Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.212.31.237 (talk) at 21:59, 24 July 2010 (→Love Parade stampede). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For administrator instructions on updating Template:In the news, see Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions.
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Demis Hassabis in 2016
Demis Hassabis

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

Shortcut
  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.

Suggestions

ITN candidates needing feedback
Add nomination needing feedback purge
For future events in 2010, see Wikipedia:In the news/Future events/2010.

Template:TOCpastweek

July 24

July 24, 2010 (2010-07-24) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and incidents

Arts, culture and society

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

ITN candidates for July 24

Bolivia calls for emergency summit

Bolivia wants South American Presidents to meet after Venezuela severs ties with Colombia. See [2]. ~DC Let's Vent 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Higgins

Snooker player, Alex Higgins dies after a long battle with throat cancer. (Daily Mail), (BBC) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 20:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love Parade stampede

At least 10 deaths in Duisburg, Germany after a stampede at Love Parade - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have 15 deaths and 45 injuries now - [3] - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sad update: now 18 deaths :( 94.212.31.237 (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korean sabre rattling

A large naval exercise between the U.S. and South Korea on the backdrop of the sinking in March of a South Korean navy ship, by many blamed on North Korea, causes North Korea to respond with threats of "physical response" and that they are ready to launch a "sacred war" against South Korea and the United States. __meco (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that it might be an appropriate item for when the the joint exercise starts on Sunday (which would be anytime now as the clock has just passed midnight there). I also don't mind waiting to see if the temperature rises still further on the Korean peninsula. __meco (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless something actually happens. NK threatening the SK and/or the US is a common occurrence. Modest Genius talk 20:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Mindanao earthquakes

A series of 7.6, 7.3 and 7.4 magnitude earthquakes hits Philippines. Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, No reports of damage or casualties. __meco (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

July 23, 2010 (2010-07-23) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and incidents

Arts and culture

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

ITN candidates for July 23

Trafigura guilty of illegally dumping toxic waste

This seems like what is usually posted and might be at least worth discussing if there is little else. "The first time Trafigura has faced criminal charges since the toxic waste scandal unfolded". --candle•wicke 01:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support significant outcome, and the article looks decently written. I'm a bit confused, however, as to the process that resulted in this outcome. The news article was vague on which Dutch court made the ruling. Arsonal (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've found the answer. The Guardian - "Amsterdam district court judge Frans Bauduin also convicted a Trafigura employee and the Ukranian captain of the ship that carried the waste for their roles in the 2006 scandal". --candle•wicke 05:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the article as a whole is in good shape, but where is a section with the guilty ruling? Can someone link me...I'm not sure if I see it. SpencerT♦C 15:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything on it in the article either. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The article is indeed in good shape. There's plenty of material on the aftermath, and there's a section on the inquiry, but it hasn't been updated yet. Would someone care to ad a paragraph? Preferably before the timer turns red again. Seems to have been a slow news week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the final paragraph of this section enough? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Posting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence that Trafigura is British, as described. Would a better description not be Swiss-based? - Highfields (talk, contribs) 16:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Tablet

India unveils worlds cheapest $ 35 Tablet PC(Fortune)(BBC). since we are slow on news.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I believe there is an unwritten rule about not posting product releases to avoid it looking like promotion? Arsonal (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not even the iPad got posted and that's way more significant in this market. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia–Venezuela relations

Well we're five, nine hours past due with no candidates to speak of and this seemed the most "Internationally Significant" of the few currently listed. I personally don't care if it gets shot down, but lets at least talk about something. Thoughts? Cwill151 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh post-less day! Callooh! Callay!... He posted in his joy. (Yawn) Cwill151 (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we've posted similar items before, but I can't recall any offhand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Foreign relations of Libya#Dispute with Switzerland. Arsonal (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

July 22, 2010 (2010-07-22) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and incidents

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sports

ITN candidates for July 22

Desmond Tutu

Bumped from below... again. With no disrespect to Spencer who obviously has long experience in this area. My apologies; didn't see the talk page discussion.
Now I'll admit "retiring from public life" is not in itself a major change like say... death. However, this marks the end of a long and respected career of a man who, besides being a Nobel Laureate, is also one of the most internationally recognized figures in modern history. Given the gravitas that comes by simply mentioning his name, I would argue that this story can be considered internationally significant, and seeing as how no one can deny that Tutu qualifies as respected in his field; I figured it was worth the bump. I mean, it's like if the Dalai Lama held a press conference and announced that he would no longer actively seek autonomy for the Tibetan people from the Chinese Government; it's a story you just gotta run with. Thoughts? Cwill151 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Simply retiring from public life is not enough. Death yes, but not just retiring. SpencerT♦C 03:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, he doesn't seem to be actually retiring yet - has just announced it (I think) and is to reduce his work to one day per week before eventually retiring. And, second of all, he must be a certainty for death so I would wait until then. --candle•wicke 03:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New henge at Stonehenge

