This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Template talk:In the news. Thanks.
Nominate, "New fighting between the Sri Lanka Army and the Tamil Tigers occurs in northern Sri Lanka with 26 rebels dead and 4 soldiers" Hobartimus (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also if I understand the new system correctly we should settle for the best item of the day so an update is provided in any case and previous "no update for weeks on end" situation won't happen. In this system there is no reason to oppose anything instead you should simply name "your pick" and the item supported by most people/the best item that day goes up. Hobartimus (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 100m world record is generally seen as the most high profile record in athletics, and is specifically noted at Wikipedia:Sports on ITN. Worldwide sport, high profile with Olympics coming up. suggested phrasing: Slightly hard to know which article to embolden, and none of them give much prose: it is a statistical achievement, and there is not much encyclopaedic prose that can be given about a sprint beyond event, location, date and winning time. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just that I appear to be the only admin occasionally checking the candidates page, which I hadn't done for several hours. (Note that the portal update is at Portal:Current events/Sports.) I haven't ever heard of this league, but I'll just assume that the list at Wikipedia:Sports on ITN has been adequately vetted. Posted. - BanyanTree08:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a citation to the updated content and posted this. Please make sure that candidates have referenced updates. Thanks, BanyanTree00:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trial system seems vulnerable to having nominees removed from the current events page by editors that don't like stories. Never was an issue with the old system, sigh --Lemmey talk16:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's easily solved--just have nominators rewrite them here. By the way, I oppose mentioning the spelling bee, which is of little interest even in the United States. The Mirko Norac story is much more significant. Mangostar (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Mirko Norac one is not that bad. Alternatively I could see the Texas polygamist child custody one, it's not that significant but an ongoing story and we could link the relevant articles nicely. Hobartimus (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this to be more of a "sporting" story - along the lines of the seemingly endless types of football that get posted to ITN, so am not against it. But I would hold off on this to see if the article, which actually seems to be 81st Scripps National Spelling Bee, becomes better formed. It currently has a lot of single sentence paragraphs and very few citations. - BanyanTree00:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That meets my standards for minimum updates and I will put it up shortly unless someone points out something I'm missing. - BanyanTree22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got my hands full with the cluster bomb item right now. (If half the users who've dropped by the talk page to comment on how much better it would be with X and Y actually added anything, that article would be amazingly good.) In any case, I'm holding off on putting this up until I see what the removal of the India item portends. - BanyanTree05:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Appears as notable as most other weather phenomenon (esp tornadoes) that make it to ITN. Adequate update. - BanyanTree03:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced older Sichan earthquake blurb and reset to top of "May 29" set of items to keep it from being pushed off. Appears to be adequate info of effect on schools in the article. - BanyanTree03:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but I would prefer to wait until the monarchy is actually abolished. I thought they would have done it already, but there appears to be some delay. - BanyanTree14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Maybe we can work in and bold Nepal, as that seems to have more significant updates than the constituent assembly article. Random8919:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lemmey is referring to the trial period guideline "Please refrain from straight support or oppose votes; instead the discussion can focus on the relative merits of the available candidate items". Honestly, supporting does not bother me as much, and isn't so much against the spirit of the thing. Still, I don't know if it's really helpful. But it is the tit-for-tat opposes that have historically been the problem.--Pharos (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The final draft treaty is in front of the delegates, and they've said "looks good". That's the story and the rest of the work is administrative and legislative. The treaty won't come into effect until a certain number of countries ratify it, I assume, and that would also be ITNable. Significant ongoing events don't have just one chance to be on ITN, especially if the updates recur months apart. But it's all rather moot without an updated article. - BanyanTree05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally it needs its references to go inline and needs to describe the recent discovery and its significance (most of the requisite info is in the BBC link you gave) but other than that a good candidate. I'll make the adjustments myself in about 12 hours, if no-one else has yet. If not for ITN it would also be an excellent candidate for DYK (something like: DYK that the Materpiscis is the oldest known vertebrate to give birth to live young birth to live young). Billsmith453 (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I bolded Aung San Suu Kyi in the item to show that it is the updated article. Until there is a cyclone update, this appears to be a reasonable candidate, though not as big as the Sichuan update that went up. - BanyanTree00:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Timer says 24 hours since last update and this older candidate appears reasonable. It doesn't include as much prose about the update as I'd like, but there's really not much to say beyond "still imprisoned" so I'll give it a pass. Placed under the Sichuan item of the same date as being less significant. (I expect an uproar about "timers resulting in ITN trivia" now.) - BanyanTree22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against the Aung San Suu Kyi item going up. A single sentence in the article describes her house arrest extension...generally speaking, if a single line is all that can really be said about a subject (in the subject's article), I'd prefer it wouldn't go up. If expansion was included, (for example: reason junta gave for her arrest extension), then I might consider supporting. SpencerT♦C00:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I note above, it's marginal. Normally I look for at least a paragraph of updated text for an existing article, or a decent stub in the case of a new article. Given that the reason for the extension was the same as why she's under house arrest in the first place, which is detailed, I felt that demanding that the reason be reiterated just for ITN would be a bit much. I probably wouldn't have put this as the top item given the level of updated text, but am OK with inserting it into the middle of the template, if you follow my fuzzy reasoning on weighing the various factors. - BanyanTree00:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not too big on any of these...the DNA sequencing one I considered, but in the article, there was a single, unsourced line mentioning it. SpencerT♦C19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a reference for the brief update in DNA sequence. Keep in mind that the items in the 'Current events' box are not all ITN candidates, but they should be considered potential candidates. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too concur but in a non voting manner in accordance with new trial period procedures (that do not spell out what to do after the trial period or how the trial will be evaluated...) --Lemmey talk20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, we will have a vote. But, since we apparently no longer have the right to vote here, I assume it will end up like the Soviet Union, where one man will decide what goes up while he kills a couple million of the rest of us. This trial is the beginning of the itn's five-year plan, trust me. --PlasmaTwa221:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the Aung San Suu Kyi and the china items. Possibly also the DNA. The Aung San Kyi article could do with some attention though at the moment it doesn't really do the job of clearly explaining the most recent developments. Billsmith453 (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment below, there doesn't seem to be any reason to include on but not the other. I suggest these two be combined to avoid ITN being just about racing. E.g.:
Since the Indy 500 article doesn't appear to be up to scratch but the Monaco GP article is, I recommend the Monaco one be put up pending the addition of Indy 500 Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as I'm aware, previous precedent says that we put up the results of the overall championship, but not those of individual races. Where is the evidence that the Monaco Grand Prix is any more noatable than any of the other 17 races in the season? If this goes up, we would encounter arguments for putting up F1 results every 2/3 weeks. I'm not going to comment on the Indy 500 as I'm not aware of how significant it is as an event, but the Manaco GP is simply one of an 18 race series. Yes, it has a lot of external glamour surrounding it that the other events don't have, but the race itself is no more or less notable than any other. Tx17777 (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned below, according to Triple Crown of Motorsport, Indianapolis 500 and Monaco Grand Prix it is indeed much more noteable then the other events. (Personally as a follower of Formula 1, I'm not convinced the Monaco Grand Prix is that noteable although perhaps the most noteable of the individual events ignoring other factors like deciding races, but when our articles say something else, who am I to disagree?) Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it meets the basic standards. We have an update about the final, if not a comprehensive one, and this is balanced off by the several lengthy updates to that article over the last couple of weeks. For the balance of the trial period, please let us not remove items that meet basic standards unless we are replacing them with "better" new items.--Pharos (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Indy article meets the basic standard. I see it as a problem when MainPage says someone won the race, but there is no description about the race in the bold-linked article. Another thing is that there is a stats table, with the word "Accident" next to several names, and there should be some text to explain what happened to those competitors in the "Accident". We really need some descriptive prose about the final race in that wikiarticle. --PFHLai (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Object on several levels. First of all, if we add the Monaco Grand Prix, should we not be adding all of the approximately 20 F-1 races? I don't see this one being any more notable than the rest. Also, the comparison to the IRL makes little sense, as the Indy 500 is the premier event of IndyCar competition. Also, WP:ITNSPORTS would have been a better place to debate this, as those supporters should have foreseen this instead of jumping on the "Indy 500 is on there" argument at the spur of the moment. Random8906:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I've said this several times, so far, no one has disputed the claim, or tried to fix our articles if it is incorrect. If our articles are mistaken, this should be fixed rather then us debating it here. As I've also stated, if winning the Indy 500 is more important then winning the Indy series, this is an important consideration. However the problem is, so far from what I can tell no one has supported this claim either with references, or by making the appropriate changes to our articles. Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May 25
Bob Barr
Since Wikipedia is adding presidential nominations for the U.S. elections, it seems it would only be appropriate to add the one for the Libertarian Party:[1]
Oppose No, no, no no no. He is not a major candidate. No one knows or cares who he is outside of the US (And even then how many people care). The chances of him winning anyway are what, 0.00000000003%? --PlasmaTwa204:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. However, it is not immediately obvious to everybody what a "powered descent" means. I would suggest changing the wording to "the first Martian landing without airbags in over 30 years", or providing a link somewhere so the user can read further about powered descents. Koraki (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as it is a incredible accomplishment in the scientific community. Also would suggest using the picture right. -- Reaper X00:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re the picture: should we use something that is evidently not a factual representation as an illustration? It is not very encyclopaedic to give prominence to what an artist, commissioned by those with a vested interest in the success and good public image of the project, imagined long before the event that it might have looked like to a being in a place where we are fairly certain that there are no beings to observe it? The only thing that is verifiable is that it is an NPOV piece of crystal balling. Kevin McE (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think as long as it's clear it's an artists impression (which I think it is) then NPOV shouldn't be a problem. - Shuddetalk08:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say having a (cool looking) picture to go with the top entry outweighs these concerns. When a new entry is added, we can change the picture if possible. Random8918:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I seriously doubt NASCAR is bigger than F1 globally. As for Monaco: individual race results for F1 shouldn't go up - just the championship results. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all the 500 is an Indycar race not an F1 race. Secondly, this is one of the four or five biggest races in all of racing. No offense to the Coca-Cola 600, but the Daytona 500 it ain't. Weak Support. -- Grant.Alpaugh01:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's the most famous of all races in the world. Anything that puts 400,000 people in one area is internationally notable. --PlasmaTwa201:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the story, but2008 Indianapolis 500#Full race results lacks descriptive prose on how the race was won. Most sections have a summary. Why not the Final? the article thus appears to be unfinished. I've taken this item off ITN for the time being. Please add some referenced text on the final race to better update the article. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Indycar is not very international (for example, the Indy Racing League is essentially an American league with only 2 non-exihibition events being hosted outside the US this year). Also though Indianapolis is certainly one of the best known races, it's technically not a championship level event since it is only the 6th race in a 16 race season. Dragons flight (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes it a very close parallel to the Monaco Grand Prix, which is widely held to be the most glamorous and prestigious race of the F1 circuit, but is also merely one leg (also the 6th) of many (18 in this case) that comprise the championship. Include neither race, add both championships when and as they are decided. Kevin McE (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Oppose I've never heard of it before, I suspect that statement would be true for most other Europeans as well. I would support if someone can persuade me it's popular anywhere outside the US or that it has a significant number of Non-US competitors. Billsmith453 (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection it seems to have competitors from across the Anglophone world, South America, Japan and was won by a New Zealander, think I'd support it once PFHLai's requested improvements are done. Billsmith453 (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I would say that this should be included as the Indianapolis 500 is probably considered more important (by fans, drivers, the media... pretty much everyone interested, I would think) than winning the Indy Racing League season championship. I take no position on whether Monaco should go up. MookieZ (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that is indeed the case, then it is something different from Formula 1/the Monaco Grand Prix, but I'd like to see some more evidence of the claim (and we obviously should consider at some stage whether there is any merit to putting up the Indy Racing League). And importat fact like this belongs in the appropriate article, it sounds as if it should be easy to source Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support this, oppose Monaco GP. I think the people care who wins the Indy 500, not who wins the championship of the IRL or IndyCar or whoever controls the league the Indy 500 is a part of. As for the Monaco GP, I'd support the addition of the F1 world champion at the end of the season. As for NASCAR, it's not widely followed elsewhere since it is immensely boring. --HowardtheDuck15:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares about who wins the IndyCar season. The Indy 500 has a huge national TV audience, and international ones too. --HowardtheDuck15:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the Indy 500 is one of the most important and historic events in auto racing. Winning this would be comparable to winning Wimbledon or the Tour de France. AecisBrievenbus15:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I have put the Indy 500 on ITN, as there appears to be broad consensus that this should be included. I see no consensus either way wrt the Monaco GP, so I haven't put this up yet. AecisBrievenbus18:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aecis, do you plan to address my concerns above and in my ITN edit summary? IMO, there should be some descriptive prose about the final race, on how Dixon won the race, and a few words on the crash that knocked out a few cars.... etc. Even the qualifying sessions have summaries on the wikipage. So, right now, without this paragraph about the final, the wikipage looks incomplete. --PFHLai (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've raised the concern at Talk:2008 Indianapolis 500, and taken this item off ITN for now. It's not an imperfection. I see it as a problem when MainPage says someone won the race, but there is no description about the race in the bold-linked article. --PFHLai (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Replace the current picture with this one. Either that or the Eurovision (cringes). The Taiwan election is a little old now. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume Michel is the main point here, capitalized and linked President as its used as an official title here. I'll take this moment to point out he's wearing an old US Amry Battle Dress Uniform with Woodland Pattern (summer) without the Name and Branch identifiers. Its good to see the rest of the world still 30 years behind the US. --Lemmey talk20:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for sure. Reword to change tense and fix grammar: "Lebanon's Parliament elects..." and " ending the deadlock..." Random8922:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said it on the errors page, but president in this context is a job title, not a personal title, and so should not be capitalised. Kevin McE (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eight items?
