths on ITN and its rather foolish that we should artificially hamper progress today on the basis of past mistakes. Rather, we should always make sure that the rules developed now are applied fairly and equally to all death nominations in the future and that individuals are judged on their individual merits rather than whether they are famous or whether their death is being plastered on the front page of the BBC or CCN --Daviessimo (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I remain unconvinced and will oppose now based on all my reasons of uncertainty. I'm not using past mistakes, I'm not basing it on the BBC or CNN CCN (of course it would be on CNN CCN) and - for comparison - I would most likely support the three sports personalities mentioned above but I unfortunately - despite my best efforts to work him out - can't see this person being in the same league as those three (for a start they're all household names, record breakers and among the first names that would be mentioned when talking about these sports; I can't see Haig as a first name mentioned for anything except possibly for an assassination attempt on a President and yet there certainly have been plenty of those too, even in the United States). --candle•wicke 11:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support.' Politico.com called him "the thirty-seventh-and-a-half president"... I dunno how many cabinet ministers/secretaries got to be called like that. –HowardtheDuck 17:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
That "37½th President" line was also reported in the Spanish press, attributed to White House commentators while he was Nixon's Chief of Staff (during the Watergate scandal...) (El País) But there's another point we should remember: we had 62.8k readers looking at that article yesterday – thank God it was in good shape! On what grounds are we denying those readers, who are presumably interested in background information on the subject, a quick link to the article from the Main Page? After all, quick links to articles from the Main page is what ITN is all about! ITN isn't here to decide if a dead U.S. politician is more or less important than a dead Argentinian composer – what a ridiculous question! – ITN is here to provide a service to our readers. These endless debates about arbitrary "death criteria" do no service to our readers whatsoever. Physchim62(talk) 22:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Posted. This has been discussed for a sufficiently long period of time and consensus is support. I have used a fairly basic blurb if someone can think of anything better feel free to change it - Dumelow (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
ITN has traditionally used very basic blurbs for its reports of individual deaths. We are all equal in our mortality, after all. There's also the journalistic argument that a very simple death announcement incites people to read the article to find out why we thought the person was important ;) Physchim62(talk) 00:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I oppose this posting. I get that there is a backlash against a lot of U.S.-based posts, but there are many, many, individuals who have died in the past year that surpass Haig's notability who have not been posted. And in all sincerity some of these U.S.-related events are just not that notable, not because they are American, but because they are not notable. There are many opposes to this entry and it fails on at least one criteria. If it remains then it is only a symbol of Wiki-administrator stubbornness rather than a decision based on consensus. Colipon+(Talk) 04:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Good post, he's clearly was a high profile figure in American politics for years. We need to break out of the bureaucratic knee jerk application of the rules here. ITN is exists to highlight articles and isn't a news service. This is a good chance to lead readers into subjects not covered here much (American politics in the 70's and 80's), how many times do we want to highlight articles about the Middle East by way of violent events in the news (for example)? And this isn't limited tp American politics, we routinely pass up interesting news because of overly strict application of rules. RxS (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support -- Haig was a huge deal in the 80s, recent enough for many Wikipedia users to remember. I think all living U.S. secretaries of state (Kissinger, Shultz, Baker, Christopher, Albright, Powell, Rice, Clinton) -- I'm not including lame-duck Eagleburger -- should go up if/when they die. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's ridiculous to see this totally expected death on the front page. This would only have happened for an American, and if people don't see that as a problem, they really don't understand the issue of systemic bias at all. ITN does not exist just to help readers too clueless to be able to copy and paste a name into the search box. MickMacNee (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
He was an important diplomat and politician. Yes, part of that was because he was an American Secretary of State and not a Andorran Secretary of State, but the U.S. is a rather important country in the world, and it's also where the majority of our readers come from. —Ed(talk • majestic titan) 17:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