Sorry i couldn't come up with a better title. This new wooden henge has been discovered less than 1km away from stonehenge and has been hailed as a major archaeological and cultural discovery in over 50 years. Btw, is the article too short? Simply south (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News link for those who want to read more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldnt you be at the wiki article to know more ;)
weak support dont know the kind of coverage its getting yet..article also needs a clean up (image?). Otherwise i would say its something newsworthy (maybe a DYK nom. would get it a wider audience)Lihaas (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are copywrited images included in ITN? Simply south (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I really believed for one minute that this was the greatest discovery in 50 years as the project archaeologists like to claim, I'd support this being in ITN. However in the last 30 years alone, 2 other henges (Coneybury Henge and Bluestonehenge) and the country's first Neolithic house floors (at Durrington Walls) have all been discovered in the same World Heritage Site. There's also the Amesbury Archer 3 miles away. Unfortunately these claims are just hyperbole for what is essentially another monument in the WHS. Can't blame them, but I don't see any serious publication claiming this sort of notability once the press die down. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should we remove that part but keep the first part? Simply south (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC was just talking about a 'Marden Henge' now. It's henge-mania people! I can't make up my mind whether this is a significant enough discovery for ITN, or just a bit of hype that does a disservice to Time Team. Perhaps if someone 'digs up' lol some more convincing and authorative third party statments.... MickMacNee (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muttiah Muralitharan's 800

The most prolific Test bowler in history was on 792 wickets and he announced it was his last game. Then he took 8 and his 8th was the one that finished off the Indians, so he ends with exactly 800 wickets. It's a bit borderline, yes. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is in fairly good shape, but I couldn't see any new content on this at a quick glance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we await an update, does anybody fancy putting a blurb together? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
Sri Lankan cricketer Muttiah Muralitharan takes eight wickets in his last test match before retirement to become the first bowler to take 800 test wickets.
Oh and take this as a Support for inclusion.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he was some 13 behind...a record already? At any rate, support for record AND retirement. kill 2 birds with 1 stone.Lihaas (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make the blurb a bit clearer for those who don't follow cricket (such as myself and, I expect, a fair proportion of our readership)? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
alight rewording of my proposal above which HJM may have missed.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. How are we doing for an update? Has anyone added this to his article yet? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a look, it appears we're still lacking an update. There's a retirement section, but it doesn't contain any information about this achievement. If I'm missing it, someone please point it out to me. I'm ready to post as soon as we have an update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the retirement section, Have a look now. Is the word "International" necessary here? A DYK hook featured in November 04th, 2009 goes like this. "... that Sri Lankan cricketer Muttiah Muralitharan has the highest number of five wicket hauls in Test cricket?" Best.--Chanaka L (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little copy edit to the section, but I hoep that's enough.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think including "international" is harmless at worst and it helps convey the significance for those unfamiliar with cricket (such as myself). I'll have a look at the update now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could we ad something about his retire saying "during his last match" or on his "last day before retirement" (granted, only those who know proper cricket (ie- not 20/20) would get that one ;))Lihaas (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a suggestions for working it into the blurb, I'm willing to tweak, but my brain is failing me today. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"During his last match"? should suffice. i doubt my other suggestion would make it.
I added "In the final match of his career", is that any better? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly. It's not his final match, it's his final test match, and the key 'wow' claim is that it was from his last ball in that match. He did after all take something like 8 wickets just in that match alone. MickMacNee (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo status verdict

Will be out in about 9 hours and is an historic verdict regardless of which way it goes in its landmark ruling. An update should/would follow on one of the pages listed above then it can be listed, along with the reaction from Serbia and Kosovo and Albania (Bosnia?), Palestine, Kashmir, North. Cyprus, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, etc, etc in this regard.(Lihaas (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to the nomination. As part of the Kosovo status process, the International Court of Justice will be ruling at 3 p.m. in The Hague (UTC+2) whether Kosovo's declaration of independence is valid. Streaming will be available at http://www.icj-cij.org/. (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (ICJ case files) Arsonal (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support when the ruling is out and if the article is updated accordingly. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support also note that the proceedings themselves have their own article here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support this is a particularly significant event as it confirms/denies Kosovo's "right to exist". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

need to merge in all the various kosovo related articles. (perhaps move my edits to this other page mentioned above.)
As an aside i think the update should go on the page recommended above instead of what i originally proposed. (some mention can go on those 2 pages) Lihaas (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not particularly bothered where the update goes as long as there is one. Any sign of a verdict yet? We're approaching the time given if my time zone offset calculations are correct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it should start in 10-15mins...god damn website is not working. the whole damn world must be on it ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So is anyone going to bother stating what this opinion would actualy change? Are floods of recognitions now going to come in? Is Serbia going to invade? Is Russia going to invade? Are Kosovo now going to get a seat in the UN? Are Kosovo going to become an EU state? I've had a look, and none of this sort of info can be found in the current Wikipedia articles. Nobody has even bothered to include it in this nomination. This opinion looks for all the world as if it really has nothing to do with Kosovo, and is just a bit of ICJ wonkery that is more important for future secessions than in changing anything wrt Kosovo's international realtions. MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I think it will greatly increase the will of Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh. I don't think a flood of recognitions will come in to other countries, or even to Kosovo. Russia will not invade. Serbia probably will not invade. Kosovo will not get a seat at the UN so long as two veto-holders (Russia and China) do not recognize their independence. The EU... any accession to the EU would probably be at least a decade off, so they'll be in no hurry to push on that. Basically, I think this has less to do with Kosovo and more to do with all the other frozen conflicts. If Kosovo's declaration is held to be legal, then Nagorno-Karabakh, for example, will be emboldened, and work even harder for its independence, and perhaps some countries (I'm looking at you, Cyprus and Armenia) will sack up and finally recognize it. It's essentially making it internationally legal to unilaterally declare independence, something which so far has not necessarily been held as a right. --Golbez (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kosovans seem awfully happy for something that's just a bit of ICJ wonkery... There's some Kosovan international expert or something on TV now claiming it will lead to more international recognitions. (Note I'm not disagreeing with the need for info in the article, but the above response is written like it isn't just referring to the failings of the article) Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support' A very international event. First of it's kind at the ICJ. IJA (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The implications of this ruling are so significant that it would be downright criminal not to add this to the front page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a suggested blurb anyway:

Court says declaration was not illegal.
Just awaiting more reactions/analysis (albeit the latter would take more than 24 hours). There are some real interesting reactions to await. Most important now is Republika Srpska which vetoed recognition on the grounds that it would secede from Bosnia to make up for kosovo's loss to Serbia.Lihaas (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this with the addition of the precedence link for kosovo (As above)Lihaas (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love the prose update. It currently consists of "On 22 July 2010 the court ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence was not in violation of general international law." We'll need significantly more than that before it can be posted.HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, is there anything more? This really does just look like a bit of ICJ legal wonkery, which doesn't change anything in practice for Kosovo. All points taken on the impact for future secession movements, but it's going to be hard to find links and updates to explain that in brief in an update, if that is what the significant 'event' is here. I'm remined of the Sudanese president warrant nom here. Where's the beef? as they say. MickMacNee (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the wonkery itself is significant enough for ITN, but if that's all there is to say about it, it's a little underwhelming. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the ICJ decided that the declaration, as a text is not illegal, but decided not to rule on the issue of secession and independence and statehood itself and left that to the UN General Assembly. So the ICJ ruled that the independence declaration from 17 Feb 2008 is not illegal and not that the independence is not illegal which they considered a political question. Disappointing scope of the decision - to say the least - and we can see that all of the countries are just sticking to their position, as Slovakian representative stated - "the ICJ ruling changed nothing". Without discussing the implications they neither gave a final ruling on Kosovo but pushed the ball to the incompetent UNGA nor thus did they give some explanation for all the other situations like Abkhazia.--Avala (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add all that to the page.
Think we're coming along for an ITN now..Lihaas (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support? I don't think anyone has made a bold oppose. --candle•wicke 04:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Physchim62 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

July 21, 2010 (2010-07-21) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and incidents

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

ITN candidates for July 21

Discovery of most massive star

This seems like a very natural candidate for ITN mention. __meco (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you, I was nominating this and you gave me an edit conflict! My nomination was:
  • Researchers at Sheffield University have discovered a bloody massive sun for want of a more accurate term. The newly discovered R136a1 is thought to about 300 time bigger than our own sun (apologies to anybody reading from other solar systems!) and, as I understand it, it's the biggest star in the universe that we've discovered so far. (BBC) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess R136a1 needs its own article first. --bender235 (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to zap the redirect if anyone wants to have a go at it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is there. Support now. —bender235 (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. R136a1 probably doesn't merit its own article separate from R136, given the amount that's known about it, and the update at R136 is insufficient for ITN. Also, there is confusion between "most massive" and "greatest diameter": the largest star known is VY Canis Majoris, and many people are quoting our article in other online fora to counter sloppy journalism about R136a1 (so we should be very careful about getting things clear ourselves!) Physchim62 (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak support i support science article a lot, though not it seems to be a lot. Granted this is a big discovery (btw- it was a Chilean observatory that made the observation (??) ;) (31 hrs since an ITN update, btw) Lihaas (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well R136 is a stub at the minute. I don't consider myself nearly knowledgeable to do much about that, but I suppose I could have a go later on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mass is more important than diameter 95.26.46.57 (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. A few years ago, something like this could have made scientists very skeptical as such a star would exceed the hypothetical Eddington limit. Is this confirmed? ~AH1(TCU) 13:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support in principle. It is indeed the mass that is new (so use the term 'most massive'), size is irrelevant. This is something I know a lot about, and normally would jump to update the article using the paper as a source [4], but ironically enough I'm at an astronomy conference and don't have time. Modest Genius talk 17:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and don't say 'announce the discovery of the most massive star', because that star has been know about for years. What's new is the mass determination. I suggest something like 'astronomers announce that R136a1 is the most massive star known'. Modest Genius talk 17:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to word this w/o saying most massive?--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'has the highest known mass' would work. Modest Genius talk 17:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, bots and I did what we could ;) (almost all IPs are mine). My English does not allow me to expand the article more. 95.25.156.190 (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exhumation of Nicolae Ceaușescu and Elena Ceaușescu

Ex-Romanian dictator Ceausescu and wife exhumed Yahoo News MSNBC BBC - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

July 20

July 20, 2010 (2010-07-20) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and incidents