Why do we have eight items? Isn't that too many? We should have a maximum of seven, could an admin remove the Nigerian pipeline explosion? --PlasmaTwa202:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think eight is too many. The reason we need eight today is that we have a massive FA and a tiny On this day. I see no problem with having eight items on ITN, I only think we should replace the Nigerian pipeline explosion (stale) with the Chinese earthquake (ongoing). AecisBrievenbus13:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eventhough the situation in Burma is less media (more of a result of political factors) it too is ongoing. I'm going to re raise my point for an ongoing big event link such as * On Going: [[Earthquake]],[[Cyclone]] --Lemmey talk17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Analogous competition to the Champions League, and top club rugby competition in the Northern Hemisphere. - Shuddetalk01:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They'll get around to it eventaully. Of course, none of the admins could approve of this one, in which case it won't go up no matter how much people ask. --PlasmaTwa200:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - How is this analogous in any way? The CL final has it's own article 2008_UEFA_Champions_League_Final, where is the article for this final game? Even the cup supbage is mostly only listing results. I understand if you want this up we need new entries all the time but I don't think it's comparable in viewership, significance, money at stake etc. Hobartimus (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Analgous because it's a European wide tournament between the best domestic professional teams from several countries. That's obvious isn't it? - Shuddetalk
I've temporarily taken this off ITN for the lack of prose in the articles about the matches. Non-rugby fans won't understand the stats and tables. Please add descriptive prose (with refs) about the matches to the article. (at least about the Final) Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with some shock at Grant there; I assume he is taking this view because he is not from Europe so knows little about the contest so doesn't care so isn't notable. I couldn't care much about most of it (as a rocker and Lordi fan I must support Teräsbetoni, they're pretty good) but I agree that as the contest spans and is known accross an entire continent and is broadcast beyond (a few countries that are barely European if at all compete as well), the contest is notable and besides, it has a history of being on ITN. I prefer the wording Artist wins Eurovision 2008 for country with song. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)16:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd thank you not to impugn my motives by assuming I only care about things that happen in the exact spot I'm in at the moment. The reason I oppose is that reality TV simply isn't ITNable, no matter how many people watch it. I shudder to think of all the crap that could get on ITN using this criteria. -- Grant.Alpaugh18:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is 'Idol international' any more notable than American Idol? Crossing arbitrary lines on a map alone does not make things notable. --Lemmey talk17:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does when most of each of the nation's follow it. In the UK we mainly treat it as a joke, but still everyone knows what it is. Much of the rest of Europe takes it more seriously - national French headlines were made when it was learnt the entry was going to buck some language trend. Spain, Germany, Scandanavia and others also follow keenly in a lot of areas. What's the population of Europe? Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Population of Europe is irrelevant. Actual Viewership would be the only thing that counts. The international rule is more because different nations have different laws and regulations. When they do something collectively (like enact the scheflidagen?sp agreement) its a big deal. (Other than language) The nations of Europe do not have diverse television watching habits. Coming together to all watch a reality-show is not important on its own. --Lemmey talk17:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"74,000 people in almost 140 countries having watched the 2006 edition online" says our article before we even count the fact most viewers see it televised, and I daresay viewership just keeps on rising... No-one ever lost money by underestimating the taste of the public. (that's a quote from somewhere about the UK public in relation to The Sun if you're wondering). Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sadly this is a very significant event. It has even been credited with causing the Dutch 'no' in the EU constitution referendum a few years ago :) I would recommend using the format: "<singer> wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 for <country in the Eurovision Song Contest|country> with the song <Song>." or "<Song> by <singer> wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 for <country in the Eurovision Song Contest|country>." AecisBrievenbus17:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lemmey and Grant are being rudely cynical, but I understand their point. If there was a notable song competition among the 50 US states, we would immediately have three or four opposes from people saying "not international, therefore not possibly important." Let's all keep level heads before giving unsubstantiated opposition; plenty of notable things happen within a single nation's borders, and plenty of pointless things happen across borders. —Ed Cormany (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree with everything you said more, except for the characterisation of my comments as rude. I don't see how I was being rude. I don't think the competition is the kind of thing we should put up on ITN, and that is certainly my right. Personally, I think it is rude to assume why someone says what they say, especially to assume it is out of ignorance or rude cynicism. -- Grant.Alpaugh01:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the main person argueing with both users I'm going to leap in to defend both. Lemmey is doing it, but it is entertaining. Grant may be argumentative, but he is not obliged to agree with anything anyone says. If anything, I was rude to him. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)12:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From this and previous comments I appear to be a minority here but I would have to disagree with your assesement of Lemmey. While his/her comments may be 'entertaining' for a while, they quickly get old and rather boring and stupid. I've never complained before and will probably never again mention this since it seems pointless persuing and in any case Lemmey isn't doing anything wrong just IMHO generally being more annoying then useful but I think it's worth saying that there are definitely people who din't find Lemmey entertaining. I freely admit of course I can be exceptional rude sometimes and do tend to poke Lemmey back when he/she says something exceptionally silly; and he/she sometimes have some good comments sometimes. I completely agree though that Grant's comment are usually useful even if I don't always agree with them. Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(will probably never again mention this since it seems pointless persuing and in any case Lemmey isn't doing anything wrong) ahhh futility the mother of apathy --Lemmey talk21:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support from coverage on BBC, this appears to be a fairly significant thing. Not the best of criteria but is supported by comments above Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While you know I'm in favour of adding more recent deaths to ITN, I don't think this is the place to start. I'd need the person to either be a recognizable name or the top of a notable field. With all respect to Capa, I don't think many people know of him or even his work. Random8921:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold waiting for seat assignment numbers. Do they now have a majority or were only some of the seats up for election this year? --Lemmey talk21:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs cleanup and article. Explosion is the main event. Clarify this is in England. Chaos and even more chaos sounds like nerdspeak (Advanced dungeons and dragons is way cooler than regular dungeons and dragons. --pushes glasses up on nose). --Lemmey talk21:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be its own article but it does need to be a "meaty" section of some appropriately related article. Point is if the explosion or chaos is not notable enough to be in some article its not notable enough to go on the front page. --Lemmey talk22:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Acclaims international status, as a terrorist attack. Something, which has been rather quiet in the past few years. Along with a well written article of course! Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is of national U.S. interest. Read: [2] for example. Multiple regional and national news sources have carried this, focusing on his sexual orientation and it as milestone in gay rights. VanTuckyVote in my weird poll!22:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The first openly gay mayor of a major US city is notable, and a milestone in American History. Along with the possibility of having a African American or a Female president, this very much so deals with current issues in everyones life (well..in the US at least). Tiptoetytalk22:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
also Dispute on National Interest Google News for "Gay Mayor" nets 41 articles, most of them local. The source you list is also local and only provides one line about a 'national interest'. If the first I hear about something is from WP:ITNc, I'm calling Shenanigans. --Lemmey talk23:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Not notable in any way. There probably has been many other homosexual mayors worldwide, why is Portland special? Portland is a 'major city' in the weakest of terms. That would be similar to calling Kelowna a major Canadian city. Portland is Seattle and Vancouver's dorky little brother. --PlasmaTwa223:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd politely ask that you refrain from denigrating my home. How do you like it when people call Canada the 51st state? If you want to start throwing around jibes about our respective residences, there are plenty for yours as well. But I prefer to not have people say such things at all. Thanks, VanTuckyVote in my weird poll!23:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really pay attention to that, because there is no way the US would make Canada a single state cause then half of the country would be one state. Let me rephrase that, then. Out of all the cities in the Northwest, Portland is the smallest and least notable. There we go, no hard feelings. --PlasmaTwa223:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to oppose this...I don't really see why sexual preference is really important when determining a candidate. If the London mayor thing didn't go up, this definitely shouldn't. SpencerT♦C00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with you, so oppose. If a mayor isn't put up for their unusual political positions of the candidate and being a larger city, for example the London mayor who was the first Conservative elected in awhile, isn't put up, then I don't think a new mayor be put up based on their sexual preference. Hello32020 (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I see absolutely nothing special about this. According to List of the first LGBT holders of political offices he's not the first gay mayor of a US city, not the first gay mayor of a 'major' US city and heck if you throw in Toni Atkins of San Diego, California (even if she was more of an accident of circumstances and only briefly mayor) then not even the mayor of the largest (in terms of population) US city we've had so far. If it was something like the first gay supreme court judge then maybe... Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final being played tonight, the largest club football tournament in the world, millions of people across Europe and the world will watch. Tx17777 (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support no leave it association football because that's the name of the sport used to avoid confusion with rugby, American, Australian, and Gaelic football. Including the score is a good idea as well. -- Grant.Alpaugh15:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you, that will open a can of worms that we don't need to get into right now. Just use association football, which is where soccer comes from anyway. -- Grant.Alpaugh16:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without wishing to smash the can of worms to pieces, the term soccer is generally used outside the UEFA zone. Within the UEFA area, football and association football are most common. I prefer football, but have no objection to association football. AecisBrievenbus16:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but no score, unless it is extremely notable. (Wouldn't we all be shocked to see a blowout of the likes of 4-0 or 5-0) Random8918:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I fear that the itn is going to become swamped with sports items soon, as both the NBA and NHL will be wrapping up their seasons within a month or so. --PlasmaTwa222:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hockey and Basketball are western imperlist neo-con sports of the zionist entity. They have heavy carbon footprints and are destroying the polarbears. Basketball is the third term Bush sport and hockey is racist and all about oil. They are the sports of divison while soccer is the sport of hope and change. As TimeCube.com states, they are stupid and evil. Stop being a caveman and realize that people have the right to play soccer. --Lemmey talk14:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the current wording. Anyone who wants to know the details can just follow the link to the article on the final. The important part of the news item is Manchester United's victory. I can see the argument for including the score, but I don't see why we should mention the venue or the number of victories; it would just make the blurb longer than it needs to be. Pruneautalk21:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The actual film to win the Palme d'or would be more notable, and even then I would oppose it. I doubt anyone would suggest the best film at the Toronto Film Festival would go up, even though it is of the same importance as Cannes. The Golden Globes and Oscars are the only things about film awards that should go up. --PlasmaTwa223:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry because this article is a fine example of expansion for a current event. But unless I misunderstand, the president is head of state. —SusanLesch (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry but for similar reason to Guinea above. Unless I misunderstand, the premier is appointed and the president is head of state. —SusanLesch (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In re Marriage Cases is the name of the California case that overruled gay marriage restrictions in California. There's a "discussion" below regarding same-sex marriage in California, but I figured this would be different for two reasons. Fisrtly, subsequent media coverage has shown that it is a big deal. The reason is obvious - California state court decisions do have a large effect on the way other states decide the constitutionality of their marriage laws and of course it greatly influences the Unites States Supreme Court. Secondly, the case is more acceptable because it is more specific as compared to same-sex marriage in California. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The time and weather also get widespread coverage. Britteny Spears's flashing her beaver gets widespread coverage. Coverage is not in any way a valid measure of notability or impact of an ITN candidate. Secondly your statement of 'obvious reason' is not only opinion is also historically incorrect. --Lemmey talk23:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Its importance is evident from the media coverage it recieved. The media will give significant coverage to every celebrity that flashes her beaver, but they won't give significant coverage to every California Supreme Court case. Secondly, I hope to remember to get back to you when the next State Supreme Court (or US Supreme Court for that matter) decides gay-marriage and spends half of the opinion comparing and/or contrasting the California opinion. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)00:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might misunderstand what you have just said. Clearly as you've just stated their is no direct link between media coverage and importance. The media over reports unimportant events and under reports important ones. Coverage is not a good measure of importance. As to weather or not future court cases mention or reverse the California decision is speculation which we don't do here under WP crystal ball. --Lemmey talk02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or you might misunderstand what you misunderstand. I never said that there's no direct link between importance and media coverage, I said that media coverage doesn't automatically mean that something is notable. However, media coverage is surely a factor in importance-determinations. Indeed, you would be hard-pressed to find a notable and important subject that hasn't recieved media coverage. In regard to your second point - applying WP:CRYSTAL to this subject is wrong. Crystal applies when applying content to an article. Even if what I am saying is "unverifiable speculation" I am not trying to add any "unverifiable speculation" to an article. The "unverifiable speculation" is only going toward an importance-determination, where crystal doesn't apply. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)03:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage is an indicator of interest, but not importance. I think that things that are somewhat important, but get a lot of interest should go up. -- Grant.Alpaugh23:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from the May 14 section below) Strong support (when article is finished). All the oppose voters have failed to note that in the U.S., this ruling is the first to afford sexual orientation the same kind of protection as race, gender, and other protected classes. From the LA Times[3]: "The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard" (emphasis mine)". howcheng {chat}17:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from May14) Finally someone who knows how to make a supported argument in accordance with ITN policy. I would consider supporting the blurb if and only if it stated that it is the first Court to consider gays as a protected class and that it overturned a law passed by referendum. That is the only relevant and notable criteria of this ITN candidate. --Lemmey talk 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If there is indeed something exceptional in the US about this then I would support provided the ITN blurb concentrates on what is exceptional about this, not what isn't Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose something like this:
The Supreme Court of California strikes down a ban on same-sex marriageruling any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation is unconstitutional, the first state in the United States to set such a standard
Comment: I don't disagree with the IIHF entry, since it's huge in parts of Europe, but note that the Stanley Cup Finals are coming up, and that's much bigger in North America than the Worlds. We should also have the winner of the Stanley Cup -- and no complaining about too much hockey. -- 65.216.207.237 (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (Mwalcoff)[reply]
Support Election of head of sovereign state, unless there is doubt that the result is final, is a shoe-in for inclusion. Not controversial, get it up there asap. Kevin McE (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support iff the article is expanded and more references are added. A disaster with a lot of fatalities is always ITN material, imo. AecisBrievenbus00:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm pretty sure deaths from pipeline accidents are rare, so this seems pretty newsworthy. There's an article about it with the possibility of improvement. Random8906:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the article, it sounds like it's unfortunately far from uncommon in Nigeria, indeed it seems to be close to about once a year with casulties. I would oppose this, but it's already there Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Isn't it like the 10th pipeline blast in Nigeria this year? What is so important about this blast given the fact that the blast was caused because of an accident rather than some terrorist attack or criminal theft? --AI009 (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the fact that it was caused by an accident appears to be one of the most noteable things about this. Having said that, I'm still far from convinced it's noteable enough for ITN as per my comment above Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because its common I don't think it makes it less notable. 100 people are dead! Its sort of like Iraq where theres a suicide bombing every week killing 20+ people. Since its so common not many people think its notable and it barely makes the news, even though alot of people died. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are AFAIK quite a few resonably major airline crashes that don't make it to ITN, mostly those in Africa were the safety record is so poor it's not exactly surprising. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we very rarely have suicide bombings in Iraq on ITN for precisely that reason. Only when the suicide bombings in Iraq are exceptional notable do we feature them Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Permission restricted, as any change in prosthetic equipment will be open to a new challenge. Also athlete has never reached Olympic qualifying standard, and has little chance of actually reaching the Olympics. Maybe, if he does compete in Beijing, but not yet. Kevin McE (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, the CAS have stated that Pistorius should be given the opportunity to qualify for the Olympics. That in itself is not groundbreaking enough for ITN, imo. It would be another matter if he would actually qualify for the Games, but even then I'm not sure. There was already a blind or severely visually impaired athlete at the Games in Sydney or Athens, so Pistorius wouldn't be the first disabled athlete at the regular Olympics. AecisBrievenbus00:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno about that. While I'm not trying to demean the accomplishments of Marla Runyan, it's more significant IMHO when someone without legs is able to compete in a foot race. Obviously if a blind athlete were competing in e.g. shooting or some other sport where sight is paramount (as legs are for a foot race) then it would be different (but that's probably a log way away since it would likely require some sort of artifical eye). But as stated, this is a bit of a moot point until and unless he competes Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Natalie du Toit already became the first amputee to qualify for the Olympics, and is actually a podium contender. Her achievement has been overshadowed by Pistorius' situation by the press. --Madchester (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Narayanese. Also Pistorius has a well developed article as an added bonus so the links will point somewhere useful. Hobartimus (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've updated the suggested news item to make it clear that Pistorius would be the first amputee runner to take part in the Olympic Games if he makes it that far. Also removed some unnecessary links. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–00:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As I mentioned above, du Toit already became the first amputee athlete to qualify at the Olympics a few weeks earlier. (In fact, she's already the first amputee athlete to compete against able-bodied athletes - she did so at the 2002 Commonwealth Games.) Yet her Olympic breakthrough didn't even merit ITN coverage or nomination. I don't want to see a precedent where we have ITN items like "first double amputee athlete", "first amputee runner", "first amputee gymnast", etc. that are less notable as the original breakthrough. I could see merit if Pistorius became the first Olympic athlete with prosthetics, but to date he has yet to qualify, and to claim or suggest so would be crystal-balling. --Madchester (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it doesn't sound like he was close to being the top of the world in motor cycle road racing which isn't the most popular of sports (even track motor cycle racing isn't and I'm pretty sure that's more popular then this) AFAIK so I'm doubtful this meets the current or even the proposed reformed criteria on deaths Nil Einne (talk)
The top science news in weeks, good for diversity on ITN where we have too much death, violence and election news, esp. when TFA and DYK are long and we need something to take up space and maintain balance on the main page.
Event has received national and international coverage. [5][6][7] etc. etc.
That's terrific, but it's a state-only news, so Strong oppose. Now, to await the "California is large!" arguments. --PlasmaTwa201:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you miss read something? Did you not read the whole part about MAKING WIDESPREAD INTERNATIONAL NEWS, and if you go by your whole term theology, wouldn't that tornado be only missa-whatever news? Or that earth quake be only Chinese news?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
California is larger than: Chad, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Lebanon, all of which have ITN stories. Further, there is currently a "Tornado kills 25" story on the front page, far less important in history and the news than this. --Falcorian(talk)01:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the international coverage this has already received (Swedish radio an hour ago, BBC, etc.) makes it more significant than "Just one state". --Falcorian(talk)01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, in the end it is only one state. California = state. California is one state, it is not a country, it does not have the same status as a country (IE It can't go to war). I never supported the tornado thing anyway. --PlasmaTwa201:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, look at it this way. British Columbia is ontop of Washington and California, and it is also bigger. If they were in jail, both them states would be BC's bitch. --PlasmaTwa207:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Its one of fifty states of the USA. No single state court decision short of maybe making murder legal should be added.
You are not seeing the big picture, this is history in the making. And regardless, it is making international news, more that some tornado, or whatever, so what is the problem? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact, despite your quip. It's been covered locally, nationally, and internationally. It's been covered by every California news source you care to name, CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, Sveriges Radio, and the BBC. --Falcorian(talk)03:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, marriage is determined by the states. So if you're hoping for an "America legalizes gay marriage" announcement, it ain't gonna happen. Of course, California's announcement doesn't have the punch that Massachusetts' had, but still...—Kurykh03:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the SCOTUS makes it a 14th amendment issue, like this case did, they could make state laws illegalizing gay marriage unconstitutional (i.e. if this case gets appealed, that is exactly what the issue will be). It is essentially a "seperate but equal" argument that is the issue, and California's high court ruled that civil unions were inherently unequal to marriages. So the "America legalizes gay marriage" ruling, can happen, and it might happen as early as next year. Still, oppose. -- Grant.Alpaugh04:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alot of things are covered internationally, doesn't mean they all matter. When someone explains how a law passed in a single state is internationally newsworthy without mentioning how big California is, maybe people from otusdie California will care. --PlasmaTwa203:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is flawed. The fact that California is a huge state matters, just like the fact that the US, China, Russia, and India are huge countries matters. Something that is big in a huge country is probably more important than something that is relatively less big in two or more small countries. The reason this shouldn't go up is because Massechusetts (sp?) has already had a similar ruling, so there is nothing exceptional about this case. If this were the first such ruling in the US, since California has such a huge gay population, I would argue for its inclusion, but it's not, so I'm not. -- Grant.Alpaugh04:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. A state deciding a law isn't notable, even if it's the biggest state. Places larger and more important then California have already declared this legal, anyway. See Canada, Spain and South Africa. We can't give a state special treatment, jsut like we can't give somewhere like Tokyo special treatment cause it's a big city. --PlasmaTwa206:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Mass. case that legalized the first gay marriages in the US surely should have and would have gone up. This is not unique because it was the second place in the US to do so. Watch this space, though, because like I said, this case will probably be appealed to the SCOTUS, and that ruling will be ITNable if it goes in favor if gay marriage. -- Grant.Alpaugh20:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the California Supreme court is actually considered conservative[8], and the state voted under 10 years ago to ban it, yes, it is surprising. --Falcorian(talk)03:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
California actually isn't that liberal outside of the bay area. Excluding politicians and Hollywood, the majority of the population supports conservative values. The gay marriage ban, 3 strikes laws, prop 187, have all been voted in by the people. Its only the politicians who come up with the crazy 'government should control your thermostat electronically' laws and legislative judges who create a government enforced class system. --Lemmey talk03:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to avoid injecting subtle political rhetoric in your comments. Perhaps it was unintended, but this isn't really a place to make political points. —Kurykh04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not censored, I didn't direct the language at someone, just the comment, which was and is, as I said, way the fuck over the line, and I'm still waiting for Lemmey to strike it and apologize for it. -- Grant.Alpaugh06:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. I fucking forgot. :P Now, lets wait for Lemmy to come back with a trademark "WTF?" statement that I never understand. --PlasmaTwa207:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, if we all didn't find Lemmy so entertaining, I'm sure there be a half-dozen ANI threads about him right now. Also, FUCK FUCK FUCK. Random8906:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a table on many pages that lists the legislative areas where same-sex marriage or civil unions of similar status are enshrined in law. In what way is the addition of one US State qualitatively different from the previous addition of any other? I would suggest that it is not. One US news outlet, that happens to boadcast beyond the US, does not make widespread international coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Once again, making the headlines isn't enough for being on ITN (and anyway, though international media are talking about this, this isn't the front news - the China earthquake is, at least in French and British news). The whole logic of "but California is big, 36M people live there" is flawed. That population makes California comparable to Kenya. If Kenya were to legalize gay marriage, no one would even suggest putting it on ITN (unless it was the first African state to do so, but it looks like South Africa got there first). Pruneautalk07:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know a whole lot about Kenya, but I'm pretty sure California is slightly more important to the history of GLBTQ rights than Kenya. Secondly, the Netherlands (16M) and Belgium (10M) have a smaller population, economy, and any other metric, but if something important were to happen culturally in the Lowcountries, people would say it should go up because it happened in two countries, so again, I don't think this should go up, but to say that just because it happened in California, it has no chance of going up, is flawed logic. Anything that happens anywhere in the world that is of international importance or interest, is ITNable. -- Grant.Alpaugh19:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the importance of California in the history of GLBTQ rights as significant (to me, it's a bit like saying if the China invents some kind of new gunpowder that is very similar to something a lot of the world is always using we should mention this because China is significant in the history of gunpowder). And besides that, if Kenya recognised same-sex marriages before California, I'm doubtful California could still claim to be more significant in the current history of GLBTQ rights and I would argue it would be more important to put Kenya then California everything else being equal. Obviously if California is doing something significant in the history of GLBTQ rights then it is significant, but as others have pointed out, they're not since it's been done in both the US and the world before (heck South Africa had the first constitution to explicitly outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation). Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I was mostly criticizing the fact that this is being used as another attempt to say that something that happens below the national level should never get on ITN. Plasma is wrongly (and rudely) ignoring the fact that California is a very important entity, and rivals many groups of countries in population, economy, cultural impact, etc., to say nothing of individual countries themselves. We should not exclude geopolitical areas from ITN simply because they fall within larger geopolitical areas, i.e. we shouldn't punish the US, China, India, and Russia for being large countries. That is all beside the point, however, as this case was not the first in the US to legalize gay marriage, so I oppose its inclusion on ITN, but I'm not going to sit back and let silly arguments get made that put small nations above very, very large states/provinces as far as ITN items go. Again, any item that takes place anywhere, that recieves international interest or is of international importance is ITNable. That's not my opinion, it is the criterion for inclusion on ITN. -- Grant.Alpaugh20:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you did say 'I'm pretty sure California is slightly more important to the history of GLBTQ rights than Kenya' which was the point I was disagreeing with. If you no longer support that point then fine but if you do, I stand by my disagreement of that specific point for the reasons already raised. This was the only point I was addressing at the time, which I thought I made clear enough, but I guess not... To address your second point while we shouldn't 'punish' countries for being large, the simple fact is, an event that events that only affect one part of a larger country tend to attract less attention and interest precisely because it's seen as one country. There are good and bad things about being a large country, one of the things is that subentities of a larger country are always going to receive less attention then entities (i.e. countries) of the same size, economy etc (i.e. everything else being equal) because they are subentities. You may not like this, but it is the nature of things. This does not mean that we should never put things which only affect one subentity, but it does mean that we are far less likely to put things which only affect one subentity, and there is nothing wrong or discriminatory or 'punishing' about this, it is simply the nature of how the world works. (Californians are of course perfectly entitled to seek their independence if they don't agree with this state of affairs, but of course in reality they won't since there are numerous advantages to being a part of a larger country.) This doesn't mean we should never put up ITN stories affecting only one part of a country but that we are far less likely to, and there is nothing wrong with raising the point that it only affected one part of a larger country and therefore has little international interest or significance, which is often, but not always the case when something only affects one part of China, Russia, the US, India, Brazil, whatever... I should also add that none of this means that issues only affecting two small countries are necessarily of international interest, often they are not and there are a whole load of things which have never even been proposed because I think a lot of people understand this (presuming whatever it is even has an article) which is why this issue doesn't often come up (heck the only memory I have of this ever coming up is when some editor out to prove a point has proposed some dumb story which has quickly been rejected by nearly everyone), and not IMHO as some people feel, because ITN has a 'small country' bias but that few editors have problems understand that 'involving 2 or more countries' does not international interest make. Unfortunately, the reverse is not true and 'affecting a part of a large country' does not international interest make is a problem for many editors to understand hence why there are so many long and tired debates about things like this Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree a lot more on this than is aparent. My whole point is that any story anywhere can be of international importance or interest, and for the same reason that "but it happened in California!" is a bad argument for an item, "it only happened in the United States" is a bad argument against an item. My philosophy is that any item of major international importance (i.e. elections, wars, massive natural disasters, etc.) should automatically go up, and items that get a lot of international attention and are even of moderate international importance should go up as well. Just to be clear, gets lots of international attention: Britney Spears or Amy Winehouse antics shouldn't go up, gets lots of international attention and is of moderate or more international importance: Iowa Caucuses or the Democratic and Republican nominees should go up. So that's pretty much my philosophy. -- Grant.Alpaugh02:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grant, I don't think anyone was suggesting that "just because this happened in California, it shouldn't go up". If you read my comment again, you'll see that I suggest that gay marriage in Kenya would not go up either. I only used the comparison to counter the argument "California is big, so anything that happens in California should go up". I simply believe that the California decision is not going to be such a milestone in the gay rights movement history, unlike the first US state or first country to authorise gay marriage. Pruneautalk18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give it a strong support. This is a major event and is getting worldwide attention. Much more than say, the tornadoes in the Midwest; which could easily be bumped off for this. International coverage is evident, and "California is only a state" is a non-argument. We've had plenty of ITN's about places as localized as a state/province. I might also note that some of those blocking this being added are being a bit dickish about it. Mocking an argument no one makes (California has a big economy? Please) is rather rude and is baiting. This proposal is about a political event (which we cover) that is getting international recognition (which is a requirement). Why debate anything else? ^demon[omg plz]11:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too think the reasons for excluding this are poor considering the things that generally make it onto ITN. – Steel14:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that big of a media deal here in the US. George Bush's comments yesterday, the earthquake, and cyclone are all getting more coverage in the US right now. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 15:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others have stated, there is nothing special or unique about this. It only affects one US state and it isn't even unique in the US as others have pointed out (let alone the world) Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SUPPORT: This is a very important event. This is not just about California but the entire U.S. On the news they are talking about how this movement can effect other states and could possibly be the great push to over turn the Defense of Marriage Act. And you all have to face the fact, California is not just "some state" it is "the state", it is the population center, economic center (6th largest economy in the world, if it was a country), cultural center, and media center of the U.S., and the possibly the entire world. This will have a major effect on popular culture, primarily because Hollywood is the center of the worlds film and media industry, and where is Hollywood?. California is probably the only U.S. state that any foreigner could point out on a map. Sorry to all you people from North Dakota or whatever, but California runs this country, all your imports from China come through California, so without us you wouldn't be able to get your cheap crap at Wal-Mart and California is the leading state in agriculture, so you wouldn't be able to eat with out California too. Without us you would all rot, California is the reason Americans can live there lavish lives. And to refer to a quote from CNN: "If California goes, as does the rest of the nation".--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Runs what country??? That is an extraordinarily arrogant statement, suggesting that en.Wiki=us.wiki and you decide to accuse the rest of the world of ignorance as well.world
Coming from the person who said ":Its not that big of a media deal here in the US.", have you even flipped on the news in the past couple days?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I like it much better when the ignorant blow-hard statements come from people who disagree with me. This isn't fair :P -- Grant.Alpaugh02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I fear this comment may be lost in the storm some people are trying to make of this, I'm going to try and speak reasonably. My oppose vote is not based on the issue, amongst which we are obviously torn in deciding worthiness for inclusion, but rather based on the state of the article. Beyond the lead section, there is no update based on the new information. I firmly believe that that is the most important ITN criteria. If there were a full section, well written and sourced, then I might be voting support on this, but as it is now, no way. Random8906:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love how we don't agree with you and suddenly we're cavemen. We're not saying they can't. We're just saying it isn't newsworthy. Learn to read, please. --PlasmaTwa220:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what the left does, oppose them in any way (even on formatting and wp criteria policies) and you're either a caveman, a racist, or a homophobe. Seems like the politics of division to me. --Lemmey talk00:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice for the pot to call the kettle black. The conservatives try to through everything they can to try and find a reason why gay marriage should be illegal. They have even tried to say it hurts the economy. Maybe they should stop caring about other peoples business and not care if gays get married, woman get abortions, or a DEAD fetus is used for stem cell research. SERIOUSLY, WHO THE FUCK CARES, IT's NOT AFFECTING YOU. Republicans are annoying ass people who want everything to go along with there fairy tale book. But yet they break about ³/4 of the bullshit it says in there.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, sign your posts. Second, it does affect us, because we get idiotic statements from you and other people in the world who can't deal with the fact people don't like the same things you do. We don't need to know what you think when it comes to Republicans. Keep it to yourself. --PlasmaTwa206:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't want to get "idiotic statements", which is hypocritical because you people make them all the time, then stop prying into to other people business and stop caring about some gay couple that live up the street from you, or whatever. You only get these "idiotic statements" when you try to to make everyone go along with your book of magic, or what your lil cult believes. If you stopped caring about other peoples business than i think you will start to notice that the "idiotic statements" will make a very sharp decline. I don't agree with you and probably millions of other brained washed people like you but i let ya'll do your thing and and worship icons, because, like me, you have the right to happiness and as long as you are not hurting others or infringing on another persons right to happiness, i am happy with you doing what ever you like. And i think you need to understand that there are "people [who] don't like the same things you do", not everyone bases their morals on a book and that not everyone believes love is reserved only for a man and woman. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I believe in anything. Fuck, learn to read. It's fucking Wikipedia, if you care this much about a sentence going on the main page you should be stuffed in a padded room. --PlasmaTwa216:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BITCH PLEASE, Don't y'all give me that shit. You were all bitch'n in page lengths about why it shouldn't be there, how it effects you, and blah blah blah. Now i guess when he going gets ruff, all you can say is "why do you care?". Your a fuck'n ignorant and hypocritical peace of shit. Go fuck'n vandalize a page or something, your low-life-ness is not need on this talk page. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first of all WP is not a forum, so take the political discussion elsewhere. Nobody cares. Cooljuno411 (talk·contribs), please refrain from making personal attacks like "you people" and the like. Lemmey (talk·contribs), stop trolling. You made an offensive comment, people called you on it, and so you freaking bolded it just to rile people up further. Everyone should be reminded of WP:CIVIL, and move on as this is not going up as is. -- Grant.Alpaugh17:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be cross just because I don't censor my own comments in the manner that you seem to insist. Personally I find your cursing offensive but you don't hear me complaining because while I don't approve, I am tolrant of your crude behavior. Perhaps the world would be a little better if we all were just a little more tolerant of others. I don't approve of the types of wild accusations you make here or on my talk page (which I've ceased to read since it has degerenarted into a list of insults and false charges) but I tolreat them as you seem to have made them from a place of deep convictions. As to why I bolded the statement, it seems that you made it a relevant part of the conversation and as such it should be bolded so that all can read the main points (i.e. Can you hear this? No? Well let me turn it up.) If you are seeking furhter resolution on this issue I encourge you to raise an issue on the Administrations noticeborad. Happy editing. --Lemmey talk18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lemmey, please let me be clear. My swearing is allowed because WP is not censored. The comments you made were uncalled for because they have nothing to do with the discussion of the blurb being considered. That alone makes them out of bounds. Additionally, however, they are a slander of an entire group of people, which is also not allowed on WP. I'm asking you to keep the discussion on topic, not just to keep it clean. Personally I appreciate your brand of humor, but that comment went over the line, and I called you on it. I apologize for swearing, but your comment was both off topic and out of line. -- Grant.Alpaugh23:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hey, there's a story on the BBC (UK) about an Australian who strapped in his beer instead of his child while driving. [9] Since that counts as international news, should that be on ITN? P.S. I have not seen the gay marriage ruling on any news site or TV (while casually scanning top stories). It's probably been reported but I'd have to search for it. Lots of things make international news, it doesn't mean they're notable. --Joowwww (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. All the oppose voters have failed to note that in the U.S., this ruling is the first to afford sexual orientation the same kind of protection as race, gender, and other protected classes. From the LA Times[10]: "The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard" (emphasis mine)". howcheng {chat}17:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally someone who knows how to make a supported argument in accordance with ITN policy. I would consider supporting the blurb if and only if it stated that the Court considered gays as a protected class and that it overturned a law passed by referendum. That is the only relevant and notable criteria of this ITN candidate. --Lemmey talk23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for now. The article needs further updates. For example, it is currently linking to the INTERPOL report, a primary source, secondary sources are far better in this case (since it is possible the report could be interpreted in a variety of ways) or at the very least it should link to the media release as well [11] (I've made it link there). Indeed I wonder if this is a case of too little, too late. The documents were released early March which appears to be the most significant thing associated with them. The INTERPOL findings shows they were not tampered with, but doesn't really have that great an effect on the story since from what I can tell, the greatest dispute is about what they mean and what they show not whether they were authentic or not. For this reason, the headline is potentially misleading. It is likely possible that they could be interpreted in a variety of ways to mean a variety of things and INTERPOL does not comment on this since it is not within their perview (they specifically say in the press release). It is also possible (although perhaps unlikely) that the claims contained in the documents (letter etc) by Paul Reyes, et al, were exgagerated or even lies, for whatever reason. Whatever the case, the current information don't show beyong a doubt that Venezuela and Ecuador provided funding as the proposed headline suggests. Indeed even our article does not suggest that. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the article claims that Columbia plans to take this before the Organization of American States, so presuming it goes before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court who are also mentioned (both of who's jurisdiction is currently accepted by Columbia, Venezuala and Ecuador) then any decision issued by said courts will of course likely be sufficiently notable for ITN, but that's a long way away, if it happens, and I'm not even sure if the issue is within the jurisdiction of either court. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although should we mention that it's the first animal to be listed as endangered due to climate change ( or at least that's what the media is reporting)? Ixistant (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ESA only takes into consideration the population in the US(Alaska) and Canada and therfore its listing does equate to a 'threat' to the bears existance in the wild worldwide. --Lemmey talk21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quote the page directly: "The Department of the Interior states that global warming should not be considered a cause or related to the reason that the polar bear was placed on the list." So oppose. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another try: The polar bear becomes the first animal listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act due to the melting of Arctic sea ice.