"The U.S. is a rather important country in the world" So what? If you, or anybody else, wants to turn ITN into an American news ticker for the majority{cn} of our readers, then propose it, otherwise, do not archive this section (items can and do get pulled once it is realised a posting was a total error), and do not pretend 'he was an important American' is anything like an established inclusion criteria. MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I apologize; I wasn't aware that sections couldn't be archived. It's a widely known fact that the overwhelming majority of en.wiki readers are from the United States, not sure why you have a {cn} there. See http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageViewsPerLanguageBreakdown.htm . Yes, we aim to cover the world, but we aren't aiming to turn ITN into an 'everything but America' news ticker, and Haig was an important man internationally for what he did as the Secretary of State. ITN, just like every other place on Wikipedia, does not operate within a fully-defined set of rules; exceptions can be made to anything, including ITN's inclusion criteria, if there is sufficient consensus to do so. —Ed(talk • majestic titan) 21:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I already knew it was 60%, which in anybody's book is not an 'overwhelming majority' in the slightest, it is certainly not a justification for such blatant bias as listing someone who has been out of public life even in the almighty united states for the last 20 years. Still, what does it matter, you are right about the rules, there are no rules at ITN, just total chaos, every single day. It really is funny though how the exceptions only seem to land one way, and yet again, ITN is nothing but a yank news ticker interspersed with deaths over a max number. Still, we haven't had an election for a week, so I guess that's something. It's even funnier that items only get pulled from listing when they aren't US news items too. Still, let's keep up the pretense that consensus can change at ITN just like anywhere else, and forget that the tarpit phenomenon doesn't exist in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose we need to have a bar-line for what are notable deaths and what aren't. I understand that it's good for ITN to post recent events but we need to keep out the less notable news (such as this guy's death), so we can priorotise on more important news. This death fall way below the normal bar at ITN for notable deaths. JollyΩJanner 16:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
This does seem to be attracting a fair bit of opposition here now and on various talk pages. Not to mention one section ("Vietnam") now having a tag requesting citations. --candle•wicke 21:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
There's this many "opposes" and it is still on the main page?? Unbelievable. Take this posting off please.
Above user mentioned that "most English Wiki readers are American" as justification for this posting. I don't know how he could stand by this twisted logic. We are fighting systemic bias precisely because of these skewed demographics of our readership. Just because there are more Americans visiting this page does not mean we should give American news greater weight. Colipon+(Talk) 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
It is official: BBC and IUPAC. Also, please use Copernicus' image. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per my comments below; though I have no idea why a new section was necessary. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Because deaths and AfPak already takes 2/3 of the space at ITN and ITN/C. Nergaal (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Obviously, it is ITN type. --yousaf465 07:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Monstrously obvious "why isn't there already" support. Let's do it. 86.147.43.154 (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Posted. It "isn't there already" because it has been only 4 hours since it was brought here (with the confirmation of the new name) which is a reasonably quick turnaround. Admins are only volunteers and cannot guarantee a 24 hour response. The addition of the item is further slowed when the posting admin, as in this case, has to create a blurb (because this requires reading the relevant articles, fact checking etc.) - Dumelow (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
If this results in the current PM going, an obvious support. HonouraryMix (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support: Obviously. ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 04:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose you guys didn't get tired of having continuously one news about Afghanistan and one about Pakistan AT ALL TIMES on the ITN template? Seriously, there are other parts of the world asides from these two subsisting countries. Nergaal (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
This is not "just another story" about the war. A government has collapsed because of a decision related to it. That's kind of significant, isn't it? ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 06:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
To add a bit more, ITN normally features items about election of new governments and dissolvings. This is something similar IMO, except that it's a bit more unusual and "dramatic". ≈ Chamaltalk¤ 06:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, but it is the tenth news about Afghanistan/Pakistan IN A SINGLE WEEK. Nergaal (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong support Guys, the government collapsed. There will be early elections etc. This should be on the main page. Omegastar (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong support We often (but not automatically) run stories on the collapse of entire governments in parliamentary systems. This one is particularly deserving of an ITN piece given that reason for the collapse is a political debate going on in many countries, not just the Netherlands. The article is updated, with an almost silly number of references! I propose:
We have a free picture of Balkenende, but there's no rush given that we've just changed the ITN image anyway. Physchim62(talk) 13:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Yep, Omegastar's version is better than mine! I tried to find a link for the Dutch involvement in Afghanistan, but I couldn't find one. Suggestions are welcome. Physchim62(talk) 13:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Posting. It's a rather long blurb, any chance we make it shorter? --Tone 14:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I recommend rewording it. The dispute was not over the military mission in Afghanistan as a whole, the dispute was over extending the mandate of Task Force Uruzgan. There was no dispute over the Dutch troops in Kabul or the Dutch airforce in Kandahar. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Wow, that is long! How about cutting the words "a possible extension of". I take 94.*.*.*'s point that it wasn't the whole mission which caused the problems, but the argument wouldn't have happened without the context of Dutch troops deployed in the country. Physchim62(talk) 14:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