Arts and entertainment

Business and economics

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science and weather

Sport

ITN candidates for July 20

Suriname election

per yesterday's nomination for Surinamese presidential election, 2010 should the page be update. Precedence set for this (even indirect elections)(Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose. The electorate isn't even half a million people! At least this one is actually a sovereign state, though. We really need to seriously think about some criteria for posting elections. Suriname, according to our article, has a population the size of a small city. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the article will be expanded - I don't think population is a realistic criteria. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this place is tiny. A regular election that determines the governance of about 400,000 people can't possibly be of any international significance. We really need to look realistically at which countries' elections we post. This election doesn't get a mention on Google's world news page or on the BBC's. In fact, it's the fourth story on the BBC's Latin America page. I can't remember the last time we posted something that far down on BBC News at the time of posting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support if there is a proper update. We shouldn't take our cues entirely from the international news. Covering elections in small, albeit sovereign states, shows wikipedia's depth and breadth of coverage.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it just shows that we post elections of sovereign states because that was what was written down years ago and everyone silently and obediently accepts it. If I took over a rock or an area of land, declared it a sovereign state and gained recognition (aside from the novelty, which could be ITN-worthy in itself), should we post my elections just because I'm a sovereign state? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are only you. ;) --candle•wicke 04:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The story does qualify under the standards as currently written in WP:ITN/R. However, in a realistic sense this story isn't exactly wildly popular. So, weak support if only for the technicality. Cwill151 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd say a country should have to have a population of at least around 4 million to quality for ITN, which means that about 125 countries qualify. Which is about right. If you go higher than that you miss fairly clearly notable elections like Ireland, Singapore and New Zealand. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How did you arrive at such an arbitrary number? Why not 5 million, or 4.23197 million? ALL national elections are internationally significant by their very definitions. Trying to arbitrarily draw a line will never work, you'd end up with more arguments over where the line should go. There's not that many national elections around the World, you're trying to fnd a solution where there's no problem. (This is an example of formalising bias.) --203.122.192.201 (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Mkativerata. --candle•wicke 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose per HJ. It's about time someone stood up to the nonsense. ~DC Let's Vent 05:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support once expanded. Independent country = automatic inclusion. No questions. More important than that thing that was stickied for a month, and that didn't have prose updates... or hurling. If we're having baselines I suggest a political unit with more than 5 million people. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's subjective, but Suriname isn't internationally significant in any sense of the phrase. @Howard, just a quick question, when are you going to drop the stick about the World Cup? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many European countries excluding the really tiny ones "aren't not internationally significant"? Is Djibouti "internationally significant? How about Montenegro (less than 1 million people)? @Ed -- until I get an indef ban? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was I talking about the Euro countries? Did I mention Djibouti? Did I even think about Montenegro? No. I was making a judgment call on Suriname only. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed criterion will remove African, Asian and Oceanian countries' elections, while leaving most of Europe unscathed so... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm choosing to oppose Suriname because it has almost no role in international relations, even in South America. You're putting words into my mouth, Howard. Did I support a new generalized criterion? No. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Montenegro, no probably it isn't internationally significant. @203.122.192.201 the reason for picking 4 million is that you include another 3 majority English speaking countries (Ireland, New Zealand and Singapore) over those that you would include with 5 million. Given this is the English Wikipedia we should take some account of that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about Sierra Leone and Liberia? According to this those have a higher proportion of English speakers than Singapore. And of course, about 87% of the people in Suriname speak English but they're too insignificant even to be listed at ITN. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.)
For this particular piece, precedence shows Hungary's presidential was listed.
But for the future set, i agree with HJ Mitchell perhaps better to have a discussion on criteria for elections, as in disasters (natural or man-made)Lihaas (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
This is a silly conversation. Firstly, there is no problem. There's around 200 sovereign states in the World. They have elections every 2 to 4 years. That's about the same number of events as we have annual sporting events on the recurring items list. Secondly, trying to draw an arbitrary line in the sand will lead to endless discussions over where it should lie. As evidenced from other sections on the main page as well as here. Thirdly, this is not the Wikipedia for topics covering the English speaking world, it is Wikipedia in the English language. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. ITN is not a news service, we don't judge newsworthyness considering what we think our hypothetical readership is interested in. That's a metric used by commercial news services trying to chase ratings/money. International significance is the measure in this case, and any change in who's running the county is significant to inter--national relations. Also Suriname in a member of the UN. --Monotonehell 13:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Support - ITN already suffers from the fact that it relies on an inherently arbitrary decision making process and judging the noteworthiness of political elections on a case by case basis is going to further the biases that are associated with this. I mean what defines international importance or significance? Can a sample of, what, 20 users honestly say what is important to people in the world. Does Ban Ki Moon turn around and go, "Oh you're from Surinam... oh I have no interest in your insignificant country". Also the suggestion of using population as a marker or importance is an inherently flawed rationale. I mean are we really suggesting that an election in India is more internationally important than one in the US or that one in DR Congo is more internationally noteworthy than one in the UK or France. The current system of including all the elections of heads of states in all sovereign territories is a simple criteria and fundamentally is free from the biases that plague ITN and Wikipedia. No country big or small is excluded just because a hand full of Wikipedia users think the country is nothing more than a point on a map --Daviessimo (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support as per HTD and Daviessimo. If the update is good enough, post it. That said, the article needs expansion. All this bickering about whether 4 million, 5 million, or .5 million people is enough doesn't concern what should be the main criterion--the quality of the WP article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be both the quality of the article, and the interest in the subject. ~DC Let's Vent 17:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible oppose. I'm appalled at Mkativerata's argument. Should we post news stories that interest nobody and that has significance to an infinitesimal minority of the world's population as a token gesture to the problem of systemic bias? That's a huge insult to that part of the world which the Western media usually don't care to cover? I also see somebody arguing "Independent country = automatic inclusion". What an insult to our readers? News should be important events, not token gestures to provide us with alibis of political correctness. This line of reasoning is literally poison to a vibrant and dynamic community. __meco (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think posting elections of all countries is tokenism; as Daviessimo said, it's a simple objective criterion. It's not like we say, "We never have news about Suriname, so we'll post the election to make up for that". ITNR policy and ITN tradition dictate that we try to post all national elections and this one happens to be Suriname. All this said the argument is moot until the article is improved.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meco, on what criteria do you determine what is of interest to "our readers"? If there's an article about something then someone must be interested enough in the subject to create it. These "readers" who you refer to are not a homogeneous bunch, they have many and varied interests. Almost every independent subject appeals to just a minority. How do you determine importance? How do you think that this is "poison to a vibrant and dynamic community"? Please explain your conclusions. --Monotonehell 06:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect the death of the Yankees owner (which wasn't posted) is significant to more people than this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but can someone please explain to me a fair and objective way of defining what is a notable election. There seems to be a continual single mindedness here were users use the rationale that "its not important to me, therefore its not important at all". The death of the Yankees owner (they're a baseball team apparently) may be notable to parts of north America and a fair few baseball fans across the globe, but would be completely non-notable to the vast majority of the global population. So what is the difference? This election will be notable to the population of Suriname and anyone interested in South American politics (and probably a fair few dutch people as well), but will again not be notable to that vast majority of the global population. But that is not what ITN is for. It is not competing with the media and as such does not need to make sure it news items 'sell' it to users. Its role is highlight updated articles and maybe, just maybe teach someone something new. God forbid an encyclopaedia do that --Daviessimo (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has the population of a medium-sized city. This election will have no particular impact on South American or global politics and I don't mean that slightingly of Suriname, but it's true. We need to over come this election cruft of "sovereign state = ITN". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well are you an expert of South American politics? Can you say for certain this will have no impact on this country's international relations? What about its foreign policy and international trade relations. If you judge these things on a case by case basis you have a handful of users who draw judgements on items they realistically have little knowledge on. Effectively a handful of users say "I don't believe an election in Suriname is important enough" and the result is it gets ignored. No wonder no one has any respect for Wikipedia... --Daviessimo (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Surprised this sort of debate died down when we posted Nauru, which has a fraction of the significance of Suriname. Nauru's population can fit in half of a regulation sized NBA arena, yet we deemed it to be noteworthy enough for inclusion on ITN. What nonsense. Most municipal Australian elections have greater impact. I don't think we should necessarily set a bar on the population, but on significance of an event. ITN is completely election-obsessed and some of the stories are just not relevant. In fact, the only cycle of irrelevant stories that keep appearing on here are election stories. Everything else we are at least able to use some degree of subjective judgment. And please, do not post this one after so many opposes. I have never seen so much opposition on a single story and still have it posted, with the exception of some U.S. politics stories, which always seem to garner a lot of controversy. Colipon+(Talk) 13:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Colipon--all national elections are WP:ITNR events and are eligible for posting w/o consensus here (requirements regarding the update still apply). I'm not saying that we shouldn't change this policy, but that is currently the policy. Ultimately the state of the article is inadequate anyway.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The arguing here is at an unprecedented level and we should post this story just for that reason. ;) Joking aside, the article is in horrendous shape. ~AH1(TCU) 13:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan conference