There does not seem to be any disagreement that the melting of the Arctic sea ice is what has prompted this event. The thing that is disputed is whether the sea ice is melting because of human-caused global warming or something else. P.S. I'm in the midst of packing for a six-day trip right now, and probably will be offline completely in about 9 hours. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IUCN listed the polar bear as threatened two years ago (citing global warming). Since the IUCN classification is what Wikipedia uses as conservation status, I'm guessing that the IUCN is more important than the ESA. I'll oppose or support debcvbpending on whether this is a case of US law catching up with an international organization or of US law itself having a major impact on the animal's habitat. Pruneautalk08:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, there doesn't appear to be much (scientific) dispute that this is partially attributed to global warming, BUT this doesn't appear to be noteable either since, as per Pruneau and the article it was listed as threatened due to global warming by the IUCN, and the only apparent reason why it took so long in the US is because of the screwed up political situation there which is interesting but not noteable and in any case can't be sufficiently sumarised for ITN Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above the bears were already listed as threatened earlier. Going from "threatened" to "threatened also according to the US ES Act" is not that big a change. Hobartimus (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am one of the biggest football fans you will find in America, but there is no way we should put up the UEFA Cup. I know it is a huge event, but the UEFA CL and Euro 2008 will be going up in the next two months. I don't think we should put up Europe's number two club tournament. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 16:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as one of the only games called football involving primarily using the feet to move the ball, and a real ball, as opposed to some strange oval thing it is perhaps the only real game of football. Other pretenders don't even come close. However oppose for reasons given by Pruneua et al. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support if Rangers win as they will be the first Scots to do so (has Russia before? Probably). Lemmey, funny though your arguments against are, you surely can't be seriously using them to oppose. Oppose if ZSP win unless Russians haven't won before either. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are rarely the deciding factor on such things though my voice is ususally concurret with guidelines. Whats worse voting for Gravel for a crazy reason or voting for the winner for a crazy reason? --Lemmey talk21:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We can discuss this again for the Champions League, but the UEFA cup is not even the highest level club championship in Europe. Also, it was never even considered at WP:ITNSPORTSRandom8919:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I just realized how this may seem to other people he was Emir from Jan 15-24, 2006 then his position as Emir was taken over by the current guy, however his title remained Emir, but he was called the Father Emir. He is considered a ruler of Kuwait, and what i personally consider a co-founder of modern Kuwait. He started the first Kuwaiti police academy and so on. His death is very saddening for Kuwaiti's all over the World. I believe this piece of news should be in the front page because it is International news, and it also puts to rest the rumors that are going around. In the past frequently rumors were spread about his death. This time its confirmed. Aalsaleh 17:15, 13 may 2008
I'm not saying he isn't important. Kuwait is a great ally and wonderful modern nation (except for the drivers). The people here just have a very strict policy on putting deaths in the ITN. Even Niel Armstrong would probally not be able to be listed. --Lemmey talk21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but this was a ruler of a nation! Aalsaleh 17:31, 13 may 2008
I suppose fair enough, I just personally thought it deserved a place there, being Kuwaiti myself or not, i felt that it had its place. However, you are correct in saying that he was Emir by title only. Lest not forget though, that he was a very high ranking member of kuwaits royal family.
Please prepare a wikified headline for use on ITN. If the Emir's article is well updated, with referenced info on the aftermaths, such as who inherits what title, any power struggles ... and maybe a bit about a state funeral attended by many high profile international figures, ...etc., we might have a valid ITN candidate. Where is the updated article? Please give us the wikilink. --PFHLai (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least six bombs exploded in the western Indian city of Jaipur, most within a few minutes of each other, killing at least 60 people and injuring around 100.
Strongly support I've just created an article here; Definately ITN worthy; but the article does not have enough information to be put up yet. --Natrajdr (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support putting this up when the article is up to scratch: many casualties, prominent target, i.e. a significant terrorist attack. AecisBrievenbus21:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd propose putting it up now as its not something that subjective or reversable like the Janauary Stock Market Downturn (where the markets actually finished up for the week). The quality of the article will improve as eyes are focused on it (which is why I created the blurb without the article in the first place). If its notable enough to go up, its notable enough to go up even with a stub class article. --Lemmey talk21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of ITN is to highly resonable quality articles updated about noteable current events for our readers, therefore a stub class article is NEVER good enough, regardless of how 'noteable' something is. ITN, as with the rest of the main page, is almost overwhelming intended to be for our readers, not our editors, and we are doing our readers a disservice by highlight crap for them to read Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think we can get this put up? I'll go find one of the regular admins (maybe Tone) or go to AN if no one wanders along sometime soon. Random8919:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment people have long speculated that the peace would only last as long as the economy was good, anyone know how it is recently? --Lemmey talk13:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then WP is not the place to say this may be the possible start of a fresh wave of violence. ITNs Concentrate on specific events, not patterns or waves.--Lemmey talk14:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I offended you Lemmey (as your use of the word "then" seems to suggest). I concede your point about prediction. However, I am new to this area of Wikipedia, and I put that in for the sake of possible notability: this is the first car bomb I can remember exploding in Northern Ireland for some time. I'm sure that if the news event gets accepted, it can undergo revised wording. --Setanta747 (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - I don't believe in being offended (or at least my tolerence for it is so high as to make it almost impsossible in any kind of conversation) The word 'then' only means that we can't talk about future trends without looking back at causes. Additonially there was a car bomb in Londoun last year by persons connected with the old IRA but nothing much came out of it.
That said I haven't seen any evidence that this bombing is directly linked to the IRA or neo IRA or anyone else. Sad to say it but in Baghdad there are still robbers, murders and serial killers, in NY gas lines do burst, cranes fall, and buildings explode. Planes in the US still crash for mechanical faults, or pilot error.
Even in post 9/11 world there are single non-terrorist events or even signle-violent-events caused by crazy lone gunmen. Though single events are notable and should be reported, not everything is connected and single events can't be billed as part of a trend. --Lemmey talk16:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lemmey - just getting back to this now. It's probably too late to feature this in the current news as, other than the ongoing enquiry, there hasn't so far been a repeat of the incident, and it's a good few days ago now since it happened.
While I'm not sure there is any evidence that Republicans were involved (dissident or otherwise), the news media reports are full of the suggestion.
Again, while I mentioned the possibility of a resurgence in these kinds of attacks, that was only to mark its notability against the background of 'peace' that Northern Ireland has enjoyed over a recent period: I wasn't necessarily suggesting my comments here be made part of a Wikipedia news (aka current events) report. --Setanta747 (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no real deadline for an ITN. My view on the ITN is due to the space constraints on the main page, what we are essentially saying to the reader is "Here are the Top 6(7-8) things in the world right now that have Wikipedia articles and heres why they are important." The ITN came about specifically due to large scale events like the 2004 Tsunmai (which was one of the first worldwide events that changed the web with links on Google, Craigslist, etc) Katrina followed the next year. While not all ITNs live up to this standard, when we add a event we effectively take one off. We're not specifically saying THIS is more important than THAT but we are saying THIS is current and one of the most important things in the world right now. In my view, without explanation of possible implications the bombing event does not meet the TOP 6 THINGS test and we can not add an explanation to the blurb due to WP:Crystal unless it is something like the "IrishPM and BritishPM meet to difuse tensions" or "Counter protests against violence" or something offical. This event (and all these damn sports stories) are better suited for the Current Events page. --Lemmey talk21:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lemmey, thanks for taking your time to reply to this, and to give me such an informative reply at that. I'm new to this area of Wikipedia, and so I wasn't aware of the difference between ITN and Current Events. Had I known that, I'd probably have submitted this suggestion over there! Thanks again. --Setanta747 (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not, Aecis. I'm not sure where to put it, specifically. Possibly in the article about the village itself, in the PSNI article and/or the Chronology of the Northern Ireland Troubles article. Presumably it is required that a link to an article about the event or relating to the event, including a description of the event on that article's page, be included as part of this process..? --Setanta747 (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I don't think this would go up even if we had updated the criteria. Not taking anything away from the heroic things she did though. Random8919:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the earthquake has killed more than 100 people. Combined with the Richter scale size, I think that makes it a significant earthquake. The article is substantial and up to scratch, and the item has been added to Portal:Current events. Support. AecisBrievenbus12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE edit out the Richter reference - I despair of this every time an earthquake article is started. The current convention is the Moment magnitude scale - I would suggest "An earthquake (epicenter and affected area pictured) measuring magnitude 7.8 affects the Sichuan province..." This is already corrected in the article. Radagast (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating and perhaps a little improvment with links to parties as I can't really figure out what their agendas are. Looking at their slogans everyone seems agreed that the important issue this year is "<blank> Serbia". --Lemmey talk22:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1)'immense' is weseally (2) 'questions remain' when possible we should post definitive facts not general statements of uncertainty (3) provided there is no mugabe we can wait till final results before forming a blurb. --Lemmey talk04:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one thing is obvious and we should note this - the ultra-nationalists "won" every election, and SRS was the largest party almost traditionally in Serbia. For the first time, Boris Tadic will lead the largest list, and this is also the greatest victory in the history of Serbian parlimentarism. SRS had 81 in the last election and Tadic 64. Now, the Radicals should have 76 and Tadic 103, which came a huge shock to all parties (and, of course, the public). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to say "Kosovo declaration of independence" rather than "independence of Kosovo", since Serbia doesn't recognize the independence. Pruneautalk09:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend removal of that part for several reasons. One of them being that Kosovo has unilaterally declared independence and has not been internationally recognized, while Serbia opposes its declaration of independence. Next to that, the actual forces that support recognition of independence of Kosovo will be the smallest in the parliament (13 seats). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree, but only if you also include "after SAA signature". It dominated the election at least as much as Kosovo (and proved to be overdominant"). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(dedented) I don't really have an opinion on the inclusion of Kosovo in the blurb, while it did have an affect on the election, the actual results seem to run completly counter to the expected impact. The seperation of Kososvo should have provided fuel for Serbia first parties, but the 'Greater Europe' partnership won out. My view is one or more of the following happened:
the Serbia first movement was fractured or not as strong as the earlier protests would have us believe. (Serbians vs Serbs)
Serbians blamed NATO (US+UK) for Kosovo Independence as opposed to 'Europe'
The Serbian people realized that a greater inclusion into Europe is the only way to move past their bad-guy image of Milosovech giving them more leverage in responsding to such events and generate more opprotunties economically (its the economy stupid).--Lemmey talk19:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should wait until we know who won as in who will form the government and who will form the opposition who will be Prime Minister of Serbia, not just 'who won the most seats' which is nice but not all that important to the big picture. Hobartimus (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Nightstallion said, the news will no longer be burning than. And 2003 and 2007 we wrote that "the ultra-nationalist Serbian Radical Party of international indicted war criminal Vojislav Seselj won, but doesn't have majority" twice with their puny ~80/250, it's really not correct to wait for the +100/250 of the other bloc. It would seem as if we're 1. supporting the nationalists or 2. hoping that they would win. In any case, it's a burning news, and the negotiations are coming to a closure today. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Belgium decides its not talking to France (i.e. diplomatic relations), blaming it for helping rebels to steal waffles during the lego my eggo campaign." Its a non-event in a larger more important event, the attack on the capital. --Lemmey talk22:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support in theory. My problem here is that the blurb makes it seem that the main event is the cutting of diplomatic ties, while the bolded link is about the attack. Random8922:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Switzerland. I remember we had something similar to this a couple of months ago. Was it that one that took place in Atlanta? It seems somewhat minor for itn, (Are tornado outbreaks in Oklahoma even news anymore?) but it wouldn't bother me if it went up. If more happens tomorrow then maybe I'll change my opinion. --PlasmaTwa208:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, the Picher tornado has not been rated yet, and second the fujita scale is no longer used in the US. It would be an EF3 tornado, if rated that. How about this?-CWY2190(talk • contributions) 12:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hardest hit areas were northeastern Oklahoma and southwestern Missouri. This was the area with the large deth tolls and hundreds of injuries. I think that this is the most important part of the overall tornado outbreak and is a national and even worldwide news story. Here is a revised version,
Not really. That makes it too long. Note how we didn't put "10,000 people from the delta twon of Bogale died" up with the Cyclone Nargis news. --PlasmaTwa221:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ya because that is redudent information, it would be like saying 23 were killed overall and 9 from Picher. For a tornado to hit a populated place and destroy that much of a town is a really big deal this was the worst tornado damage in Oklahoma since 1999. --CPacker (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty redundant to say a tornado destroyed a town in Oklahoma, don't you think? Don't forget, it is also a really small town. --PlasmaTwa222:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not redundant to mention it and 20 blocks is 20 blocks. 20 blocks in Picher is the same as 20 blocks in LA.--CPacker (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is pretty redundant to say that a tornado destroyed something. Cause, you know, usually tornadoes just clean up the streets and put the trash in the trash can... Besides, ten thousand people in Bogale is ten thousand people in Chicago --PlasmaTwa202:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The outbreak wasn't just in MO and OK. There were tornadoes reported in seven states last night from the system and today there have been tornadoes in five more. The article itself deals with a series of outbreaks over the past week. So to specify it to Missouri and Oklahoma is ridiculous. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason Oklahoma and Missouri were specifically mentioned was for the sole reason that that is where there were deaths. Outside these two states only 2 other people died, 1 in Georgia and 1 in North Carolina.--CPacker (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An international relief operation begins after Cyclone Nargis strikes Burma, with at least 63,500 people reported killed or missing. Burmese military regime conducts a significant referendum days from the cyclone strike despite international appeals.