(BBC). A 400-year old minaret collapses at a mosque in Meknes, Morocco killing at least 36 and injuring more than 60. The collapse followed heavy rain, people are said to still be trapped beneath the rubble (300 were inside praying when it collapsed) - Dumelow (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
File photos of the minaret that collapsed are very sparse, so it took me a while to confirm this, but I believe this is a picture of the minaret that fell. A file photo circulated by the AP points to this specific minaret and says "This minaret collapsed during Friday prayers..." I know for certain that the location of the photo corresponds to the location of the mosque. Though this photo led me on a wild goose chase (contradicted by this one), I'm sure I got it. (Note our photo is far more recent and far better.) I'd add the photo myself were it not for the fact that I took and uploaded the photo myself; it might be a bit of a conflict of interest for me to do it myself. But if I see tumbleweeds when I wake up tomorrow morning (or rather later in the morning), I'll just add it myself. -- tariqabjotu 06:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Added, can someone make sure I put the (pictured) in the right spot? —Ed(talk • majestic titan) 07:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Hamas threatens Western nations and trades accusations with rival Palestinian faction Fatah over alleged involvement in the affair. (The Jerusalem Post)
Dubai's police chief calls for the head of Mossad to be arrested if Israel's spy agency is found to have been behind the killing of a Hamas boss in the emirate. (BBC)
Israel denies involvement in the assassination and claims that there is no evidence "that even remotely connects this incident to Israel" (The Jerusalem Post)
This was talked back in July and people argued that it should go on the ITN only when it is official. Here it is! Nergaal (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Also, some administrator should move the article to the correct name. Nergaal (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The RM discussion on the talk page actually appears to be getting some pushback on grounds that it's actually not "official" yet. Support if and only if this is confirmed as the real, official announcement. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Per Bradjamesbrown, I'll support upon verification. Besides, it would be nice to have something other than war and politics on ITN for a change. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Give the article some time so that all the details can be fixed. Then, support. --Tone 22:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. New and notable naming of element. ~AH1(TCU) 02:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Suppost. When 'official'. But article needs renaming (as per Nergaal) as is is still called Ununbium. Confusing. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Neutral leaning towards support. I'd like to know a bit more and if there were a decent article on it, I'd be more inclined to support. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I'd prefer to see some sort of an article before I evaluate the item's merits. SpencerT♦Nominate! 23:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support - Very few items are directly taxed because they are bad for us, I mean I can only think of cigarettes and alcohol, so I'd say this is pretty notable. But is anyone else envisioning the backlash we are going to get because of "Europe's first fast-food tax"... Eurocentrism, anti-Americanism (I mean the US did invent most of the involved fast foods!), pro-Romania bias, anti fast food bias, pro health bias, pro-tax, anti-tax... ahh! --Daviessimo (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
What article could be updated? - TouLouse (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I searched for somewhere and found Romanian cuisine unless anyone can find a better place... Romanian humour but perhaps that's not very funny. --candle•wicke 21:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. According to our article on him, he was the last (known) Canadian WWI veteran. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Likely not to make it, but IMO, significant, The article is a GA, and appears to be in decent shape regarding his death. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - As far as I'm aware, we haven't listed any other WWI Veterans, who were the last survivor from their country. Also, we didn't list either Harry Patch (who was the last surviving person to have fought in the trenches) or Henry Allingham (at the time of death, the world's oldest man). As such, I'm wary of putting this up, especially given that the last surviving Australian veteran died last year and wasn't listed --Daviessimo (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Agreed, generally we don't post things like this (it has come up in the past, maybe someone can post some links to archived discussions?) - Dumelow (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak Support he is to recieve a state funeral, if I am not mistaken. A few years ago when we were changing up the death criteria, we made a plan to put up the death of the last WWI vet. The only reason I see why this shouldn't go up is that we would likely have to put up the death of the other two when they kick the bucket. --PlasmaTwa2 07:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
February 18
Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2010 Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.
Moved from WP:ITN/FE