Some repercussion have been set about troop withdarawal in 2014 and more aid. This could be placed on top should it eitehr have a page or a section perhaps in the War in Afghanistan page.Lihaas (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose. This dropped out of the headlines almost immediately and nothing unexpected came from it. It was worth a nomination and I'm quite surprised by the lack of sustained coverage, but it was a bit of a fuss over nothing- Cameron and Obama had already publicly announced a 2014 withdrawal, so Karzai was hardly going to turn around and refuse to sign the document. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek investigative journalist shot

(VOA Tieng Viet: Vietnamese National)
(Deutsche Welle: German)
(Le Monde: French)
(Prensa Latina)
And the list just keeps going...

...+562 hits on Google News. Regardless of the notability of Sokratis Giolias the man, (requiescant in pace), the story itself is world famous by now. The headlines of nearly every international news agency in the world has at least some mention of this guy, and the circumstances of the assassination itself?... It's like reading a John le Carré Novel. We currently don't have a page for this, but if anyone gives a nod to this story I'll put one up (See Below). Thoughts? Cwill151 (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Out of curiosity, are you intending to write a full biography or just an article on his death? If his death is the only notable thing about him, then I would suggest the latter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen. Unfortunately I have been forced on short Wikibreak due to WP:Real/S. I can and will begin and/or currently update as of 15:30 if there is still significant support. Regards and Apologies, Cwill151 (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support on expansion both because of news coverage, and state of Greece generally, and possible repercussions/first in a while.Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; Expansion Completed Abstain I have updated the existing article to reflect a large portion of the information currently available. The article can be found here. No doubt it could use more sourcing/copyedit...maybe an image if one could be found, but I believe the article is now sufficient for posting if not perfect. However that decision I will leave to others better informed on the subject. I will re-edit the page for clarity and completion as new information comes in. Regards. Cwill151 (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article looks good, and seems notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article is actualy quite poor in terms of information people might want to know. If there was as much international interest in this shooting as people are asserting, it would be ten times better by now, almost 36 hours after the event. As such, I am unconvinced this is an internationally significant event. There's no article on the radio station he worked for, no article on the group that shot him, and no information that isn't simply from the news reports of the shooting. The background information is particulalry poor for anyone not au fait with Greek domestic politics. If ITN really is 'not news', then this doesn't warrant posting. MickMacNee (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is now an article on the group that shot him: Sect of Revolutionaries. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in that the article could use a lot of work. But I think it's worthwhile to point out that despite the vast amount of news coverage this story is receiving in the world press, there is very little total information at present which could be considered "credible". I will continue to update the article as new information becomes available/found which I can confidently source. For now I'll leave the choice of posting up to the community and I will change my vote above to an abstention (See Above). Cwill151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I'd be fine posting it on the above support, but I'd really like to see a bit more detail in the article before posting. After all, a big part of the purpose of the Main Page is to show off some of our best work. If you or somebody else manages to find enough information to expand the article a little, I'd be fine with posting it, assuming the consensus doesn't change. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems no worse than Veuve_Clicquot or Sainthia train collision at this point. I'd say it's postable. ~DC Let's Vent 19:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the train crash article has been substantially improved. The champagne article wasn't written for a single event, but it contains a good paragraph about the event. It's much easier to update an existing article since ITN criteria require that a new article not be a stub. Basically it needs more detail imo, though if several people say it's postable, I'll stick it up an any other admin should feel free to if they think it's postable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is now an infobox, and it is significantly better than 2010 Jiangxi train derailment was at the time of posting for example - even if its mostly about the assassination. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right, then. Anyone got a good blurb? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do it. This supposed 'biography' is seriously sub-standard. It maybe had a chance of being posted as Assassination of Sokratis Giolias once the basic factual errors were fixed and if people had added more info and links, but it's been reverted back to a title that pretends it's a biography and as such now has multiple issues of style and content. An infobox doesn't make up for the fact we don't even know this guy's birthdate. (infact, it only makes it more obvious) MickMacNee (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree with you. I'm not posting an obituary when the biography is in that state and the move back has caused serious style issues. If a biography can be written, I'm willing to post, but as far as I can see his death is the only notable thing about him. It needs to be either moved to a title that reflects the article is about his death or the style issues need to be addressed and a biography written and, even then, if he's only notable because of his death, most of that will be largely irrelevant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about: Greek investigative journalist Sokratis Giolias is assassinated in Athens the first such assassination in Greece for 25 years. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  • Seeing as how MacNee decided not to continue contributing to the page, the consensus will most probably rest with me and Eraserhead. If the article needs to be moved to the assassination then that's fine, let's do it. Cwill151 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've cleaned it up now, is it ready to post? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks reasonable to me now the identity crisis has been solved. Posting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something about the wording in the last part of the blurb doesn't click. Connormahtalk 21:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to consider all my blurbs a work in progress! ;) Suggestions are welcome, though you'll probably get a quicker response from me or another admin at WP:ERRORS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The recent reword seems to work the best. Thanks, David. Connormahtalk 22:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