An update on the existing news item. I feel that the referendum is significant and will decide on the country's long term future. --Natrajdr (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support update. The referendum in itself was already significant, but it's even more significant in view of the cyclone. I recommend something along the lines of: "The people of Burmavote on a draft constitution (note: unwikified article), days after Cyclone Nargis kills tens of thousands of people in the country." AecisBrievenbus15:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment The British media is reporting a death toll of 200,000 thousand, and also the Burmese officials are hampering food supplies from reaching the area --Hadseys18:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First it'd be give or take 145 and the british are reporting a death toll of two hundred thousand, im not gonna retract it because thats what i heard on tonights six thirty evening news --Hadseys22:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 155 was taken from your user page, and has already been referred to once today. What you have failed to recognise, despite it having been pointed out three times, is that 200,000 thousand is 200,000,000, i.e. 1000 times more than you intended to indicate. What Lemmy has failed to realise is that wiki time stamps are not according to British Summer Time. Kevin McE (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well 155 was taken from an educational psychologists report, which is reference in my userpage, if you would like to see it please email me. Although what my IQ is is really irrelevant, and what I meant is 200,000 individuals, because unlike this site I don't needlessly complicate things --Hadseys23:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(dedent) I love how easy it is to sabotage or delay these blurbs by starting a needlessly long conversation. The longer and more indented it is the less likely for people to vote or for an admin to add. --Lemmey talk23:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lemmey, you started out as one of the most annoying parts of my day and over the past few weeks, I've come to really look forward to your shinanigans (sp?). Keep up the good work, you've made a fan of me. -- Grant.Alpaugh02:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one said Summer time should only be during summer. My guess is the British are smarter then people from certain other countries and therefore they are not confused by the difference between summer time and summer Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right... I'm sure we're not talking about these blokes. Smart? They all know what time it is only because there is a giant clock standing over them all the time. These are the people who brought us Big Brother, Idol, and TeleTubies? and went from ruling an entire world to barely ruling an entire island? Oh the sun never sets on the British Empire* (For legal purposes 'Britsh Empire' now refers to 23 Tedworth Square, between the hours of 9-4 provided its not too cloudy). --Lemmey talk14:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering its two items it seems a little word but justified. We can edit the hell out of it when we get some referendum results, just hope they don't pull a Mugabe --Lemmey talk02:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other problem is it doesn't mention the fact that the referendum in the areas affected is delayed. The current wording suggests that people in the areas affected are expected to vote in the referendum which obviously isn't true. Yes, most people think they should be putting most of their efforts into trying to save their people rather then run a referendum but we still have to be careful how we word this Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By this precedent, the passage of the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton would not have been newsworthy enough had Wikipedia been around then. We're talking about organizing a vote of confidence against a national-level head of state. --Kitch(Talk : Contrib)14:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There apparently was not much that happened because of it, and in the article it says there could be another bigger eruption. I don't really care either way, but I'd suggest waiting to see if there is a bigger eruption. --PlasmaTwa200:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentFierce fighting is hardly right WP:NPOV word for what the article discribes as Armed clashes and what the article discribes as heavy street battles , suggest using Armed clashes Gnevin (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support putting this up. A change of the head of government of a country is by definition notable, and imo doesn't need to be brought up here. AecisBrievenbus10:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No? He is well known in Europe and America as a the former PM, media magnate, and controversial public figure. It is of interest that he is once again in power. -Rrius (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a principled reason for your "no", or are the rest of us supposed to bow to your superior notion of what is noteworthy? Do you actually take this seriously? Your edit under the Mauritania entry suggests otherwise. Finally, Berlusconi has been sworn in four times[14]: once was after a cabinet reshuffle in 2005. Nevermind. Your talk link directs to a Dilbert article; I'm not taking your contribution seriously.
After his cabinet re-shuffle in 2005, he and his cabinet had to be sworn in per the Italian system. I mentioned the fact because it was in the article I used as my source at Portal:Current events/2008 May 8. Nonetheless, I agree that it probably need not be noted. -Rrius (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is different to the change of power in Ireland and Russia. We already listed Berlusconi's victory when he won the elections. I see no reason of listing it again. On the other hand, we hadn't mentioned Cowen and Putin as PMs yet. Listing the result of every general election in the world is a fine precedent, but listing all the swearing-ins is something I have to disagree with. Let's avoid that precedent. Pruneautalk15:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, then why do we have Medvedev's swearing in up? Why is it different in Russia...I remember when we posted that Medvedev was elected. I supported this because he was up. SpencerT♦C13:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because Putin was also made Prime Minister? That's my guess. It was put up before all of this, kind of pointless to remove it now. --PlasmaTwa217:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are starting to set a dangerous precedent. We have a consensus to include all national elections. Fair enough, that makes sense. But once we start including elections and swearing ins or inaugurations, we start to run the risk of having too much election news on ITN, a frequent complaint. Besides, we all seem to have agreed to have the American presidential election included when the results are in (November), not later when Obama/McCain actually takes office. Why should we not apply the same standards to other nations? While I do admit there are times when the swearing in could be a major event (a disputed election, a extremely notable change in government (Russia), or a long time to form a government (Belgium) as a few examples) I don't think it should become par for the course. For those reasons, oppose. Random8918:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. I don't think any of these swearings in (except maybe Russia) are notable. We include the election (or whatever selection method) when they happen, and have decided not to include the swearings in for quote some time. If consensus is changing, then that's fine (I don't think it should, but if there's consensus, so be it), then we have to make sure we're doing so uniformly. My point is that if we're including Berlusconi, we'd better include Obama/McCain, which people will certainly oppose as US bias. -- Grant.Alpaugh05:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some of the above comments. When there has been an election, we mention the result/consequence at the election, not at the inauguration, because the relevant news event is the election victory, the inauguration is only a logical consequence of this. We should mention that Obama/Clinton/McCain wins the US presidential elections, but imo we shouldn't mention the subsequent inauguration. The only exception would be when there has not been an election prior to the inauguration, which means that we haven't been able to cover the event before. An example of this is Yahya Ould Ahmed El Waghef. Because we have already covered Berlusconi's election victory, mentioning that he has been inaugurated doesn't add anything. I therefore oppose putting this up. AecisBrievenbus13:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We have had several posts about the torch already. Even if it's on the Everest (first time for the torch, I suppose). --Tone14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is hilarious, namely because they're trying to keep the torch moving while keeping it as far away from the general public as possible, but it's not terribly notable.--WaltCip (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Just as noteable as the protests but should be the last time we have the torch barring anything extremely exceptional Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I agree with parts of what Nil and Kevin have to say. Also, if somehow (which I don't think is gonna happen) we can find a free-use photo of the torch on everest, then I would support. Random8918:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per CWY - Represenatives come and go, they even get caught with $90K in their freezers. Now a Senior Senator, chairman of the Senate Arms services committe or family values committies, I'd think about it... --Lemmey talk17:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. This news story in itself is not ITN-able. It would be another matter if Fossella were to resign over this, but in that case the significant development would be his resignation, not the scandal. AecisBrievenbus18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Considering that the consensus regarding Eliot Spitzer appearing in ITN is still shaky, I can't imagine this holding any more weight.--WaltCip (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can't hurt to "bundle" the news of Coughlan if the story is already going up. Also, this was discussed and sort-of agreed to earlier I think. Random8901:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per agreement. However: PMs that are selected are still not as important as Presidents that are elected (Unless you're Putin). --Lemmey talk15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That depends what country you are taking about. The elected president of Ireland, and of many other republics, is a largely ceremonial role, and political power rests with the prime minister who, although technically appointed, is effectively chosen asthe result of a general election. Kevin McE (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a Persident is cerimonial then why have an election? (Feel-Good-ocracy?) Any system that has the average people come together to pick a leader (regardless of divisioning into districts/ electorial colleges/ etc) is infinately more authoritative as an "of the people" democracy than one in which a handful of representitives meet in a back room to pick a leader that only lasts until smallest zealot faction breaks over an issue fewer than 10% of all voters even care about. Good Gov't must have execuative branches with leaders who ever so often do what is right as opposed to doing what is popular or what the party leadership wants. --Lemmey talk17:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion of what makes good government does not change the effective authority of elected officials. In the context of Irish politics, it is simply not true to say that the PM is not as important as the president. Kevin McE (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why hasn't this been added? There is news from the 28 April 2008 still listed while this sits waiting ? Gnevin (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably there are words in Russian for president and prime minister, but we do not use them. Is there a real justification for using an Irish language term in en.wikipedia? Kevin McE (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A better answer is that Taoiseach is the term commonly used in English, at least within the Republic of Ireland. Taoiseach isn't simply the formal Irish language term; it's what is used on the evening news and in newspapers, as well as in everyday speech. NoIdeaNick (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold off for now Wait until the Russian Parliament confirms Putin as prime minister on May 8, then include both leaders' new positions in the ITN item. Nutmegger (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we did, but then again, we did it for Australia. We put up Kevin Rudd winning the election, and then him being sworn in. If we can do it for Australia, and have three for the US, I don't think it is too much that we have two for another major worldwide power. If Putin becomes the Prime Minister tomorrow, I see no problem in holding this one up a day (Though if it takes longer then that we'll be missing the target on this one) --PlasmaTwa201:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for Putin. The precedent of listing an election winner twice (when he wins and when he is sworn in) is not a good one. However, when Putin becomes PM, it should obviously go on ITN, and Medvedev could be mentioned at the same time. Pruneautalk08:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you basing this on? As far as I'm aware, Clinton won in Indiana (albeit small), but what indication do you have that she will step down in the next day or two? 211.30.187.169 (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone actually read what is written before they reply anymore? I said this was still up in the air, and was trying to get wording together if it does happen. Also, at the time I wrote this, Indiana was still uncalled, and they were saying that it was likely Obama districts were the only ones still out, and even still the margin of victory in Indiana is so small that there will likely be a lot of pressure on Clinton to get out. Either way, it is still a "very real possibility" (the exact wording I used above) that within the next week or two she will shut her campaign down. I wanted to get the wording down in the event that this happens, and get the anti-US BS out of the way early so that we could get the blurb up closer to when this happens instead of a week later as we've been dealing with recently. -- Grant.Alpaugh07:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because every country and every election is not equal. Arguing against the objective fact that the US Presidential election process is longer, more expensive, more covered, and more important than every other election in the world, to the point that it is in an entirely different category as a news item, is foolish, and, in my experience, comes from an anti-US bias in everyone who argues it. The Primaries alone cost more, last longer, and get more media coverage (domestic and international) than every general election in the world, especially this time. There is simply no objective reason why this shouldn't go up. -- Grant.Alpaugh08:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I keep saying this, but nobody ever listens, so I'll say it again. ITN is notnotnot a news service. The size of the story is irrelevant. Was Sark a big story? Were the oil paintings a big story? Are you seriously suggesting that people are going to come to Wikipedia ITN to learn who is winning the US elections? If anything big stories are actually less ITN-able, since everyone already knows about them and they therefore have less encylcopaedic value. To reiterate- almost everyone including you mistakenly thinks that ITN is a news service. We should forget about the encyclopaedia aspect and actually make it into one. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you not understand about media coverage = interest. If there is lots of international media coverage there is lots of international interest. If there is lots of international interest then the item goes on ITN. Its really that simple. -- Grant.Alpaugh16:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For you to assume that people are coming to learn about Sark or oil paintings but not who will be the next leader of the free world, you're fucking bonkers, mate. Badger, we've had these arguments a million times before, and I don't want to have them all again, but you're views of what ITN is and what ITN should be are not mutually exclusive. You seem to think that because something is big, important, and gets a lot of coverage it shouldn't go on ITN, which is absolutely ridiculous. And for the record, IMHO, Sark and the oil paintings, shouldn't have gone up, and both of them were championed almost exclusively by you. -- Grant.Alpaugh14:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6 people supported Sark (for which my support was weak) and 6 people supported the oil paintings, so you might want to go back and have another look at that, mate. As always, you're entire thinking is based around the precept that Wikipedia is a news service. It's not a news service, it's an encyclopaedia. If I want the news I will go to the BBC/CNN etc. or I will buy The Times/The Guardian/The New York Times. ITN is not a news service. The criterion states that the story should be of international interest. It says nothing about size and magnitude of the interest. Below you seem to bring up some kind of impartiality regulations for news organisations, as if they applied here- Wikipedia should certainly be NPOV but it is not a news organisation. ITN IS NOT A NEWS TICKER. I don't know how many times I have to say it. Clearly a lot more, since you, as a regular and dedicated contributor, still do not grasp it.