July 19, 2010 (2010-07-19) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts, culture and entertainment

Business and economics

Disasters

International Relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science and weather

ITN candidates for July 19

2010 Sainthia train collision

- Two trains collide in West Bengal, killing dozens - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Just found this article and redirected it to article at Sainthia rail collision; no need for 2010 in title to disambiguate and the second article had rather more information and references. Nothing to merge. Edgepedia (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the debate below i dont this qualifies, but at any rate until consensus is built below on the old criteria it might with some 60-odd casualties. Still, though, the article doesnt yet qualify as ITN-Worth.Lihaas (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a significant incident, but the article needs to be expanded. ~AH1(TCU) 15:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as soon as we get that article a little bigger. I'm going to start working on it. Mr. R00t Talk 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, significant disaster. Kubek15 write/sign 10:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad suicide bomb kills at least 43

Large death toll in an attack on a Sunni militia group formerly allied to Al-Queda. Couldn't find an article but I'll keep looking - Dumelow (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Support. --candle•wicke 08:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without a page of its own? i can say for sure it wont go up as just a piece of news.(Lihaas (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We're simply having too many of these. They have minimal influence on political/military decision-making, except in aggregate. Coming at the rate of at least two or three a week, we should take time out to discuss how to deal with this deluge of carnage. __meco (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, meco. I agree. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with meco; however, current ITN precedent and practice seem to indicate that these types of stories get posted. If we ignore it, someone may complain "You posted the winner of x-sporting competition, but you ignored an incident where y-number of people were killed". (The media does that all the time, anyway). I think it would be useful to have a discussion on creating some criteria for how we judge catastrophes that involve large death tolls. I would say the same problem exists with boat sinkings which are very commonplace in poorer heavily populated countries and often involve high death tolls. I don't have an objection to not posting this but will we stick to a consistent policy in the future?--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a policy is that you have to name-names about who is unstable :(, and that list can be argued about too. Overall I also oppose due to there being lots of similar bombs in Iraq at the moment :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we should only be posting the events that have an exceptionally high death toll or have some other effect- significant political repercussions, notable people killed, something like that- but sadly theses incidents are all too common in those countries at the minute. :( HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If only to get some fresh ideas flowing about this sort of item, I suggest that we create a repository of these stories in which we can catalog them for say... a week. Then at the end of the news week we can select the largest (comparatively) and most influential (again comparatively) and place them on ITN. Boat sinkings and the like can be devastating and tragic, but not ITN worthy due to the fact that a Ship sinking in Malaysia will not normally generate media attention from the English speaking world, unless it was truly an international tragedy. Whereas, for the past decade now, the international focus of the western world has been locked on the Middle East, and as such even medium sized suicide bombings can become ITN worthy given the sheer amount of coverage they are likely to receive. For Commonly Occurring items like this, I.E. items which are ITN worthy but are too numerous to post regularly, we could begin WP:ITN/CO for example. Then once all of the relevant data has been gathered about the stories at the end of the week, and the necessary updates have been made/pages created, we can select the most ITN worthy of these stories and post them. Devastating bombings are still posted, and ITN is no longer inundated by the shear numerical weight of them all. (although true international crises can be posted immediately as per consensus). It is also worthwhile to note that creating this archive will have long-term benefits for ITN as it will serve it's purpose indefinitely. There are going to be terrorist attacks for many, many years and ships will continue sinking and planes will continue crashing forever,... statistically speaking. Thoughts? Cwill151 (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in terms of policy. After looking through the archives, it seems long-standing ITN precedent never to have two of these stories run concurrently except in the most extreme cases. Therefore in deciding between two(or more) stories of similar type and value, I would (unfortunately) have to decide based on degree of news coverage. If there was for example, a bombing in Iraq and a bombing in Somalia: at roughly the same time, with appreciably similar number of casualties, and based on the same principle(Islamo-ethnic conflict), but the bombing in Iraq received more news coverage; I would have to vote for the one in Iraq. ITN partially serves as a guide for navigating the wiki, if more English readers are likely to come here looking for info on Iraq, it's our job to have Iraq on the front page to make it easier for them to find it. But, that's just my opinion and I'm sure there are others. Cwill151 (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A ship sinking in Malaysia would however get international coverage if a single white tourist was killed, which isn't really a standard I'm comfortable with. IMO the best thing to do is to not post stuff if lots of similar events in the same country have occurred - for example Malaysia is an upper-middle income country so a boat sinking is probably unlikely to happen there, but really its difficult to know that kind of thing and where that "logic" applies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is an important point that we do not have to be locked into the editorial policies of mainstream Western media with their cultural (and political) biases. They dominate the media world, but the do not fairly represent the world. We write for the world. So some countermeasures would seem appropriate to distance ourselves somewhat from blindly adopting the priorities of Western-dominated corporate media. __meco (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be much simpler and less controversial to simply have a pre-determined consensus-built criteria for putting these things up. A scale perhaps based on casualties and geography. For example morre than 30/40/X in iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan would qualify, and something like 20 in the americas or sub-saharan africa or east asia (of course the details will be built by consensus)Lihaas (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. This was already nominated yesterday. ~AH1(TCU) 15:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's possible to come up with a fixed formula as in one British death = 10 Greek deaths = 1,000 Congolese deaths. But we have to remember that, as I said before, tragedy is not the same as news value. Quite simply, when events occur with regularity in a region, they lose some of their news value. Remember Man bites dog. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it was bumped...
That could also work. Having a specific set of criteria with which to judge the ITN merits of stories like these which comes from a globally influenced perspective would achieve roughly the same long-term goal. But in order to do that, we have to have a proper forum for this discussion and enough commentary to numerically be considered a "consensus". Statistically speaking, my opinion matters very little if at all in comparison to most of the Regulars here so it might be wise for someone other than me to start such a discussion and publicize it, although I will if necessary and validated. So... should we form a consensus on this issue or leave it for discussion one-at-a-time? Cwill151 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