We desperately need to ditch ITN and start again. It is becoming a frustrating joke. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia foundation. Wikinews is a news service. With the best will in he world, why don't people "get" that distinction? Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really mean to argue that there is not international interest in this race? I think it is pretty clear how wrong you are on that front, and I don't think I need to devote any more time to proving it. -- Grant.Alpaugh16:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As ITN currently exists, there is no objective reason not to include this item. You can argue for changes all you want, but this is not the place to do so. Please take all of your proposals for reinterpreting the criteria elsewhere, as this forum exists for discussing candidates withing the current criteria. -- Grant.Alpaugh17:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I did see that note, but why does it have to be now, though? In fact, I still oppose the wording, as the wording should have specifics of when and/or how the nomination was decided (e.g. "SenatorBarack Obama of Illinois secures the Democratic Party'snomination for the Presidency of the United States following his victory in the {{state}} primary election." or "Senator Barack Obama of Illinois secures the Democratic Party's nomination for the Presidency of the United States after Hillary Clinton concedes."). I seriously doubt that anyone will take anti-US bollocks in what is a story that has been followed world-wide. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)08:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, no one is saying this should go up until it happens. That should go without saying, but aparently there was some confusion. Secondly, I put the blurb in the exact form of the McCain blurb, and I think it is more likely that this happens not as a result of a particular primary victory, but as a result of Clinton shutting the campaign down after some party insiders convince her to do so, so maybe it would be more appropriate to say something like "Hillary Clinton concedes the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama" or some variation thereof. Finally, you'd be suprised at what people will argue. -- Grant.Alpaugh08:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Rush unless Clinton drops out this can not happen until June, we've got a whole month here. I would support only if this statement was included "... He will face John McCain, the presumtive Republican nominee, in the gerenral election this fall."--Lemmey talk15:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I think that is now more likely to happen then for this to go all the way to the convention. As for including McCain, I don't think that is necessary, we already gave him his own blurb a few months ago. -- Grant.Alpaugh15:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to his blurb? It (should) have included 'He will face the winner of the Democratic Primary...' or something to that effect. Most broadcasters traditionally have had to give equal time on candidate news. If we're posting ITNs beyond the general-election results I think we should strive to keep any political blurbs balanced by either having offsetting blurbs up at the same time or having joint statements. --Lemmey talk15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look in the March archive toward the bottom. Not including him will give equal time to each candidate, as we didn't give Obama or Hillary part of his blurb. Either way I don't think we should include them for the reason above or becuase we don't have to do equal time (btw, the fairness doctrine has been discontinued during the Reagan presidency, which is how talk radio or Fox News is allowed to exist). Its legality was challenged in court. So we're not obligated to do so either. -- Grant.Alpaugh15:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support when it happens I would definetely think that deciding the next President of the US is encyclopedic. However, I do think that Grant's arguement is a very Pro-US arguement. This sin't the only news in the world, and it sure as hell isn't the most important to about 5 billion + people. Even if the US election is the biggest and whatnot, I'm pretty sure an election in India matter to about, 700 million more people. I've said it before, but the only thing that truely matters is the actual vote for the next president. And jsut to make it clear, as we had discussed during the whole incident with the Romney (Or was it Huckabee...) when he dropped out: This is the LAST US Presidental election blurb to go up until the election. No convention crap. No "Obama made Clinton his running mate". This is the LAST until we put up "Obama/McCain wins the 2008 United States Presidental Election. --PlasmaTwa218:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unless something unexpected happens, that's fine. Also, let me make clear I'm not arguing that this is the biggest story in the news. I'm saying that denying that this is an international news story is silly. There are tens of thousands of foreign correspondants covering this race, and headlines in newspapers all over the world (maybe not the top story, mind you, but certainly front page in a lot of places) will be about the Democratic nomination whenever it is finalized. I don't think there's another non-general election that can draw that kind of attention, and that is what we use on ITN as a criteria. If an item is of significant international interest or importance, we put it up. This surely qualifies on at least one of those counts. -- Grant.Alpaugh18:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...urgh...of course this is a story of onternational interest and importance. The point is that the ITN criteria are so broad as to be virtually useless, so we either select stories that are encyclopaedic (i.e. have educational value, which this obviously doesn't) or we maintain a system of "common law" precedent to make the ITN criteria actually mean something. France has a full presidential system similar to America's, had a female candidate similar to the American election (an actual female candidate, not a candidate-to-be-a-candidate) and that whole election manifestly generated huge amounts of international interest - of course not as much as this, but for the umpttenth time the size of the story does not matter. The French election went up precisely once I believe, when the result was announced. We either refine the currently absurd ITN rules with precedents that we stick to, or we get rid of the currently absurd ITN rules. This-is-not-a-news-ticker. Badgerpatrol (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is not esoteric doesn't mean it can't be educational. I think it is clear that your interpretation of ITN is flawed. We don't care what you think should be of international interest, we care about what is of international interest. Beyond that you've lost the plot. Also, it should be noted that there is a prescription of "small news stories" (ie the change in official loyalty in Sark) from being on ITN. This story is ITNable because it is of such international interest. Period. That is the only thing that matters, and it is an objective fact that there is international interest in this story. -- Grant.Alpaugh21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, correct me if I'm wrong but there weren't any American correspondants covering the French candidate selection process. While that doesn't immediately discount that story's significance the fact that there are correspondants covering this story from Britain, France, Germany, Spain, and all over the world does prove this item's international interest. This story (and any other ITN item) should be on ITN because there is a lot of international interest in it. -- Grant.Alpaugh21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...you're wrong. Of course there were American correspondents covering the French candidate selection process, as well as from every other major country in the world. But by essentially stating that stories are only significant if they are of significance to Americans, you're not only making yourself look very silly, but adding fuel to the seemingly never-ending US-bias fire. I think it is quite clear to an objective observer that there is genuinely no anti-US bias on ITN - but with respect Grant, people are going to read comments like yours and wonder if ITN = "in the American news". (having said that, I have also made myself look a total muppet by checking the suggestions' pages for the relevant times rather than the template itself, so we're about even on that score- see mea culpa below). Badgerpatrol (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even bother to read what you're replying to? From above: "While that doesn't immediately discount that story's significance the fact that there are correspondants covering this story from Britain, France, Germany, Spain, and all over the world does prove this item's international interest." Nowhere in that did I say that because no one in America covered the story it doesn't make it international news. In fact I said just the opposite. Also, if you believe that there was coverage in the US of the French presidential election, Badger, you are sorely mistaken. We cared more about the fact that Sarkozy's new wife was nude in a picture than the election. On the contrary, Iowa was on the main page of the BBC, Sky, and half a dozen international sites (I know because I was arguing for its inclusion on ITN), as was McCain winning the Republican nomination. So to say that there is the same level of international interest in both events is silly. -- Grant.Alpaugh03:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[UNIDENT]..oh God, I hate to be rude but it's like talking to a brick wall. You clearly implied above that the lack of American coverage should be a significant factor in the selection of ITN stories, vis a vis the French vs US election process. I invite anyone to read your comment above and draw their own conclusions. However, of course there is more international interest in the US presidential elections! No-one is denying that. The point is that the level of international interest is not a particularly relevant factor.(and btw, possible American myopia aside, there were plenty of articles on the French election in the US media, at least in the NYT, which I read on a daily basis). Badgerpatrol (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, page 4 articles in the NYT that are direct copies of the AP wire reports and front page headlines in tons of newspapers and segements at least each week if not each night on British newscasts are more oranges and orangatangs than they are apples and oranges. Second, I did not under any circumstances suggest that unless something matters to the US, it doesn't belong on ITN. Far from it. But as someone who consumes a lot of news each day, if I don't catch even a wiff of a story, chances are its not a massive story. Its an imperfect measure, but not one that is totally off base. Third, you seem to think that ITN should have some esoteric, educational spin to it, which I think is exactly what "Did you Know?" is for. Perhaps your time would better be spent there. Finally, your comments about what ITN should be are misplaced here. This forum is a discussion place for items using the current criteria, and everyone else seems to agree that if/when this story happens it should go up. I wish you the best of luck in changing the criteria, but until you do, please leave your comments elsewhere. -- Grant.Alpaugh04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we put up the French elections twice. Once when whatever her name was was selected as the first female candidate for a major political party (or something like that). Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Royal was put up on the template when her nomination was confirmed, although without any discussion or nomination on the candidate's page, which was what I checked. More importantly, no-one objected to it for several days, despite the lack of a nom, suggesting that it was recognised as valid. I rescind my previous comment and I support this going up, since both candidates are notable per precedent (as the first female and the first black man). Sarkozy does not seem to have gone up at the time... Badgerpatrol (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we mention the fact that Obama is the first African-American/black candidate for a major political party in the US? This has garnered a lot of interested (ditto if Clinton comes back against the odds and becomes the first female candidate) and IMHO justifies mention of this beyond a doubt Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would make the blurb a little too long, I think. That's more of a "Hey, did you know..." thing then anything else... --PlasmaTwa201:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think it's more notable then the selection of a candidate itself. The reason why it's noteable is because he's/she's will be the first one to have a resonable chance of winning, the previous ones are to some extent considered more of a technicality I think but since there have been previous ones, we can't simply say first black candidate. BTW here's how we worded it with Royal [17]Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support when it happens (of course). I think Grant's wording parallels the wording used for McCain. Also, I would consider including "first black candidate" or "first female candidate". Random8901:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hillary is still campaigning and still appears to be campaigning. I suggest we wait until an official annoucement, if any, yet. SpencerT♦C00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May 04
Big Volcano 2008
Chilean volcano erupts for first time in over 2000 years, leaves 1 dead, forces evacuation of over 4000 people.[18]
A sudden high wave believed to be as high as 16 feet crashed into a bulwark near a western coastal beach in South Korea, leaving at least seven people dead and 12 others injured. [19]
I cannot believe you wrote that, :Plasma . I have to say this is not the first time I find you argument for supporting or opposing an item to be bizarre at the least and I find several of your comments to be US-centric. Furthermore, the preamble to the constitution is a sentence. Wave attacks are deadly events with massive international media coverage. Anyway, several deaths due to a big wave is definitely notable. --Lemmey talk03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all my comments are Canadian-centric. It's pretty much US Jr., so maybe that's why you're confused. --PlasmaTwa204:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neil Young is waaaay better than Lynyrd Skynyrd. But I would also like to see an article or at least a section about the event. Oppose. Random8906:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah people go around singing Buffalo Soldier at football games, right... Neil Young is the emo kid of the hippie movement. Wow, that last sentence is almost an axis of evil, just need to work in the NYTimes, and the whole state of Micigan.--Lemmey talk15:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love Neil Young, Lemmy. This is yet more evidence that you are clearly my arch Wiki-nemesis, the anti-badger, not unlike Bruce Willis in that film and that other geezer in the wheelchair. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Worst comic-book movie ever. 10 minutes of fight scenes and 2 hours of emotion I'm supposed to feel for these lame characters?. Its like watching striptease without the nudity. --Lemmey talk16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, no-one pays a blind bit of notice to anything we say on here anyway, so I don't think he's disrupting anything ;-) Badgerpatrol (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see nothing to indicate this incident was unduly noteable. It's not even clear ho unusual it is. However I see ample evidence that the Cyclone was noteable, at least outside the US. Also as others have pointed out, there is still far from a sufficient update. If this was WP:POINT then it failed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should put your cyclone comment there, but I'll refute that it isn't notable in the US. It's been front pages news on most of the newspapers where I am and one of the first news items (the primaries always go first). Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More dead Burmans? How is that notable? Were there any Americans or notable people killed? (And yes I mean that to sound exactly as bad as it does, it won't be on the news here unless an American is killed) --Lemmey talk17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe you wrote that, Lemmey. I have to say this is not the first time I find you argument for supporting or opposing an item to be bizarre at the least and I find several of your comments to be US-centric. Furthermore, even though not Americans died as far as I can tell, there is massive international media coverage of this event (over 1000 hits on Google News). Anyway, several hundreds of deaths due to a category 4 cyclone is definitely notable. Support. Pruneautalk18:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't stated a position on the ITN yet. My point is I'm not going to hear about this on televison unless someone is mentioning its possible impact on rice prices. People die, its sad, but thats what people do. How notable is a storm that causes 351 deaths in a country of 55million with an average density of 75/km. Did the storm only become notable when it killed people? How many deaths does it take to become notable? --Lemmey talk18:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grano salis, perhaps, Pruneau? It really doesn't take a doctor to suggest that there may have been some US bias in that comment, but I'm sure that the effect it had on you wasn't intended. And on that note, anyone here willing to associate this with global warming yet?--WaltCip (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the story is already listed I support the picture change. Its better than showing a non-winning candidate. Does anyone have a photo of HP mementor that no one approved to go up? --Lemmey talk04:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As that comes from the military regime, that number is disputed by most news casts. While its in the thousands, no soruce other than the juntha is claiming that number. --Lemmey talk17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quote the article.