July 18, 2010 (2010-07-18) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts, culture and entertainment

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and weather

Sports

ITN candidates for July 18

World's oldest champagne

Divers have discovered what's though to be the world's oldest champagne- produced in the 1780s. (BBC)

Not sure what chance this has, but it's interesting and I thought it was worth a no at least. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was off the coast of the Åland Islands, between Finland and Sweden! Weak support, but what would be the article to update? Physchim62 (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, yummy. Wonder if it tastes like Veuve Clicquot did ten years ago? Because that's where I think the update should go- Veuve Clicquot. Support if the work is done. Courcelles (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a bit different. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added a decent-sized paragraph with various sources to Veuve Clicquot#Oldest bottle. We're 21 hours without a new item FWIW. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has the date not been officially confirmed? SpencerT♦C 18:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-vintage Champagne is pretty hard to date exactly- and doing so is almost meaningless, anyway, with the system of reserve wines used in production. Courcelles (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a 98% certainty according to AFP, but the shape of the bottle proves beyond reasonable doubt that it's pre-French Revolution, which would make it the oldest or 2nd oldest drinkable champagne. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for a blurb, I suggest {{*mp|July 17}} Divers in the [[Baltic Sea]] off the coast of the [[Åland Islands]] uncover a store of [[Champagne (wine)|champagne]], believed to be the '''[[Veuve_Clicquot#Oldest_bottle|world's oldest]]'''. It's not brilliant, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is just end of bulletin news cruft like the dead Dolphin suggestion. It's gravitas is rather reduced when you see the 'record' has been broken a few times, and is likely to be broken again. It's not like anybody was even looking for it either. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
250 year old wine is hardly an everyday occurrence. Nor is 250 year old anything really, especially when it's stumbled across at the bottom of the Baltic Sea in perfect condition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't everyday. And quit bumping things, this is not correct procedure, it is likely to lead to confusion and incorrect listings, as well as disconnecting nominations from the relevant CE box. MickMacNee (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mick, I know you like the items you oppose to drop into obscurity, even when you're the lone opposer, but disconnecting it from the P:CE box is not a big deal, especially not with a comment that it was moved from yesterday and "it's not the correct procedure" is just daft. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the bumping is a damn good idea as it means you don't get lost with old nominations. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose due to lack of significance. This is just trivia, although I'll concede that it is at least interesting trivia. Modest Genius talk 23:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Open Championship

It's all but over, with Louis Oosthuizen holding an 8 shot lead as they play the 13th. Courcelles (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

NB: This event is listed at ITN/R - Dumelow (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which, much as I despise golf, means I'll post it (if Dumelow doesn't beat me to it) once it's final and we have an update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At 2010_Open_Championship#Summary_of_rounds_of_play, the 3rd and final rounds need text summaries, and the summary of rounds of play text could generally use more references. SpencerT♦C 17:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be on the front page now. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Support clearly notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect, but this is an ITN/R event, so we don;t need support. What we need (and this has to happen before it goes up for the record, Dr. Blofeld) is a prose update for which, last time I checked, we were still waiting. As soon as we have that, I'll post it, but declarations of support aren't necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still no prose updates for the 3rd and 4th round (and the article is pretty light all round tbh). Modest Genius talk 23:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Timer's red. Seriously, if this is as interested as people get in the golf, maybe we shouldn't put it up at all! I'm looking forward to the peanut gallery on T:MP slating us because this isn't on ITN! Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 23:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wait until its all over then post. if we need ITN b/c of timer the Iranian nuclear researcher can go up, been a few days and still in the news (albeit fading fast)(Lihaas (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 New Britain earthquake