None of the casualty figures have been independently confirmed.
The BBC is not permitted to report from Burma, also known as Myanmar.
Any such numbers in the blurp should state 'According to goverment't officials.... ...This number has not been independently confirmed.'--Lemmey talk17:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The increase in the headline to 15,000 a few hours ago was indeed premature, and properly reverted, but the BBC and the Nargis both now stating 15,000, and BBC quoting Myanmar govt as stating that toll likely to increase. Please update headline accordingly. MrZ did it as I typed! Kevin McE (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last article I saw of the 22000 deaths ~21600 came from the 1 delta region. Seems more plausable now but still a single state run media source (that everyone else is just quoting) would never be accepted for any other type of fact. --Lemmey talk16:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been added anyway despite the fact that no-one wanted it and it has not been either addd or debated on the "Sports on ITN" listing. So much for consensus.Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the world was this added? The candidacy was even withdrawn!
This conversation was already had a few days ago (scroll down to find it) and the consensus was to not include it. Random8901:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I seem to remember New York mayor details being in the in the news section at the time? This is fairly big new news aswell due to London being the olympic city and thus Boris' actions will be scrutinised by the world media SouthEastLad (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was brought up as "London Mayoral Elections" (somewhere below). The local elections are quite different. SEL, can you find the diff of the New York Mayoral Election oing up on ITN? I would be interested to see that, if it's available. That would put an entirely different perspective on things. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea it was so long ago that I missed it maybe a combined post of both could have made it through, "Labour suffers the worst defeat in 40 years in British local Elections, conservative Boris Johnson becomes the new mayor of London as a result". or similar. Hobartimus (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any indication there was ever any New York mayor elections [22] & New York City mayoral election, 2005. Even the governor elections were only there briefly. Unless your referring to 2001 which is so long ago to be pointless. The selection of a new governor of New York state was on ITN but that's about a state not a city and primarily on ITN as he was the first black governor of New York and the fourth black governor in the US (he was also I believe the first legally blind governor of New York and the second in the US with the other one being more of a technicality I believe). And he took office after the previous one resigned amidst a scandal. It is in some ways closer to a new First Minister of Scotland/Wales/Nortern Ireland in the UK even though the UK is not a federation so they don't have states and new FMs are less surprising since the FM is not directly elected so it can happen any time the party or coalition with the majority loses confidence in the current leader or even 'naturally' as the result of succession Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe, we had both the scandal and the appointment of his replacement, but see above as to why it's not the same thing... Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't seriously put Danica Patrick on the front page for over a week and then claim that mayoral elections in one of the world's most important cities do not deserve to be covered. Charles17:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's next, the mayoral elections of the top 50 most populous cities? And I thought someone was already sick of the elections appearing at the ITN. --HowardtheDuck17:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, largest city in Europe, and the win itself is representative of the success that the Tories had in the nationwide local elections. -- Naerii18:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, criteria for ITN suggests 4 - 7 items can be ITN and we're still only at 6. In any case it would be bad/pov if we thought that a change in political control of one of the world's most significant global cities was of less international interest than Indy car racing. Please let's get this in Tom (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not a news service. It is an aspect of an encyclopaedia. Danica Patrick went up because she is the first female driver to win a major motor race (...or something like that). This (Johnson's election) is a big story (whether it's a big international story...much more dubious). But that is not relevant for the purposes of ITN. As noted above, it is only possible to support this story if the mayoral election results of many, many other cities goes up too (I probably wouldn't have supported either Spitzer's fall or his successor's emergence on ITN (and I realise that those are governors and not mayors, btw)). That is how it works at ITN- what goes up is down to the caprice of admins. But two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think this should go up- but I know that there will be severe debate and perhaps a change of precedent when e.g. the NY mayorality is next contested. That's not a dig- it's just a forecast. That is the nature of things. (To avoid this, what we should actually do is actually turn ITN into a news service, which is what most people currently think it is anyway. But that's a conversation for another time). Badgerpatrol (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for responding. It is possible to support without the results of many, many other cities going up because there aren't many, many cities which have international importance. Please see criteria at Wp:In the news section on the Main Page (it doesn't mention news service). Why can't we have 7 items? Control of London has changed for the first time in 8 years: dubious as to whether that has international importance or interest? Less dubious that Indy cars has international interest?! Happy to discuss Tom (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is an odd thing to say. I can think of several dozen cities that are undeniably of "international importance". I can think of at least a dozen or more that are arguably in the same league as London- Paris, New York, Tokyo, Los Angeles, Berlin, Cairo, Mexico City, Rio, Madrid, Rome, Beijing, Moscow, Vienna, Athens, Istanbul...(and the list goes on). All of these cities have elections and have mayors. ITN is not an election ticker.
As I stated explicitly above, and as re-iterated below, Danica Patrick was only put up because she is a female racing driver, not because she is a racing driver per se. (However, I do concede the general point that unsuitable stories often find their way on to ITN under the current system. But that does not mean that we should be deliberately putting up unsuitable stories.) There is not precedent for this, this election is not particularly notable any more than any other election, and it shouldn't go up. Badgerpatrol (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Danica Patrick was put up not because Indy car is interesting. Its one of the most boring sports out there provided your not the driver. She was put up because she was the first woman to win a race in a male dominated field, (not a lot of coed sports out there). A woman jockey winning the Kentucky Derby would go up as well. --Lemmey talk21:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't, since the horse is doing all the work... Now, if a hamster won the Kentucky Derby... Like before, I support this item. --PlasmaTwa222:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as I said before. There is no precedent for this, nor should there be. I would not expect to find the mayors of Paris, New York, Tokyo, Shanghai, Berlin, etc. on the main page either. To consider London a special case in this matter is not a good idea. Random8902:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Where would we stop? The top 10 most populated cities? 30? 50? Would we add the election of leaders of American states and Chinese provinces? -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 05:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Local (=city, state) elections should only go up if they are notable for something other than the simple fact that they have occurred. The first black mayor, woman mayor, disabled mayor, gay mayor, of London- there would be a strong case. The first gay female black disabled driver to win the race to become Mayor of London- overwhelmingly notable. The first white upper class philandering Conservative to become Mayor of London- that's not notable. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or even better, if Boris Johnson was a Pakistani-Muslim, lesbian, deaf, blind, quadriplegic, veil-wearing transwoman little person Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the first Korean astronaut went up for that reason. If a woman was elected mayor of Baghdad, it would be notable. I'm against tokenism, but hey thats what ITN is all about. --Lemmey talk19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I see how things roll around here. I'll have to stand so, as you say, the first non-philandering and non upper class gay female black disabled driver can become Mayor and the office notable again :-) Tom (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would work for London. For San Francisco it would have to be the first white straight male lumberjack, hunter. --Lemmey talk20:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over a month after voting takes place, the results of the 2008 Zimbabwean presidential elections are announced, with no candidate obtaining the 50% required to avoid a runoff. The opposition MDC party disputes the results.
Support w wording change to 'One month after' (avoids double after). Recommend no mention of either party as their opinions are not central to the fact at hand announcement of the election results and no candidate reaching 50% -> runoff --Lemmey talk19:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support But no image. Pictures of one of the candidates won't work yet, and a map or flag is completely inappropriate for an election. SpencerT♦C23:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking because plenty of people seem to want Mr. Lugo's picture off the main page. Morgan Tsvarangai wouldn't be completely innapropriate, as he did win the first round. (Morgan Tsvarangai, pictured, won 48% of the vote in the first round)Random8901:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The results aren't really official, and what if Mugabue wins the next round. I still hold that pictures are inappropriate in this situation. It's a slow news week, but the Lugo picture is still the most appropriate for ITN at this time. SpencerT♦C18:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be nice to have an explanation on why did they need a month to announce? Recounting, fear of the results? Hobartimus (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about 2 small pics side by side ? Someone needs to do the cropping (and/or stitching), though. The headline can get on MainPage first, I suppose. --PFHLai (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate that we replace the picture of Lugo which has been used for 12 days with either of the candidates. At the moment, the placement of Lugo's picture is absurd and I think any accusations of bias in whatever is used are misplaced. Yorkshiresky (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Local elections are not notable. This becomes notable only if it brings down the government or the Prime Minister. Neither are likely (in the short term anyway) and certainly neither has happened. When one or both happens then it can go up on ITN. No supportBadgerpatrol (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although this is undoubtabley hugely significant for the Labour party domestically, precedent is against it - local elections do not have enough international notability. Tx17777 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this at all. Nobody cares about snooker (excepting myself, who admittedly loves it and looks forward to the Crucible throughout the year. I am not a representative sample however). But there is a prototype list of ITN sporting events, and this isn't any where near the level of almost all the others on that list. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I love my snooker but it isn't remotely more globally popular that any of the sports currently on the list. However you've gone about it the right way and it can be discussed. Badgerpatrol (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is frustrating. You've got Lugo up there for 8 days. Relating to a newer story you've got a picture any news wire (or encyclopedia, for that matter) in the world would be proud of. And no-one is unrobotic enough to find a way to use it?
Maoists win a plurality of seats in the Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, the first election in Nepal in nine years (pictured, Maoist-controlled area, Nepal, 2005). 86.44.28.186 (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Representative pictures are inappropriate for ITN. It's a slow news week: I wish something could be done, but this image is too small at thumbnail size, and doesn't really show the subject. It just shows an area in the country. SpencerT♦C23:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's thumbnail size? 100px? I guess it is too small at that. Shame. It's not representative in the sense you mean, it relates directly to the fact that elections have not been held in nine years, in which time Maoists variously attempted armed insurgency, took over areas with popular support, blockaded Kathmandu, etc. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Overturning of California Proposition 22 (2000) and first state in the US factoid added to article. howcheng {chat} 17:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