A 7.3 earthquake in PNG - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Wait for casualty reports. __meco (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No reports of deaths or injuries, moderate damage reported. ~AH1(TCU) 15:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad suicide bomb kills at least 43

Large death toll in an attack on a Sunni militia group formerly allied to Al-Queda. Couldn't find an article but I'll keep looking - Dumelow (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Support. --candle•wicke 08:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without a page of its own? i can say for sure it wont go up as just a piece of news.(Lihaas (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We're simply having too many of these. They have minimal influence on political/military decision-making, except in aggregate. Coming at the rate of at least two or three a week, we should take time out to discuss how to deal with this deluge of carnage. __meco (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, meco. I agree. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with meco; however, current ITN precedent and practice seem to indicate that these types of stories get posted. If we ignore it, someone may complain "You posted the winner of x-sporting competition, but you ignored an incident where y-number of people were killed". (The media does that all the time, anyway). I think it would be useful to have a discussion on creating some criteria for how we judge catastrophes that involve large death tolls. I would say the same problem exists with boat sinkings which are very commonplace in poorer heavily populated countries and often involve high death tolls. I don't have an objection to not posting this but will we stick to a consistent policy in the future?--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a policy is that you have to name-names about who is unstable :(, and that list can be argued about too. Overall I also oppose due to there being lots of similar bombs in Iraq at the moment :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we should only be posting the events that have an exceptionally high death toll or have some other effect- significant political repercussions, notable people killed, something like that- but sadly theses incidents are all too common in those countries at the minute. :( HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If only to get some fresh ideas flowing about this sort of item, I suggest that we create a repository of these stories in which we can catalog them for say... a week. Then at the end of the news week we can select the largest (comparatively) and most influential (again comparatively) and place them on ITN. Boat sinkings and the like can be devastating and tragic, but not ITN worthy due to the fact that a Ship sinking in Malaysia will not normally generate media attention from the English speaking world, unless it was truly an international tragedy. Whereas, for the past decade now, the international focus of the western world has been locked on the Middle East, and as such even medium sized suicide bombings can become ITN worthy given the shear amount of coverage they are likely to receive. For Commonly Occurring items like this, I.E. items which are ITN worthy but are too numerous to post regularly, we could begin WP:ITN/CO for example. Then once all of the relevant data has been gathered about the stories at the end of the week, and the necessary updates have been made/pages created, we can select the most ITN worthy of these stories and post them. Devastating bombings are still posted, and ITN is no longer inundated by the shear numerical weight of them all. (although true international crises can be posted immediately as per consensus). It is also worthwhile to note that creating this archive will have long-term benefits for ITN as it will serve it's purpose indefinitely. There are going to be terrorist attacks for many, many years and ships will continue sinking and planes will continue crashing forever,... statistically speaking. Thoughts? Cwill151 (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in terms of policy. After looking through the archives, it seems long-standing ITN precedent never to have two of these stories run concurrently except in the most extreme cases. Therefore in deciding between two(or more) stories of similar type and value, I would (unfortunately) have to decide based on degree of news coverage. If there was for example, a bombing in Iraq and a bombing in Somalia: at roughly the same time, with appreciably similar number of casualties, and based on the same principle(Islamo-ethnic conflict), but the bombing in Iraq received more news coverage; I would have to vote for the one in Iraq. ITN partially serves as a guide for navigating the wiki, if more English readers are likely to come here looking for info on Iraq, it's our job to have Iraq on the front page to make it easier for them to find it. But, that's just my opinion and I'm sure there are others. Cwill151 (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exhumation of Simón Bolívar

A key figure in South American history exhumed at the request of a tearful President Hugo Chávez. His skeleton has even been displayed on television. WAtoday Latin American Herald Tribune Reuters CNN --candle•wicke 04:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

A simple exhumation isn't notable enough, I think, even though it seems interesting. SpencerT♦C 17:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sounds like just another 'look at me' publicity stunt by Chavez. If this is even a remotely internationaly significant event, please provide some direct quotes from news organisations. MickMacNee (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Moko

Gained worldwide fame in 2008. Hundreds of people mourned at the funeral. Flowers, a coffin. International coverage. The Sydney Morning Herald Daily Mail Candian Press euronews The News Zealand Herald Malaysia Star --candle•wicke 00:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I think your nomination is missing a key fact, Candlewicke! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is? --candle•wicke 01:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that Moko is a dolphin? ;) I don't necessarily oppose on that basis, but the species is probably worth mentioning! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know but that should become quite obvious relatively quickly. I'm only making the nomination. :-) It's a rather unusual one though. --candle•wicke 04:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, "found dead on 8 July"... convenient, I don't have to find any other reason to oppose ;) Physchim62 (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare the numbers mourning at other funerals, "hundreds" isn't enough. I'm going to have to oppose, because even while Moko was living, the dolphin wasn't as notable as many of the deceased that haven't gone on ITN. SpencerT♦C 17:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Kosovo independence declaration deemed legal". Reuters. 23 July 2010. Retrieved 29 September 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=375271487"